CIS WorkingPaperNo6

8/23/2019 CIS WorkingPaperNo6

1/27

Literature Review on the Impact of

Public Access to Information and

Communication Technologies

CIS Working Paper No. 6

ArabaSeyMichelleFellows

April2009

Thisdocumentsummarizespreliminaryfindingsofaliteraturereviewofresearchontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoinformationandcommunicationtechnologies.ThereportwaspreparedbyArabaSeyandMichelleFellowsfor

theGlobalImpactStudy.


2/27

Thispublicationisavailableonlineatwww.cis.washington.edu

CenterforInformation&Society(CIS)

UniversityofWashington

431111thAvenueNE,Suite400

Box354985

Seattle,WA98195USA

April2009

ThispaperwasproducedbytheUniversityofWashingtonsCenterforInformation&Society(CIS)fortheGlobalImpactStudyaspartofits

WorkingPaperSeries.Thefindings,interpretations,andconclusionsexpressedhereinarepreliminaryanddonotnecessarilyreflectthe

viewsofCISortheUniversityofWashington,orthesponsorsofthisstudy.CISdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracyofthedataincludedinthis

paper.

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttributionNoncommercialNoDerivativeWorks3.0UnitedStatesLicense.Youarefreeto

copyordownloadthisworkandshareitwithothersaslongasproperattributionisprovided,butyoucannotchangethisworkinanywayoruseitcommerciallywithoutthewrittenconsentofCIS.

Forquestionsorinquiries,pleasecontactCISattheaddresslistedaboveoremailcisinfo@u.washington.edu.


3/27

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT 1

Literature Review on the Impact of Public Access

to Information and Communication Technologies

CISWorkingPaperNo.6

ABSTRACT

Informationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs)arewidelyacknowledgedasimportantresourcesforsocio

economicdevelopment.Duetoresourceconstraints,sharedaccessformsthedominantmodeofaccesstothese

technologiesinmostdevelopingcountries.Governments,nongovernmentalinstitutionsandbusiness

entrepreneurshaveinvestedsignificantamountsofhumanandfinancialresourcesinpubliclibraries,telecenters,

internetcafsandotherformsofpublicaccess,withoutclearevidenceonwhattheultimateoutcomeswillbeand

theactualcosts. ThisreportpresentsareviewofempiricalresearchontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTsin

ordertodocumentwhatisknownaboutthisapproachtoICTservicedelivery.

TheresultsshowthatthereislimitedconclusiveevidenceondownstreamimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs.The

evidencethatdoesexistsuggeststhatthepublicaccessICTmodelisnotlivinguptotheexpectationsplacedonit.

Thisisnotnecessarilybecausepublicaccesshashadnoimpacts,butbecauseitsimpactisparticularlydifficultto

identifyandmeasure.Asamodel,publicaccesstoICTshasexperiencedsuccessandfailure,leadingtoboth

reinforcementofthebeliefthatthemodelshouldbeexpandedandstrengthened;aswellasclaimsthatpublic

accessICTsareultimatelyineffectiveorevencounterproductivefromthedevelopmentperspective.

Fourmaintypesofevidenceareidentifiedevidenceonvenueperformanceandsustainability,users,usage

patternsanddownstreamimpacts.Assessmentofthisevidenceindicatesthattrendsaremostapparentinthefirst

threeareas,whileevidenceofdownstreamimpactsremainselusive.Moststudiesshowthatsustainabilityisa

criticalchallengeespeciallyinlowresource,lowincomeenvironmentswherecommercialservicesarenotviable.

Theyalsoshowthatusersareprimarilyyoungmaleswithrelativelyhighsocioeconomicstatusandprioraccessto

theInternet.Userstendtoengageinsocialandpersonalactivitiesasopposedtoeconomicactivities,forexample.

Findingsondownstreamimpactsfallonbothsidesoftheequationsomestudiesconcludethatimpactsarehigh

inavarietyofareasdevelopmentofICTskills,jobcreation,civicengagementetc;othersfindlimitedimpacts.

UltimatelythereisasyetnodefinitiveevidencebasedstatementontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs.A

researchagendaisrequiredthatshiftsfromindividualcasestudiesandnominallevelimpactclaims,tolinesof

enquirythatnotonlycutacrosscontexts,butalsoutilizemethodologiesthat(whetherquantitativeorqualitative)

enablesomequantificationofidentifiedimpacts.


4/27


INTRODUCTION

Informationandcommunicationtechnologies(particularlycomputersandtheInternet)arewidelyacknowledged

asimportantresourcesforsocioeconomicadvancementinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries.Thisis

doublysoagainstthebackdropoftheglobaleconomywhichisdrivenbytheinformationage.Developing

countries,however,faceenormouschallengesintheirabilitytoutilizetheseresourcesfortheirgrowthand

developmentagenda.Limitationsrangefrominfrastructuralconstraintstoanindividualsabilitytoconvertaccess

toinformationandcommunication technologies(ICTs)intotangiblebenefitsinlightofotherenvironmental

constraints.Inthiscontext,sharedusemodelsofaccesssuchastelecenters,librariesandinternetcafs,are

importantmeansofmakingICTsavailable.1Notonlydotheybringthetechnologycloser(physicallyandfinancially)

topeoplewhowouldotherwisehavenoaccess,buttheymayalsoprovideadditionalvalueintheteachingand

learningenvironmentstheyfoster.

DespitethefairlylonghistoryofthedeploymentofpublicaccessICTsaroundtheworld,thereisstillnodefinitive

wordontheutilityofthisapproach.Towhatextentaretheybeingused,whatspecificallydotheycontributeto

socioeconomicdevelopment,howbigorsmallisthiscontribution,andperhapsmostcritically,isthiscontribution

worththeinvestment(inmonetarytermsbutalsointermsofpotentialnegativeimpacts)?

Ontheotherhand,thereisanongoingdebateaboutthecontinuedrelevanceofpublicaccessICTs,particularly

modelsthatreceivepublicfunding(seeCoward,December2008forabriefoverviewofthisdebate).Thisispartly

duetotherealitythatasignificantnumberofsuchpublicaccessICTinitiativeshavefallenoutofuse.Additionally

thereistherecognitionthattheseinitiativesareservingsocialneedsmoresothantheeconomicorotherhigh

prioritywelfaregoalsusuallyassociatedwithpublicaccessICTprojects.Indeed,theargumentfortheredundancy

ofpubliclyfundedICTaccessisoftenbasedonobservationsoftheproliferationofinternetcafs,whichalthough

alsoprovidingpublicaccess,haveacommercialorientationthelogicbeingthatifthe100%commercialmodel

isservingthesameneedsasthedevelopmentorientedmodels,thereisnoneedforpublicinvestmentinthis

area.2Inresponse,somehavearguedthatundertherightconditions,publicaccessICTscandeliversignificant

benefitstocommunities(e.g.,Fillip&Foote,2007;Roman&Colle,2002)andinsomeinstancesmayofferbenefits

1

Inthe

context

of

this

discussion,

public

access

isdefined

as

computer

and

internet

services

that

are

open

to

the

generalpublic.Thuspublicheredoesnotrefertothesourceoffundingorthebusinessmodel.Bothprivately

andpubliclyownedICTvenuescanbeconsideredpublicaccessvenuesaslongastheirservicesareopentothe

generalpublic.Aninternetcafisthereforeapublicaccessvenue,whileaschoollibrarythatcanonlybeusedby

studentsandstaffisnot.

2Thisargumentoverlooksthefactthatinternetcafsaresubjecttoahighdegreeofturnover,oftenduetothe

samesustainabilitychallengesthatothertypesofvenuesface.


