Types of public access centres

The diverse ways of defining, managing and conducting research on ICT public access centres inadvertently result in different ways of categorizing the centres. Earlier discussions showed that centres have no distinct definition because they are assessed or described differently according to the researcher‟s or assessor‟s perspective. The description may be in terms of the structure of the centre (e.g. phone tuck-shop, Internet kiosk. Reference to “tuck shop” or “kiosk” denotes a smaller cabin or a single room. In some cases description may be in terms of management style (e.g. as government funded / community driven). Those centres that are commonly referred to as community information centres are those mainly managed or owned by the community. A centre may also be described in terms of the target user community or even the type of services offered. For example, a centre may be called farmer‟s information centre because it serves farmers.

Evusa (2005:124) identifies four distinctive types of ICT public access centres that are common to Africa: basic tele-centres, private telephone shops, cyber-cafes and larger community multipurpose centres Analysis of the literature on this concept broadly identifies two broad categories: “stand-alone” and “embedded” ICT access centres In terms of this broad classification, the first three of Evusa‟s (2005) groupings fall into the “stand-alone” category. These are mostly independent ICT public access centres that are predominantly founded and managed by individual entities. The embedded ICT public access centres on the other hand are mostly community managed; and are

72

pinned to other existing programmes or services (Latchem & Walker 2001; Jacobs & Herselman 2005:58).This description or grouping is accommodative of Evusa‟s (2005) “community multipurpose centre” category. Etta and Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003:14) refer to indipently owned stand-alone cetres as simple tele-centres and the embedded ones as multi-purpose or community telecentres.

The literature reviewed for this study however shows preference for and development success stories of services that are embedded into the already existing community services (O‟Neil 2002:86; Jacobs & Herselman 2005; Yu 2006). Despite acknowledgment of the complexities of establishing and operating an embedded ICT public access centre Benjamin (2001:82) and O‟Neil (2002: 84) register preference for these centres. Both authors note that stand-alone centres have the tendency of collapsing. Etta and Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003:15) further add that although these privately owned centres are mushorroming, they are characterized by failure and collapse.

The O‟Neil commends libraries for hosting embedded centres. The library‟s commendable contribution is also buttressed in Kozmar and Wagener‟s (2006:10) project report on access and usage of ICT public access centre by learners in disadvantaged environments. Another good example is the Kawempe Youth Centre in Kampala, Uganda, which is registered as a community library and serves as a good ICT public access centre (EIFL 2012).

The embedded ICT public access centres differ in forms, management and services offered. For example, a centre may be initiated by government, a development agency, local NGOs or any other already existing organization. As in Evusa‟s (2005) case study, the centre was established by government and other stakeholders as a unit within the compound of the already existing National Council of Churches of Kenya. In this case, both the services and the actual structure are appended to the mother body. In the case of Gaseleke, in South Africa (Benjamin2001), the centre is located within the grounds of the sports stadium but the services are not linked to the stadium. The management is

73

instead embedded to the ANC community development structure but not that of the stadium.

Elijah and Ogunlade (2006), Latchem and Walker (2001), Kozma and Wagner (2006) also present success stories of embedded typologies in supporting educational needs of the communities they serve. Kozma & Wagner (2006:14) specifically note that, embedding coordinated academic and social services is a worthy investment to support improved learning for school drop outs. Hermandez-Limon‟s (2009) case study also shows how an embedded service at the Little Sisters of the Assumption Community Technology Centre in New York managed to make the technologies available and to also equip disadvantaged Latino women with the skills needed to effectively use ICTs.

A bothersome limitation with the embedded services is the tendency to be biased towards the organization‟s ethical, political or sociological perspectives (Jacobs & Herselman 2005). The situation is likely to occur mostly when the centre is a “top down” project with guidelines drawn by external funders (Evusa 2005: 127).This may be evidenced in the cases of gender specific centres as presented by Green (2003). This author shows how the projects “Horn of Africa Regional Women‟s Knowledge Network” (HAWKNet) and “Women of Uganda Network” (WOUGNET) are aligned to the founders‟ gender development agenda. Walker (2008:11) also rightly points out that in such cases, the drivers of the projects emphasise different values and services as per their agenda.

For example, the founding body, which in most cases is the managing body, may introduce add-on services depending on organizational goals or as per the needs observed in the community. This may be seen in the case of Nigeria, as reported by Akinsola, Herselman and Jacobs (2005) where additional community tailored micro- credits finance and cooperative marketing services for farmers have been added to basic services of the ICT public access centre. .A similar trend of a needs based added service may be seen in the case of Kawampe Youth Centre, in Kampala, Uganda. The centre is supported by a powerful youth empowerment NGO called Private Education Network (PEDN) (EIFL2012). Through the support of PEDN, the centre has been

74

nominated as the award winner of the 2012 Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) contribution to economic wellbeing of the community because of its continued development and growth in youth services that are aligned to the EIFL goals.

Another example that shows the influence of the founding body in shaping the nature of ICT public access centre is the Gaseleke centre in South Africa. Initially the centre only offered access to equipment, but now it has developed various services according to “need and opportunity” (Benjamin 2001: 77). Such services include computer training, a postal service point and at times a place for community members to hang out and chat. The centre has also arranged with the Ministry of Home Affairs to have weekly visits to assist the community in matters of civil registration. This initiative, coupled with good management and strong connections in government, has spiralled into initiatives that enable the centre to have operating profit through income generating services like taking national identification photos, laminating and photocopying. These examples further buttress Latchem and Walker‟s (2001:1) contention that issues of management, ownership, especially funding, also manifest themselves in the type of public access centre. The Gaseleke centre has evolved from a simple centre where the community could access technologies like telephone or printers to a centre with a broad range of social services.

It is however important to stress, as does Etta & Parvyn-Wamahiu stress (2003:166) that despite the categorization of the centres in terms of geographical location; services it offers it is incontestable that, these centres are vital development tools.