METHOD AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 84

We had intended to follow a participatory action research approach. However, our methods were not all that participatory during the Telgo and Softbridge phases. Even during the SIMBA phase when we fully engaged the Deaf community, we still retained a technical bias. We prioritised computer science research goals because we did not fully understand the

Deaf community's needs. Thus, we focussed on IP communication software construction, HCI techniques and measuring latency and communication quality. Over time, we learned to focus more on empowering Deaf users with text and ICT literacy so that they could better appropriate ICT4D from the project. We had an ICT-literate intermediary deeply connected to the target community. However, it still took several years for us to be accepted as a part of the extended community. The acceptance of the research project, despite its shortcomings, by the community positioned us to learn more about RA/RI criteria in order to align technical and community objectives. We also learned about bridges.org's 12 habits of highly effective ICT initiatives from seeing them in action (see Table 6-6).

6.6.1 Data collection

We originally intended to automatically collect latency data and correlate it to users' perceptions of the communication. However, the relatively low usage of the prototypes did not yield enough automated data to make those sorts of correlations viable. We turned instead to qualitative forms of data collection as described in Section 5.3.2: focus groups and semi- structured interviews. Introduction of each new prototype followed the same pattern: technology installation, training, hand-holding during use, then several weeks of use followed by focus group discussions with users (using a SASL interpreter). We documented our observations of the users using the technology and their feedback with journals. Later, when we used off-the-shelf communication tools like email, Skype and Camfrog, we used the tool itself to gather user feedback. In most cases, we were the primary communicants with the Deaf participants. In retrospect, we should have emphasised this form of data collection even more with our own prototypes. Using the tool itself to collect data was the best way to learn about the tool.

6.6.2 Mindset and ethical considerations

Another way to express the alignment of technical and social objectives was in terms of the three HCI paradigms (set Section 5.1). We began with the so-called first HCI paradigm and viewed the problem as a mechanical challenge to build Deaf-to-hearing bridges in the lab without the involvement of Deaf users (Cycles A.1-A.3). With SIMBA (see Cycles A.5-A.7), methods were more aligned with the second HCI paradigm, the 'cognitive revolution'. We collected quantitative data to learn how macro latencies correlated to software usage and

Start by doing some homework

We started with the results of the Teldem (Glaser, 2000) and TISSA trials (Ngubane, 2002) but found no related work in developing regions other than Agboola and Lee (2000).

Needs assessment

Needs assessment was conducted during the diagnosis stage of every action research cycle. Initial needs assessment followed on the outcomes of the Teldem trial (Glaser, 2000). Local ownership and champion

The intermediary, then DCCT management and finally one of the Deaf technical support staff successively assumed the role of local champion. However, the Deaf community only took local ownership of the devices and the network, not the applications.

Engage local problem solver

We were the primary problem solvers since DCCT staff did not possess enough technical capability. We did, however, train a Deaf support member to solve many problems. Form sound partnerships

We formed a fruitful partnership with the intermediary and from there we built a sound partnership with DCCT. We also had three major South African universities involved. Set concrete goals and take small steps

We conceived a series of relay bridges, but jumped to the last and most complicated one. Later, DeafChat and DeafVideoChat took smaller steps because both were based on ICTs that participants had become familiar with during earlier cycles.

Technology-neutral

We aimed for platform-neutrality and device independence. A central design goal was to have modules that could be swapped out easily, e.g. TTS engines.

Involve excluded groups

The entire project was with an excluded group. We were especially supportive of older females. We targeted them for extra attention during training, and hired one to co-manage the PC room. Identify and understand external challenges

A recurrent unsolved challenge was that the potential communication circle outside the Bastion did not have the requisite devices and connectivity.

Monitor and evaluate with appropriate tools

We automated data collection of the system to learn what people were doing with it, and conducted regular focus group sessions to triangulate the data.

Make it sustainable

Emphasis shifted from revenue generation to securing a place in the budget. The NGO came to recognise the importance of ICT in the community and found ways to fund it internally. Widely disseminate

We disseminated in academic forums, on public radio and in a weekly news magazine. The latter venue attracted the most inquiries from Deaf people.

Table 6-6 Reflection on 12 habits for Deaf telephony field study

The project evolved from a simple software development effort into a full-fledged research programme involving a growing number of researchers and participants. Lessons from the management are summarised here with the 12 habits of highly effective ICT-enabled development initiatives (bridges.org, 2005a).

satisfaction. That activity led to several interface innovations discussed in Section 6.3.6. Prototype usage was so infrequent that we abandoned the quantitative approach and moved into the third paradigm, 'situated perspectives'. The action research goal was to generate knowledge by aligning the perspectives of users and researchers. To this end, we followed informed participation in addition to informed consent (Hersh and Tucker, 2005). Therefore, users were completely informed of the objectives concerning the experimentation they would take part in. We intentionally discussed the research goals and ideas with the Deaf participants throughout the cycles.