5/27


overandabovethosepossiblewithothertypesofICTaccess(e.g.,Bar&Best,2008).Asecondfactorcontributing

tothegeneralsenseofdisillusionmentisthedifficultyinidentifyingtheprecisebenefits(particularlyatthemacro

level)ofprovidingandusingpublicaccessICTs.ItischallengingenoughtotrytomeasuretheimpactsofICTs,and

perhapsmoresotodothesameforthisparticulartypeofaccess,i.e.,publicaccess.Thirdly,thepopularityof

mobiletechnologieshascastashadowonsomemodelsofpublicaccess(especiallytelecenters)astheperception

growsthatindividualaccesstodatawillsoonbewidelyavailableindevelopingcountriesviamobilephones.For

thesereasonsthereisagrowingexpectationthatthepublicaccessICTmodelwillsoonhaverunitscourse,and

willdosowithoutleavinganysignificantachievementonthelandscapeofICTsfordevelopment(ICT4D).3Ifsuch

judgmentsaretobemadeaboutpublicaccesstoICTs,however,theyshouldbebasedonsolidevidence.While

acknowledgingtheimportanceofexistingefforts,ithastobesaidthatthereisbothanabundanceofcommentary

onpublicaccessICTs,andarelativedearthofempiricalevidenceuponwhichsuchcommentariesarebased.

Furthermore,whileseveralcasestudiesandprojectevaluationshavebeenconducted,itisnotclearwhatthese

studiesmeanasawhole.

ObjectivesoftheReview

InviewofthedebateabouttheroleofpublicaccessICTsinsocioeconomicdevelopment,andasastartingpoint

tolaunchadetailedinvestigationintotheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs,4wesetouttoreviewandanalyzewhat

isknownaboutthismodeofaccess. Thereviewfocusedonthefollowingissues:

1. WhatisthenatureofexistingresearchontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs?2. Inwhichdevelopmentfieldsofinteresthasthisresearchbeenundertaken?3. WhatdoestheexistingresearchevidencetellusabouttheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs?4. IsthereanyevidencethatdistinguishestheimpactsofdifferenttypesandmodelsofpublicaccessICT

provision?

5. Whatgapsarethereintheexistingbodyofresearchonthistopic?Thisreviewpresentsfindingsonthesecondtofifthissues.

5

3AnotherstrandinthedebateconcernsthedistinctionsmadebetweenICTimplementationswithspecifically

developmentorientedgoals(ICT4D),andICTimplementationwithaviewtofacilitatetechnologyappropriation,

i.e.,leavingpeopletousetechnologyastheyseefit(ICTanddevelopment).BecausepublicaccesstoICTs

discussionsareusuallycouchedintermsofsocioeconomicdevelopment,wefocusontheICT4Dperspectivein

thispaper,withoutexpressingapreferenceforeitherperspective.

4TheGlobalImpactStudyofPublicAccesstoInformationandCommunicationTechnologyisafiveyear,CAD$7.2

millionresearchprojectsponsoredbyCanadasInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre(IDRC)andtheBill&

MelindaGatesFoundation.Theprojectismanagedbytelecentre.orginpartnershipwiththeCenterfor

Information&SocietyattheUniversityofWashingtonInformationSchool.

5SeeSey(2008)foranoverviewoffindingsonthenatureofexistingresearch.


6/27


TheReviewProcess

ThisreviewistheresultofatargetedsearchforliteratureonpublicaccessICTandtheimpactofICTon

development,whichreturnedover500resources.Fromthese,weselectedandreviewedapproximately145

researcharticlesandreportsfocusedonpublicaccesstoICTviainternetcafs,publiclibrariesandtelecenters.6

OurinitialsearchforICT4Dliteratureinvolvedseveralkeysources:Majorsourcesincludedabibliographic

databasedevelopedforthisprojectbyresearchersattheCenterforInformation&Society,aswellasthearchives

andcontinualmonitoringofadozenprominentpublicationsonICTfordevelopment,includingelectronicjournals

andwebsites.7MembersoftheGlobalImpactStudyalsodirectedustowardarticlestheyfoundrelevanttotheir

workinthefield.8

ThereviewalsoincludedalanguagebasedinquirytocaptureresearchpublishedinlanguagesotherthanEnglish.

ThelanguagesincludedinthisreviewwereFrench,Spanish,Portuguese,ArabicandChinese.Reviewersfluentin

theselanguageswereaskedtoidentifythemostimportantreferencesintheirlanguageandprovidethorough

summaries.Thisexerciselargelyconfirmedthegeneraldearthofempiricalresearch(inalllanguages,including

English)inthisarea.Findingsfromtheforeignlanguagereviewsareintertwinedwithotherreferencesthroughout

thisreview.

AfterthispreliminarysearchforICT4Dliterature,weidentifiedarticlesandreportsonpublicaccessICTsasdefined

bythisstudy.Thelatterresourceswereencoded,annotatedandsummarizedaccordingtothematicareasbased

onaselectionofdevelopmentdomains,typesofresearchconducted(quantitative/qualitative,theoretical

frameworks,methodologies),locationofresearch(countries,regions,local/national/crossnational),andtypesof

researchquestions(venueoperation,usage,impact).Thisreportfocusesonresearchfindingsonvenue

operations,usageandimpact.9

FINDINGS

6Thereviewdoesnotincludedocumentsthatonlydescribeparticularprojects;onlydiscusspublicaccesstypologies,definitions,orpolicy;orthatcriticallycommentonpublicaccessstrategies.ItalsoexcludesdocumentsthatfocusonthesocioeconomicimpactofICTsingeneral.

7ThebuildingofthisextensivedatabaseofrelevantliteraturewascoordinatedbyRicardoGomez,ElizabethGould,

RuchaAmbikar,andChrisRothschildattheCenterforInformationandSociety.

8Theseincludedmembersoftheprojectsresearchteams,InternationalAdvisoryCommittee,sponsorsand

partners.

9Atthispointwedonotassessthequalityoftheresearchordiscussimpactassessmentmethodologies.


7/27


ThissectionsummarizestheresearchevidenceontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs.Thefirstthingtonotehere

isthatwhileseveralstudiesareframedasinvestigatingtheimpactofpublicaccesstoICTs,theresultsthey

producegenerallyrelatetohowtheusefulnessandfinancialsustainabilityofpublicaccessvenuesareinfluenced

byavarietyoffactors(e.g.,businessmodels,management/operationalissues,technical/technologicalissues,

location,communityparticipation,communitycharacteristics,content/servicerelevance,cost,awarenesslevels,

trainingandskills,demographics).Findingsinthisareaaremixedbutleantowardsconclusionsthatduetoany

combinationofthesefactors,publicaccessvenuesarenotfulfillingtheirpotentialintermsofachievingself

sustainability,reachingdisadvantagedpopulationsandbringingaboutnoticeablesocioeconomicchangein

otherwords,thatpublicaccessICTshavelimitedimpacts.Otherstudiesfocusonidentifyingtypesofpublicaccess

usersaswellasthelevelandtypesofuses.TakentogetherthesestudiesgenerallyidentifypublicaccessICTusers

asyoung,maleandofrelativelyhighsocioeconomicstatus.Usersarefoundtobeinclinedtowardspersonaland

socialusesofpublicaccessvenues,althougheconomicandpoliticalusesalsooccur.Toamorelimitedextent,a

thirdsetofstudiesinvestigatedownstreamchangesinpeopleslivesasaresultofpublicaccessuse.Itismore

challengingtoderivegeneralconclusionsfromthecompilationofresearchresultsinthisareamainlybecause

therearesofewofthem,andtheyhavesuchdifferentfociandcontexts.Someofthesestudiesfindevidenceof

notablepositiveimpacts,othersdonot.Overall,althoughtheresearchisstillproducingscatteredresults,thereare

someareasinwhichtrendsarebecomingapparent.

VenuePerformance:Sustainability,anOngoingChallenge

Theresearchliteratureclassifiedhereasdealingwithvenueperformancemostlyfocusesonissuesrelatedto

financial

sustainability

and

local

relevance

of

public

access

ICTs.

