The community’s role is not presented

As just noted in the preceding paragraph, the reviewed literature tends to present findings from the centres that are relatively well established and well funded by influential entities. This creates another slant of research that focuses more on policy issues than the actual happenings at the centre. This relates to an earlier observation

79

that there is a gap in documentation on the non-users of ICT public access centres. Most of the reviewed studies focus more on the role of supportive agents than on the users. For example, the earlier example of the role of researchers; the local council authority or even government fails to show the role of the community. There is concentration on how the services are delivered and recommendations for policy interventions at both national and organizational levels. Talbot (2004:9) refers to these as “relational issues” where the focus is especially on the system failures and not on individuals as both users and potential users. The author further notes that researchers tend to see less need to focus on individual community members‟ contributions in successful access and use of the provided services but rather focus on policy and policy makers as they control relational issues. The focus on such relational issues is mainly because the issues are seen as core factors of poor, or an absence of services, poor community participation, undemocratic processes and disempowerment. Evusa (2005) and Jacobs and Herselman‟s (2005) show that policy can be developed to guide delivery of services in Kenya and South Africa respectively. Evusa (2005: 220) specifically calls for policies that would enable the women at the centre to access health and education services. Alampay (2006:15) further commends such a focus on policy makers because the application of ICT‟s in the absence of an informed strategy development will not yield desired outcomes.

However, one can still argue, as does the present study, that too much focus on policy makers leaves out other areas in the cycle of the development of the community (users and non users); development of the information; and application of the needed technologies. Although Alampay (2006) is noted as encouraging a focus on policy, the author further notes, as does Howie (2010:508), that researchers need to be cognizant of the fact that good policies do not necessarily translate into good practice. It is essential that assessment extends beyond just the centre, but also to other influential bodies or entities that can even influence national policy. This further relates to Etta & Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003:168) recommendation that donors and governments should invest in selling the guiding conceptual framework and the supportive policies so that all entities involved in the being of the centre work towards a common goal.

80

Another interesting observation is by Kozma and Wagner (2006:15) who note that in some cases emphasis on such “relational issues” may also be linked to the tendency for most studies to focus more on the examination of the implementation of the projects at these centres at the expense of the impact or the outcomes of the centre. For example, Latchem and Walker (2001: vii) specifically note, in their introductory chapter of their compilation of experiences from different centres, that the book is designed to help “international agencies, governments, NGO‟s, educational institutions to establish, extend or improve the centres. The cases presented in the just cited compilation focus on processes from the implementing body‟s position with less concentration on the views of the recipient community. Another example is in Narayan and Nerurkar‟s (2006) model of e-governance implementation in India. The model‟s “time to public” and „time in public” phases also focus on processes that implementing bodies do, but not on the receiving community. Evusa (2005) and Jacobs and Herselman (2005) from Kenya and South Africa respectively also focus on how policy can be developed to guide delivery of services. Evusa (2005: 220) specifically calls for policies that would enable the women at the centre to access health and education services.

The tendency to focus on policy may also be related to another observation that, in most cases, even though the centres are community managed they began as “top-down projects” by government and other NGO‟s (Jacobs & Herselman‟s 2005:68; Evusa 2005:25). In some cases, even if the community is involved, the role of the different stakeholders is not well defined. For example, Etta & Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003:53) cite this as one of the factors that contributed to the management challenge in the case of Timbuktu, Mali where the project was conceived from elsewhere and introduced to the community. These authors use this case to to demonstrate the benefits of partnerships with international development agencies; national telecommunication industry; political power and the end user community.

Due to the concerns about the implementing bodies, researchers then find it important to direct investigations directly on theimplementation approaches. The argument posited in this case is that the policy makers and bodies that carry out the projects are crucial to

81

the success or failures of ICT projects. This concern even buttresses the earlier call for researchers to robe in the political-economic dimension into the research on access and use of ICT through public access centres.

Another reason of the observed research slant towards implementing bodies could also be due to, yet another worrisome awareness that much of the cases emerge as top- down community centres (i.e. the need for ICT public access centres and at times the conception of the project originates from some external entities). This limitation relates to the observation cited earlier that researchers tend to focus more on “embedded” ICT public access centres than on “stand-alone” ones. Targeting the “embedded” centres therefore tends to afford the researchers an opportunity to address government and NGO‟s because these bodies are usually involved in the cases that are embedded.

The present research stresses the need to look beyond the implementing bodies or policy makers. This study contends that the community at large has a strong influence on the ICT public access centres. It is on this premise that the study primarily targets users and non-users as key informants. This is because the focus is mainly on how the community accesses and uses the services and not how they are supposed to.

The present study pays special attention to the community so as to avoid what Walker (2008:11) terms the tendency for researchers and service providers to theorize their own interventions, with less focus on documenting “methods used in the wild”. However, the focus on members of the community does not imply a neglect of other contributing game players from within and outside the community.

Another observed limitation is that, although there is concentration on management and policy issues, there is a research gap on management issues that relate to funding of the ICT public access centres. Issues of funding are intertwined with the management of these centres and the resultant access and usage patterns. Evusa (2005:126) points out that although this is a critical area of concern, researchers have not given it much attention. The author laments that in some cases the flaws in the management of these

82

centres may lead to the projects eventually acting as “ground for global capitalism” or some economic giants exploiting the desperate communities.