Findings

indicate

that

public

access

venues

generallystruggleandoftenfailtoachievefinancialsustainability.Allconclusionspointtothefactthatfinancial

successisassociatedwithavarietyoffactorsincludinggoodmanagement,goodlocations,stronglocaldemand,

newservicedevelopment,locallyrelevantservices,externallinkagesandnetworking(e.g.,Benjamin,2001;Etta&

ParvynWamahiu,2003;Latchem&Walker,2001;Roman&Colle,2002).

Somemodelsofpublicaccess,suchasinternetcafsaresometimespresentedasmorefinanciallysustainable

becauseoftheircommercialorientation(e.g.,Bell,2006;Oestmann&Dymond,2001).Thisappliesespeciallyto

thenoncommercialvarietyofservicedelivery,althoughitisbynomeanslimitedtothese. Thereis,however,no

agreementononebestmodel.AstudybyKumar&Best(2006b)foundthataccesstofinancialsubsidiesenabled

NGOrunkioskstostayoperationalwhileasignificantproportionofprivatekioskshadcloseddown.Benjamin

(2001)concludedthatlessthanonethirdofUniversalServiceAgencytelecentersinSouthAfricahadthepotential

forsustainability. AccordingtoMayanja(2006),venuestargetingmiddleandupperclasspopulations(the

enterprisebusinessmodel)demonstrategreaterpotentialforsustainability.Mayanja(2006)statesthatthesocial

developmentmodelfosterssocialcapital,theenterprisemodelisstrongeronfinancialsustainabilitybutweakon


8/27


socialcapital,andsuggeststhatasocialenterprisemodelmaybeaworkablecompromise(alsoSiochr&Girard,

2005).OntheotherhandKuriyanandToyama(2007)notethatitisdifficulttomeetbusinessneedsandsocial

developmentgoalssimultaneously(alsoArora,2005;Kuriyan&Ray,2008),whileSheppard(2001)andKumar

(2004)observethatsupportfrompublicsectorserviceprovidersfacilitatespublicaccessICTsustainabilityby

providingasourceofrevenue(RichaKumar,2004;Sheppard,2001).Inacritiqueofthefocusonfinancial

sustainabilityasameasureofsuccess,Simpson,Daws,&Pini(2004)recommendthatpublicaccesspointsbe

reconceptualizedasessentialcommunityinfrastructureslikeschoolsandlibraries,anddeservingofgovernment

funding:Thiswouldmeanredefiningthesustainabilityofapublicaccessonlyintermsoftheoutcomesit

producesintermsofsocialandcommunitybettermentratherthanonlyintermsofeconomicgain.

PublicaccessICTvenuesfacethechallengeofgeneratingdemandfortheirservice(Amarilesetal,2006;Best,

2007;Blattman,2003;Parkinson&Lauzon,2008).AsBest(2007)states,commercialInternetcentersinsmaller

townsandvillagesfaceasignificantchallengeintermsoflimitedpreexistinguserbaseandthenecessityof

convincingthelocalpopulationoftheutilityofICTrelatedservices.Also,forolderpeople,orpeoplewhoare

contentwiththeircurrentlivelihood,thereisgenerallylittleincentivetousecomputersandtheInternet

(Parkinson&Ramirez,2006).

IntryingtoidentifywhatworksinpublicaccessICTdelivery,afewstudieshaveexaminedtheissueofphysical

location.Somehavecometotheconclusionthatstandalonevenuesattractfewerpatronsand/oraremore

difficulttomaintainthancentersattachedtootherdevelopmentrelatedinstitutions(Parkinson,2005;Strover,

Chapman,&Waters,2004).KuriyanandToyama(2007)statethatkiosksinofficesandschoolsmayprovidegood

alternativestothestandalonekioskandthatmobilephonebasedkiosksofferanalternativetoPCbasedkiosks.

Othercontributionsinthisareaareobservationsthatthelocationofapublicaccessvenuehasanimpactonthe

servicesprovidedandthewayitisused.Forexample,(Sheppard,2001)foundthatbeinglocatedinahealthcare

institutionledthepublicaccessfacilitytofocusonhealthservices.Miller(2004)alsofoundthatinfoplazasinsidea

libraryweremorelikelytobeusedforstudyandinformationseekingpurposes,whilethoseinotherlocations

weremorelikelytobeusedforentertainmentandsocialinteraction.

EducationisconsideredtobeakeydeterminantofpublicaccessICTuse,coupledwithageneralperceptionthat

suchservicesaretargetedatelitemembersofsociety(Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003).IndeedColleandRoman

(2002)suggestthatlocatingtelecenterservicesinlibrariesmayhinderadoptionamongthosewhoconsiderthe

librarytobeaplaceforintellectuals.HoweverastudyinChinaproduceddifferentresultstherewasno

relationshipbetweeneducationallevelanduseofacommunityinternetaccessprogram(Ulrich,2004).


9/27


Knowledgeworkers,infomediariesand/orlocalchampions(formalandinformal)havebeenfoundtobe

importantcontributorstotheviabilityandsustainabilityofapublicaccessvenue,(particularlyinthecaseof

libraries)helpingtoattractuserstothesite(RajendraKumar&Best,2006b),andprovidingguidanceandguiding

usersunfamiliarwithICTs(Bailey,2009;Kiri&Menon,2006;Rajalekshmi,2007;Ulrich,2004).Forexample,

(McClure,Fraser,Nelson,&Robbins,2000)foundthatoneresultofICTservicesinlibrarieswasthatlibrarystaff

gainedrecognitionasimportantcommunityresources.ArelatedissueisthatoftrustaccordingtoRajalekshmi

(2007),trustbetweencitizensandintermediariesatvariouslevelsaffectsthewayegovernanceservicesare

deliveredthroughtelecenters,althoughtheachievementoftrustinonepublicaccessserviceareawillnot

necessarilytransfertootherserviceareas.

TypesofUsers:Young,Male,HigherSocioEconomicStatus

Researchinthisareagenerallyevaluatesaccesslevels/patternsandattributesthemtoavarietyofcontextual

factors.Inmostcasesthereisasensethatpublicaccessvenuesinrurallocationsareunderutilized,especiallyby

thoseconsideredmostdisadvantagedorthosewhocouldbenefitthemost.InwesterneconomiessuchastheUS,

UKandNewZealand,thishasbeenattributedtolowawarenesslevels(e.g.,Kaiser,2005),lackofinterest(e.g.,

Crump&McIlroy,2003),orthehigherprofileofprivateformsofaccess(e.g.,Eve&Brophy,2001;Selwyn,2003).

Indevelopingcountrieslowpatronagehasbeenattributedtoaffordabilitybarriers(e.g.,Parkinson,2005),orthe

perceptionthatpublicaccessvenuesareappropriateplacesforhighlyeducatedpeople(e.g.,Etta&Parvyn

Wamahiu,2003).However,overall,thecentralexplanationgivenforobservedlowlevelsofuseisthefailureof

publicaccessvenuestomaketheirservicerelevanttothecommunity.

Theresearchreviewedoverwhelminglyindicatesthatincomparisonwiththegeneralpopulation,theprimary

usersofpublicaccessvenuesareyoung,male,relativelywelleducated,ofrelativelyhighersocioeconomicstatus,

notphysicallydisabled,andhaveusuallyhadprioraccesstotheInternetatsomeotherlocation(e.g.,Adomi,2007;

Amariles,Paz,Russell,&Johnson,2006;Chisenga,2004;Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003;Eve&Brophy,2001;Gitta

&IkojaOdongo,2003;Haseloff,2005;Hudson,2001;RajendraKumar&Best,2006b;R.Kuriyan,andToyama,

Kentaro,2007;Mercer,2006;Parkinson,2005;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006;Proenza,BastidasBuch,&Montero,

2002;Robinson,2004;Selwyn,2003;Stewart,2000).Useofthesevenuesbystudents(highschoolandcollege)is

particularlynoticeable.Theoveralltrendisseenasadisappointingresultbymostcommentators,howeveratleast

oneauthornotesthattheimportanceofpublicaccessvenuestomiddleclasssocietyshouldnotbediscounted

(Haseloff,2005). Therearesomecontrastingfindingsthough,suchasHudson(2001)whosereviewofprojectsin

threeAfricancountriesfound,inadditiontotheabove,thatatsomesites,NGOstaff,medicalstaffandfarmers

weremajorusers.Kaiser(2005)foundthatunderrepresentedgroups(intermsofeducation,raceandincome)

werethemainusersofcommunitytechnologycentersintheUS.AnevaluationoftheBiblioredesprograminChile

foundamarkedreductionintheproportionofusersaccessingtheInternetforsurfing,chattingandother


10/27


recreationalgoalsbetween2003and2005,leadingtheauthorstoconcludethatactivitieshadshiftedtoeducation

andcommunication(Romn&Guerrero,2005).10WhileProenzas(2008)surveyoftelecenterusersinSriLanka

revealedayouthprofile,healsofoundahigherproportionoffemaleusers.

Theoccurrenceofproxyusage,thatis,peopleusingapublicaccessvenueonbehalforattherequestofanother

personisworthnotinghere,especiallysinceitintroducesindirectuseintothepicture,potentiallyamelioratingthe

dominanceofparticularpopulationsatpublicaccessvenue.Ulrich(2004)foundhighlevelsofproxyuseinrural

China,suchasachildgettinginformationfromthecenterforasemiliterateparent.

TypesofUse:SocialandEntertainmentUsesDominate

Thedominantfindinghereisthatpublicaccessvenuesareusedprimarilytomeetpersonalandsocialneedssuch

ascommunicatingwithfriendsandfamily,entertainment,doinghomework,anddevelopingcomputerskills(e.g.,

Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003;Eve&Brophy,2001;Gamage&Halpin,2007;Gitta&IkojaOdongo,2003;Haseloff,

2005;Lengyel,Eranusz,Fleki,Lrincz,&Sikls,2006;Mercer,2006;Pal,Nedevschi,Patra,&Brewer,2005;

Parkinson,2005;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006;Robinson,2004;Stewart,2000;Stroveretal.,2004).Thisisnottosay

thateconomic,politicalandothersuchservicesarenotpatronized;onlythattheiruseisoutstrippedbypersonal

andsocialactivities(R.Kuriyan&Toyama,2007).Additionallytherearesignsthattheuseofpublicaccessvenues

forcomputerskillsdevelopmentislinkedtousersperceptionthatexposuretocomputersandtheinternetwill

enhancetheircurrentand/orfutureemployability(e.g.,Kaiser,2005;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006;Parkinson&

Lauzon,2008)pointingtoanindirectlinkwithemployment,oneoftheprimarydevelopmentgoalsassociated

withpublicaccessICTservices.

Itisthusnotsurprisingtofindthat demandtendstobehighforservicessuchasemail,internetbrowsingand

computertraining(e.g.,Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003;Eve&Brophy,2001;Gitta&IkojaOdongo,2003;Haseloff,

2005;Lengyeletal.,2006;Mercer,2006;Parkinson,2005;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006;Robinson,2004;Stewart,

2000;Stroveretal.,2004).Cybercafesandfeebasedtelecentersthatprofitfromthepopularityofgameplaying,

emailuseandinternetbrowsingand,insomecases,simpledesktoppublishingmayfurtherpromotethese

services(Menon,2006;Rangaswamy2008).Ontheotherhand,particularlyinAfrica,thereareindicationsthat

traditionalservicessuchasvideos,photocopying,telephonyandprintperiodicalsareoftenthedominantservices

sought(Parkinson,2005).Ulrich(2003)observedaverylimiteduseoffreeemailservicesbytelecentersusersin

ruralChina,incontrasttovillagerspervasivetelephoneuse.Similarly,Samarajiva(2007)foundthattelephoneuse

ismorepopularthaninternet/computeruseamongstlowincomeearnersinanumberofEastAsiancountries.

10Resolvingstudyproblems,email,websurfing,andreadingonlinenewspaperswerestillcitedasthemost

importantuses.


11/27


AlthoughitiswidelybelievedthatlocalizedcontentandservicescanincreaseICTusageanddiffusion(Rajendra

Kumar&Best,2006b),theresultsofsomestudiesshowthatdemandforcommunicationservicesovershadows

regionspecificservices,especiallyamongmarginalizedcommunities(Pal,2005;Haseloff,2005).

Intermsofusesmorerelatedtotraditionaldevelopmentgoals,theevidencesofarismixed.Forexample,while

Menonetal(2006)foundthategovernment,veterinaryandhealthcareservicesconstitutedlessthan10%ofthe

useofruralPCkiosksinIndia,theyalsoconcludedthatuseofsuchservicesishighatlocationswheretheyare

offeredconsistently.BhatnagarandVyas(2001)alsofoundrelativelylowusageofGyandootkiosksinruralIndia.

However,95%oftheusagethatdidoccurwasrelatedtoagriculturalproducerates,landrecordsandgrievance

services.Conversely,intheirstudyassessingtheimpactofatelecenterinColombia,ParkinsonandLauzon(2008)

foundthatjustabout15%oftelecenterusersuseditforbusinesspurposes,andfewunemployedusersusedpublic

accessinternetintheirjobsearches. Infact,mostconsidereditinappropriateforthatuse(Parkinson&Ramirez,

2007).Furthermore,selfemployedpeoplerarelyusedtheinternetinsupportoftheirbusinessneeds.

Nevertheless,thesevenueswereused(albeittoalimitedextent)foravarietyofshortandlongtermfinancial

goals,mostlyrelatedtoreducingtravelcostsandimprovingemployabilityoptions.Libraryusersalsomadelimited

useofgovernmentwebsitesaccessiblethroughthelibraryaccordingtoRomnandGuerrero(2005).Usersof

telecentersinSriLankareportedhigheruseofcomputersandtheinternetforlearningandcommunicatingwith

governmentoffices(Proenza,2008).

Theutilityofpublicaccessvenuesmaybemoreevidentinsomesituationsthaninothers.Forexample,intimesof

crisissuchasnaturaldisastersandotheremergencysituations,publicaccessvenueshaveprovidedcriticalservices

tocommunities. Inadditiontofindingsafetyandshelterinlibrariesandtelecenters,peoplehaveusedpublic

accessICTforseekingaidandattemptingtolocatemissingpeopleinJamaica(Bailey,2009),intheU.S.(Bertot,

2006)andinAfrica(Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003).Theuseofcertaintypesofservicesalsoebbandflowwith

externallifeeventssuchastaxseason(Gibson,2009).

Wherepublicaccessvenuesofferawiderangeofservices,userstypicallyonlyaccessafew.ParvynWamahiu

(2005)foundthatthoughtelecentersofferedmoreservicesthancybercafs,theseadditionalservicesreceived

littletonouse.Apossiblereasonforthisisthatusersrequiringhelpfrominfomediariesmaytrustthemto

mediatealimitednumberofservices,regardlessoftheinfomediariesqualifications,thusdeterringtheuseof

otherservices(Rajalekshmi,2007).Somestudiesthereforesuggestpublicaccessvenuesmightincreaseusageby

focusingonasingleclassofservice,arguingthatbyprovidingalimitednumberofprimaryservices,theycancreate

orhookusersintoendtoendsystems,drivinguprevenueanddemand(Kuriyan&Toyama,2007).However,the

rangeofservicesusedlikelyvariesbyuser.AstudybyBest,etal(2007)surveyedparticipantsofacouponprogram

inKyrgyzstanandidentifiedthreetypesoftelecentersvisitorsbyfrequencyoftheirvisits:(1)minimaluserswho


12/27


donotengagefrequentlywithanyservice,thoughdesktoppublishingandgameplayingarethemostcommon;(2)

newuserswhousetheInternet,onlinecoursepapers,phonecards,andFAXservicesonaverageofonceaday;

and(3)superuserswhoregularlyusednearlyallofthetwentyfourservicesoffered,especiallySkypeforvoice

communication.

DownstreamImpacts

Thereisalimitedamountofresearchoutputthatstronglydemonstratesthistypeofimpact.Suchfindingsare

usuallybasedontheperceptionsofvenuestaff/management andusers.Inaddition,anyfindingsrelatingto

impactcanbesaidtoflowfromthebenefitsofaccesstoICTsingeneral.Thatis,theygenerallydonotreveal

uniquecontributionsofpublicaccessasadevelopmentstrategy.Byextensionhowever,themostobviousimpact

ofpublicaccessICTsisthattheavailability,andforsomepopulations,accessibilityofICTswithinthecommunityis

enhancedmakingitpossibleforthoseuserstobenefitfromICTusealwaysdependingonotherconditionsin

theirenvironment.Beyondthisthereisnoclearconvergenceofresultsondownstreamimpactsofpublicaccess

ICTsingeneralorinparticularareas.Thissectionoutlinesfindingsinspecificdevelopmentdomainswherewe

couldlocateempiricalresearch.

EducationResearchevidenceindicatesthatpublicaccessICTusehasledtoincreaseinITknowledgeandaspirations(Bailey,

2009;Best,Kolko,Thakur,&Aitieva,2007;Fedotova,2008;Lengyeletal.,2006;Mercer,2006). Somereports

highlighttheimportanceofITtrainingservices,whileotherssuggestthatsuchtrainingmaynotbecritical.Usingan

indexcomposedfromlibraryusersselfperceptionsofICTcompetence,RomnandGuerrero(2005)reportedan

increaseintheindexfrom7.1percentin2003to9.4in2005,indicatingariseinperceptionsofcompetence.

HowevertheylinkthismoretotheavailabilityofcomputersandtheInternetathomethantotheprograms

trainingservices.Onestudydemonstratedthatcomputerliteracycanbeachievedwithoutformaltraining

(Dangwal,Jha,Chatterjee,&Mitra,2005) thisstudyoftheholeinthewallcomputershowedthatchildrenhad

theabilitytoteachthemselvescomputerskills.Inaslightlydifferentcontext,Lengyel,Franuszetal(2006)found

thatresourceexpandingactivities(e.g.,teleworking,jobsearch,learning)weremoreevidentinhome/privateuse

thanatpublicaccessvenuesinaHungariancommunity(Lengyeletal.,2006).Theyconcludedthatnetworkbased

ITlearningwasaseffectiveasinstitutionallyorganizedlearning,andwaspossiblymorelikelytobebeneficialfor

theadultpopulation.Thatis,computerlearningthroughanindividualssocialnetworkisatleastaseffectivewith

thispopulationastrainingprogramshousedatpublicaccessvenues.

GovernanceandTransparencyKumarandBest(2006)havefoundthattheavailabilityofegovernmentservicesatpublicaccessfacilitiesis

positivelyassociatedwithuseofcertainservices.Useoftheseservicesleadstolowerlevelsofcorruptioninservice


13/27


delivery(RajendraKumar&Best,2006a).Inthisstudytheresearchersfoundincreaseduseofbirthcertificateand

oldagepensionserviceswhenresidentsbecameawareofthelowercostinvolvedinaccessingthematthe

internetkiosk,includingpeoplewhowouldotherwisenothaveavailedthemselvesoftheservicethroughthe

traditionalmeans.LookingatpubliclibrariesintheUS,Bertot,Jaeger,Langa,&McClure,(2006)concludedthat

librarycomputingandinternetservicesplayedanimportantroleintheprovidingaccesstogovernmentservices

(alsoGibson,2008).

Ontheotherhand,atleasttwoseparatestudiesoftheGyandootegovernanceprojectinIndiaconcludedthat

despiteitsawardwinningstatus,theprojecthadhadlimitedimpactoncommunities.11WhileBhatnagar&Vyas

(2001)wonderedwhetherthecommoditypricesservicecouldnotbeaseffectivelyprovidedthroughradioinstead

oftheGyandootkiosk;Jafri,Dongre,Tripathi,AggrawalandShrivastava(2002)determinedthatintheshortterm,

useoftheprojectbypoorergroupswaslimited.Mostusers(80%ofrespondents)oftheprojectscomplaint

serviceweresatisfiedwiththeservice,asover60%ofcomplaintswereusuallyacteduponwithinoneweek(Jafri,

2002),whilethegrievanceredressalsystemwaslessappreciatedbecauseultimatelymostcomplaintswere

respondedtobutnotresolved(Cecchini&Raina,2004).Nevertheless,Cecchini&Raina(2004)alsoreported

reductionsincorruptionandharassmentintheprovisionofsomepublicservicesviatheGyandootkiosks.

Income/employmentWhilesomeresearchershavefoundlimitedevidenceofemploymentrelatedbenefits(Lengyeletal.,2006;

Mercer,2006;Parkinson&Lauzon,2008;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006),othersdoidentifysomeimpactsinthisarea.

McClureetal(2000)foundperceptionsofimprovedfinancialwellbeing(personalandbusiness)asaresultof

accesstofinancial,businessandjobrelatedinformation;careersupport;technologytrainingandotherIT

resources.Usersalsoenjoyedcostsavingsfromhavingaccesstoinformationresourcesthattheywouldotherwise

havehadtopurchase.LikewiseFedotova(2008)foundthat89%ofparticipantsinajobskillstrainingcourse

believedthattheITskillstheyhadacquiredwouldhelpintheirjobsearch,and94%feltitwouldhelpthemtogain

apromotion.AnassessmentofUNESCOscommunitymultimediacentersalsoidentifiedarangeofeconomicand

socialbenefitsfromcreationofnewlivelihoodopportunitiestotheremovalofsocialbarriers(Creech,2004).12

Best,Kolkoetal(2007)reportedthatabout15%ofeCenteruserssurveyedhadacquiredajobasaresultofthe

skillstheygainedatthecomputercenter.Additionally,someuserscreatednewbusinesses,whilethosewhowere

alreadybusinessesownerssaiduseoftheeCenterbroughtdirectbenefitstotheirbusiness.Astudythat

attemptedtomeasureactualmagnitudeoffinancialbenefitsfrompublicaccessusecalculatedthattheaverage

11Bothhoweverremainedfairlyoptimisticaboutthepotentialoftheproject.

12Thisprogramincludesbothdigitalandbroadcasttechnologyservicessosomeofthebenefitsarenotrelatedto

computerandinternetuse.


14/27


householdbenefitinruralChinawasabout$38(Ulrich,2004).13Inaddition,Ulrichs(2004)respondentsreporteda

varietyofeconomicbenefitsfrompublicaccessuseimprovedfarmingpractices(86%ofrespondents),better

priceinformation(62%),businesscontacts(28%),andfoundwork(19%).

TheroleofpublicaccessICTsinsupportingtheremittanceeconomyhasbeennotedbyParkinson(2005),

ParkinsonandLauzon(2008)andRobinson(2004).Mostlythevenuesareseenasfacilitatingthecommunication

andcoordinationneededfortheflowofremittances,althoughRobinson(2004)believesthatinternetcafsplaya

negativeroleinthisrespectinthattheypreparethegroundsforpeopletomigrateoutoftheircommunities.

Attheinstitutionallevel,Bestetal(2007)notethatsubsidizedcomputercentersinKyrgyzstanexperienced

economicbenefitsintermsofincreasedclientele,andcontributedtoeconomicgrowthbycreatingupto31new

jobs.Ontheotherhand,theyalsofoundthatothercomputercentersthatwerenotbenefitingfromthesubsidy

programcloseddown,possiblyasaresultofcompetition.

InstitutionalCapacityAnotherwayinwhichpublicaccessICTshavebeenfoundtobenefitinstitutionsisbyimprovingthe organizational

capacityofthetelecenterhostaresultoftheiraccesstoICTs,ITtraining,andresultantchangesinworking

practices:Amarilesetal(2006)foundthattheseimpactsweremorenotablethancommunityanduserimpacts,

leadingthemtoproposethatitmaybeadvisabletothinkofpublicaccessICTimpactsintermsoftheirpotentialto

strengthenlocalinstitutionsasagainstthetendencytofocusonmicrolevelenduserbenefits.14Strongerlocal

institutionsareexpectedtocontributetothedevelopmentofstrongercommunitiesandastrongersenseof

community.Forinstance,studiesshowthatanoutcomeofICTserviceprovisioninlibrarieswasthatpeoplebegan

toseelibrariesasanimportantaspectofqualityoflifeintheircommunity,andthattherewasanincreasein

positiveattitudestowardspublicaccessICTvenues(Bertot,McClure,&Ryan,1999;McClureetal,2000).Others

concludethatcommunitystatuswasenhancedduetothepresenceofICTfacilities(Bertotetal1999;Eve&

Brophy,2001;McClureetal.,2000;Mercer,2006;Sheppard,2001).ArelatedobservationbyMercer(2006)was

thataccesstoand/oruseofpublicaccessICTsinTanzaniahasledtotheconstructionofmodernsubjects

pursuingglobalculture,andforwhomfamiliarityanduseoftheinternetbecomesamarkeroftheirlevelof

development.

Socialequityandtrust13Ulrichconsideredthisfiguretobeonthelowside.

14Theauthorswerenotcertainthough,thatthesametypeofbenefitswouldaccruetonontelecenterhost

organizations.


15/27


PublicaccesstoICTsdoesnotappeartohavenoticeablycontributedtosocialequity.Infactsomestudieshave

concludedthatasidefromhavingnoeffect,publicaccessICTfacilitiesmayrathermaintainorincreasesocial

inequitybyenhancingthesocialexclusionofnonusers(Mercer,2006;Parkinson&Ramrez,2006;Rajendra

Kumar&Best,2006b).Lengyeletal(2006)foundthatalongsidefailingtoraisealreadylowlevelsofcommunity

sociabilityandtrust,instancesofenvydevelopedinthecommunity.Robinson(2004)arguedthatpublicaccess

ICTscouldnotbreakthroughculturalandeconomicbarrierstocommunitynetworking.Conversely,Romnand

Guerrero(2005)concludedthattheBiblioredeslibraryprojecthadcontributedtosocialinclusionsincemostusers

arefromthelowestsocioeconomicstratainChile,whileParkinson(2005)statedthattheuseofpublicaccessICTs

enhancedmaintenanceofextendedfamilynetworksinsouthernandeasternAfrica.Somestudieshavealsofound

evidenceofcollaborationacrosssocialandculturallines,suchasyoungpeoplehelpingolderusers(Bailey,2009),

youthandtribalrivalsworkingtogether(Bailey,2009),lowcasteyouthtraininguppercasteusers(Creech,2004)

andageneralconvergenceofpeoplefromawiderangeofbackgrounds(Stewart,2000).

CivicEngagementAsmallnumberofstudieshaveconcludedthatpublicaccesstoICTshasfacilitatedcivicactivity.Thishasbeen

achievedthroughtheprovisionofbothphysicalandinformationalresources,forexamplebyprovidingaccessto

meetingrooms,andassistingwithvoterregistrationetc(Ashton,2007;Creech,2004;Finquelievich,2004;McClure

etal,2000).Insomelocations,publicaccessICTusershavebeenfoundtodevelopleadershipcharacteristics,

becomingmoreactiveinlocalandnationalpolitics,aswellasthepublicaccesscentersthemselvesactingas

meetinggroundsforcivicactivity(Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003;Paletal,2005).

HealthAnecdotalevidencefromatelecenterprojectinBangladeshindicatesthatthroughpublicaccessICTs,community

membersgainedknowledgeonbasichygienepractices(Ashraf,2008).

CultureandLanguagePreservationThereislimitedempiricalevidenceonthistopic.TwostudiesmakereferencetotheeffectsofpublicaccessICTuse

onculture,onepositive,theothernegative.Onthepositiveside,Wheeler(2007)assertedthatbyenablingwomen

tohaveaccesstoinformationandcommunicationacrossgender,nationalandculturalborders,internetcafshad

enablednewformsofpoliticalandsocialawareness.Robinson(2004),ontheotherhand,cametotheconclusion

thatinternetcafsusehadtheresultofperpetuatingsocialcontrolbythemedia,promotingconsumptionof

taboocontentbytheyouth,andcontributingtomigrationoutofcommunities.

GenderEmpowerment


16/27


TherearegenderspecificusagepatternsandperceptionsofICTs(Best&Maier,2007;Wheeler,2007;Sharma

2008).BestandMaier(2007)foundintheirstudyoffemaleinternetkioskusersandnonusers,thatwhilethere

wasnosystematicinhibitionofwomensabilitytousepublicaccessfacilities,therewasalsonoindicationthat

accesstotheinternethadmadeanycontributiontogenderempowerment(seealsoSubramanian,2006).

Wheelers(2007)ethnographicstudyfoundthatfemaleinternetusersinEgypthadbenefitedinthreeways

increasedinformationaccessandprofessionaldevelopment(e.g.improvingEnglishlanguageskills),

expansion/maintenanceofsocialnetworksandsocialcapital(e.g.,onlinedating),andtransformationofsocialand

politicalawareness(e.g.,thrucrossculturalcommunication).Wheeler(2007,p.100)concludesthat,theInternet,

ifitdoesempower,doessothroughthesmallwindowsofopportunitycreatedbythetechnologyanditsusersas

theyworkintandemorisolationtosubvertnormsandsocialorders.Untilacriticalmassofpeoplehasaccessto

Internettechnologyandusesthetooltointerruptexistingpowerrelations,empowermentwillremain

contextualizedineverydaylife.

Sharma,SharmaandSubhedar(2008)investigatedtheimpactofacommunitymultimediacentertrainingprogram

andidentifiedincreasedcomputerskills,incomeandconfidenceasprimarybenefitsaccruingtofemale

participants.Similarly,Amarilesetal(2006)concludedthatatelecenterprogramhadenabledwomentoplaya

moreactivesocialandpoliticalroleintheircommunity.

DiscussionandConclusions

AnumberofobservationscanbemadeaboutexistingresearchontheimpactofpublicaccesstoICTs.Theyinclude

thefollowing:

1. Mostoftheliteratureleanstowardprocessevaluationasopposedtodownstreamimpactevaluations.Inotherwords,severalreportsthatpurporttobeexaminingdownstreamimpacts,inrealitypresentdata

andconclusionsonvenuesetup,operations,access,andusagepatterns.Twofactorsmayberesponsible

fortheprominenceofsustainabilitydiscussionsintheliterature:oneisthatvenuesobviouslyhaveto

existandbesustainedforsomeperiodoftimeinordertobringaboutimpacts;thesecondandpotentially

moresignificantfactoristhatwhileresearchersmaysetouttoidentifyimpacts,findingsoflimitedorno

impactsleadstoafocusonuncoveringthecausesoftheapparentlackofimpactandmaking

recommendationsforimprovedperformance.

2. Asaresultoftheabovesituation,researchconclusionsgenerallystillspeaktothepotentialratherthanactualimpactofpublicaccesstoICTs.Inthisrespect,despitethetendencyformoststudiestofindthat

publicaccessICTsareunderperforming,theperceptionthattheyareanimportantmeansofbridging

digitalgapsremainsstrong.


17/27


3. StudieshavenotestablishedaclearlinkbetweenpublicaccesstoICTsandsocioeconomicchange/impacts.Researchersarebeginningtogobeyondanecdotalevidenceofdownstreampublic

accessimpactsonendusers,butarestilllimitedintheirabilitytomakedefinitivestatementsabout

impacts.Thisisprobablynotforwantoftryingconsideringthechallengesinvolvedintryingtoidentify

andattributespecificimpactstospecificICTusage.Thereisatrendtowardtheviewthattheimpactsof

publicaccesstoICTsaresohighlytiedtocontextsthatgeneralizabilitymaybeimpractical.Thisisanarea

inwhichmuchworkremainstobedone.Inparticular,theuseofuniformorconsistentimpactindicators

forpublicaccessICTsisalmostnonexistent.15Somestudiesprovidegeneralmeasuresofimpactsuchas

statementsaboutthepercentageofpeoplewhogotajobaftercompletingatrainingprogram.Few

attempttomeasureoutcomessuchasconsumersurplus,reductioninunemploymentorincreasein

literacylevels;andevenfewerattempttoattachanykindofstatisticalsignificancetotheirfindings.

Furthermore,itisnotalwaysentirelyclearwhetherobservedorperceiveddownstreamimpactsare

directlyrelatedtopublicaccessICTuseornot.

GapsintheliteratureGapsintheliteratureincludethefollowing:

i. Systematicimpactanalyses Notwithstandingthefairamountofresearchthathasalreadybeenconducted,asignificantamountofadditionalworkisrequiredinordertogetafullandaccurate

representationofthepublicaccessphenomenoninthecontextofdevelopment.Whatislackingisaclear,

comprehensiveanddeliberateresearchagendathatcoversmultiplelocationsandmodels,spans

significanttimeframes,andconsciouslybuildsonpreviousresearch.

ii. Macrolevelimpactanalysesthisisunderstandablyadifficulttaskandfewscholarshavetriedtolinkindividualpublicaccessusetocommunityornationallevelimpacts.

iii. Analysesoftheimpactofpublicaccessvs.privateaccess,orotherinvestigationstoidentifythevalueaddedbypublicaccessICTfacilitiesSofarwehavenotencounteredanystudiesthatattemptto

elaboratearoleofpublicaccesstoICTsthatsetsitapartfromothertypesofaccess.Asalreadynoted,

onecouldarguethattheimpactsobservedfrompublicaccessICTusearesimplytheimpactsofaccessto

ICTsregardlessofthesourceofaccess.Whilethiswouldnotbeanegativeoutcome,thedistinctionis

importantforaproperunderstandingofhowpublicaccessICTsfitintodevelopmentplans.

iv. Measurementofthemagnitudeofimpactsthegapinthisareaishuge.Oftentimescategoriesofimpactsareindicatedwithoutnecessarilyobtainingameasureofthemagnitudeofthoseimpacts.Additionally,

becausealotofthesearequalitativestudies,theyarenotassociatedwithindicationsofsizeofimpacts.

15Althoughsomeimpactframeworkshavebeendeveloped(seeAppendixA),thesearegenerallytailoredtowards

programevaluation,andthereislittleindicationthatresearchersaredrawingontheseforacademic

investigations.


18/27


v. CostbenefitanalysesofpublicaccessprovisionNotsurprisingly,intheabsenceofdataonmagnitudeofimpacts,thereisalsolimitedanalysisoftherelationshipbetweencostsandbenefitsofprovidingand

usingpublicaccessICTs.

vi. Determinationsofimpacttimeframesthisisanotherareathatbegsformoreattentioninordertodraftamodelofpublicaccessevolutionandtoanswerquestionssuchaswhentoexpectvisibleimpactsfrom

publicaccessICTuse.

vii. Impactofpublicaccessonspecificsectors(health,education,civicengagement,etc)thisreviewhasidentifiedinvestigationsinsomeoftheseareas,buttheyaregenerallyquitesparseandmeasuresof

impactareusuallyvague.

viii. Impactofdevelopmentvs.leisureactivitiesatpublicaccesssites agrowingareaofinterest,itisbecomingmoreandmoreimportanttohaveresearchthatexplorestheroleofsocial,personaland

entertainmentusesofpublicaccess.Isthedominanceofthesetypesofuseasignoffailedinvestment?

Oraretheultimateoutcomesofthesebehaviorsbeingoverlookedbecausetheactivitiesdonotfit

traditionalnotionsofdevelopment?

ix. ComparisonofdifferentpublicaccesstypesandbusinessmodelsfewstudieshaveexplicitlysetouttocompareandcontrasttheprovisionofpublicaccessICTsthroughdifferentvenuetypesandbusiness

models.

x. ExaminationoflibrariesaspublicaccessICTvenues(indevelopingcountries)thelibraryliteratureissomewhatchallengingtoassesspartlybecauseresearchersoftenfocusontheimpactoflibrariesin

generalandnotjustanICTaccessrelatedcomponent.Inaddition,thereisalmostnopublishedresearch

ontheimpactofICTaccessindevelopingcountrylibraries.16

xi. Examinationoftelephonyinparticularandtechnologicalconvergenceingeneraldespitesignificantevidencetosuggestthattelephony(especiallymobiletelephony)remainstheprimarymeansof

communicationandinformationacquisitionforpoorpeople,littlehasbeendonetoinvestigatethese

trendsinthecontextoftheiractualconsequencesforand/orpotentialsynergieswithpublicaccessICT

use.

ConceptualizingPublicAccessICTImpactInthecontextofICTfordevelopment,impactisachallengingconcepttocapture.

17Changesbroughtaboutasa

resultoftheuseofinformationandcommunicationgenerallyoccurthroughindirectprocesses,makingitdifficult

toidentifycausalrelationships.Debatesrageaboutwhatconstitutesimpactandwhenithappens.Andhoweverit

16ThiscouldbebecausethereisinfactnoICTaccessintheselibraries(Chisenga,2004).

17Seeforexample,OECD(2007).MeasuringtheimpactsofICTusingofficialstatistics.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/25/39869939.pdf.


19/27


isdefined,impactcantakeavarietyofforms(e.g.,directandindirect,microandmacro,shorttermandlongterm,

intendedandunintended,positiveandnegative),occurinavarietyofareas(e.g.,health,education),andaffecta

varietyofpopulations(e.g.,individuals,organizations,communities).Thereishoweveratendencytoviewimpacts

inbinaryand/orlineartermsICTisused,andasaresultanimpactoccursornoimpactoccurs.Inrealitythe

processthroughwhichICTimpactsmayormaynotoccurismorecomplex,andanapparentabsenceofimpacts

couldbemisleading,justasidentifiedimpactscouldhaveoccurredthroughamorecircuitousroutethanis

obvious.

ThisreviewhasfocusednotontheimpactofICTaccessingeneral,butontheimpactofaparticulartypeofICT

accesspublicaccess.Thereisobviouslyalinkbetweenthetwo;howeverourinterestisinisolatingthedynamics

aroundpublicaccessICTs.AsisthecasewithICTimpactsingeneral,publicaccessICTimpactscanbe

conceptualizedasoccurringonavarietyoflevelsfromavailabilityofICTstochangesexperiencedbyindividuals,

communitiesandnations.Thefullrangeofimpactsisofinterestdependingonthepreexistingstateof

infrastructure,publicaccessICTshaveanimpactontheavailabilityofICTsbyexpandingthelocationsatwhich

ICTscanbeaccessed;theyhaveanimpactontheaccessibilityofICTsdependingonhowandwheretheyare

deployed;theyalsohaveadirectimpactonusersbehaviorandlifesituations;andindirectimpactsonusersand

nonusersthroughtheirassociationwithusers,aswellasonthelargercommunity.Ononeleveltheavailabilityof

publicaccessvenuescanbeconsideredaprerequisiteforimpact,orasotherauthorshaveconceptualizedit,an

inputwhichwouldthengeneratecertainoutputs,outcomesandfinallydownstreamimpacts.18Thisisa

usefulwaytoattempttoteaseaparttheprocessesthatoccuronthepathtoimpacts.Alternatively,froma

broaderperspective,themereintroductionofapublicaccessvenueintoacommunitywithnoICTaccess

constitutes

an

impact

(on

availability).

Other

impacts

could

then

flow

from

this

availability.

WhenimpactisdefinedbroadlytoincludetherangeofpossibilitiesfromICTavailabilitytoindirectimpactson

nonusers,itbecomespossibletoseparatetheimpactsofICTsingeneralfromtheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs.

Fromthisperspective,evidenceonpublicaccessvenueperformanceprovidesinformationabouttheimpactof

publicaccessontheavailabilityandaccessibilityofaccesstoICTsavenuethatachievessustainabilityand

providesrelevantservicestoitscommunityhastheeffectofmovingresidentsfromastateofnoaccesstoICT

infrastructureand/orservices,toastateofhavingmereand/ormeaningfulaccesstothisresource.Evidenceon

usercharacteristicsaswellasthelevelofpatronageofpublicaccessICTservicesprovidesinformationaboutthe

impactofpublicaccessonpeoplesinformationandcommunicationresourcesandtherangeofICTrelated

activitiestheyareabletoengagein,aswellasanyspecialaddedvaluederivingfrompublicaccessuse.And

evidenceondownstreamimpactsprovidesinformationabouthowtheinformationandcommunicationresources

18Seeforexample,Brophy,P.(2002).Theevaluationofpubliclibraryonlineservices:Measuringimpact.

http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//P/pn_impact_issue_paper_pdf_4218.pdf.


20/27


usedatpublicaccessvenueslead(ordonotlead)tospecifictypesofchangesintheachievementofspecificsocio

economicwelfaregoals.ThesechangesmayberelatedtotheuseofICTsingeneralortotheuseofpublicaccess

ICTsinparticular.

Althoughtheresearchconductedsofarhasprovidedimportantinsightsintothedynamicssurroundingpublic

accessICTs,severalgapsremain,especiallyintheareaofidentifyingdownstreamimpacts,measuringthemand

makingvalidandreliablelinkagestopublicaccess.Itislikelythatbothinvestmentandresearcheffortswill

continueinanefforttounderstandandreapbenefitsfrompublicaccessICTs.


21/27


REFERENCES

Adomi,E.E.(2007).OvernightInternetBrowsingAmongCyberCafUsersinAbraka,Nigeria.TheJournalofCommunityInformatics,3(2).

Amariles,F.,Paz,O.P.,Russell,N.,&Johnson,N.(2006).TheImpactsofCommunityTelecentersinRuralColombia.

Journalof

Community

Informatics,

2(3).

Arora,P.(2005,December31).ProfitingfromEmpowerment?InvestigatingDisseminationAvenuesforEducational

TechnologyContentwithinanEmergingMarketSolutionsProject.InternationalJournalofEducationand

DevelopmentusingICT[Online],1(4).Available:http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=74.

Ashraf,M.,Swatman,P.,Hanisch,J.(2008).AnExtendedFrameworktoInvestigateICTImpactonDevelopmentattheMicro(Community)Level.16

thEuropeanConferenceonInformationSystems.Galway,Ireland.

Ashton,H.&Thorns,D.(2007)TheRoleofInformationCommunications TechnologyinRetrievingLocalCommunity.City&Community,6(3).

Bailey,

(2009).

Issues

Affecting

the

Social

Sustainability

of

Telecentres

in

Developing

Contexts:

A

Field

Study

of

SixteenTelecentresinJamaica.TheElectronicJournalonInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries. 36(4).

Bar,F.,&Best,M.(2008).FromtheEditors:AssessingtheImpactofPublicAccesstoICTs.InformationTechnologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(3),2.

Bell,T.(2006).Villagecomputing:AStateoftheField.ReflectionsontheVillageComputingConsultation.GrameenFoundation.

Benjamin,P.(2001).TelecentresinSouthAfrica.TheJournalofDevelopmentCommunicationTelecenters&ICTforDevelopment CriticalPerspectives&VisionsfortheFuture,12(2).

Bertot,J.,McClure,C.R.,&Ryan,J.(1999).ImportanceofCaliforniaPublicLibrariesinIncreasingPublicAccessto

theInternet:

Final

Report.SanMateo,CA:PeninsulaLibrarySystem.

Bertot,J.C.,Jaeger,P.T.,Langa,L.A.,&McClure,C.(2006).PublicAccessComputingandInternetAccessinPublicLibraries:TheRoleofPublicLibrariesinEgovernmentandEmergencySituations.FirstMonday,11(9).

Bertot,J.C.,McClure,C.R.,&Ryan,J.(1999).TheImportanceofCaliforniaPublicLibrariesinIncreasingPublicAccesstotheInternet.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaStateLibrary.

Best,M.,Kolko,B.,Thakur,D.,&Aitieva,M.(2007).AssessmentofEconomicGrowthImpactsoftheeCentersProjectinKyrgyzstan:AED.

Best,M.&Maier,S.(2007).Gender,CultureandICTUseinRuralSouthIndia.GenderTechnologyand

Development,

11(2).

Bhatnagar,S.&Vyas,N.(2001).Gyandoot:CommunityOwnedRuralInternetKiosks.WorldBank.

Blattman,C.,Jensen,R.,Roman,R.(2002).AssessingtheNeedandPotentialofCommunityNetworkingforDevelopmentinRuralIndia.TheInformationSoceity:AnInternationalJournal,19(5).

Cecchini,S.&Raina,M.(2004).ElectronicGovernmentandtheRuralPoor:TheCaseofGyandoot.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,2(2).


22/27


Chisenga,J.(Ed.).(2004).TheUseofICTsinAfricanPublicLibraries.ASurveyofTenCountriesinAnglophoneAfrica.Oxford:InternationalNetworkfortheAvailabilityofScientificPublications(INASP).

Coward,C.(December2008).WhyDoTelecentersDeserveOngoingAttention?TelecentreMagazine.

Creech,H.(2004).Evaluationof

UNESCO's

Community

Multimedia

Centers:UNESCOInternalOversightService;

InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

Crump,B.,&McIlroy,A.(2003).TheDigitalDivide:Whythe"DontWantTos"WontCompute:LessonsfromaNewZealandICTProject.FirstMonday,8(12).

Dangwal,R.,Jha,S.,Chatterjee,S.,&Mitra,S.(2005).AModelofHowChildrenAcquireComputingSkillsfromHoleintheWallComputersinPublicPlaces.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,2(4),4160.

Etta,F.E.,&ParvynWamahiu,S.(Eds.).(2003).InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesforDevelopmentinAfrica.Volume2:TheExperiencewithCommunityTelecenters.Ottawa:CODESRIA/IDRC.

Eve,J.,&Brophy,P.(2001).TheValueandImpactofITAccessinPublicLibraries:FinalReport.CentreforResearch

inLibrary&InformationManagement:Manchester.

Fedotova,E.(2008).ESkills:CatalysttoOpportunity.BalticIT&TReview,2008(3).

Fillip,B.,&Foote,D.(2007).MakingtheConnection:ScalingTelecentresforDevelopment.Washington,DC:InformationTechnologyApplicationsCenter(ITAC)oftheAcademyforEducationDevelopment.

Finquelievich,S.&Martinez,S.L.(2004)MujeresenAmricaLatinayelCaribe.Sonlastecnologasdeinformacinycomunicacinunarmaefectivaparalucharcontralapobreza?.(WomeninLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Areinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesaneffectivetooltofightpoverty?)RevistaVenezolanadeEstudiosdelaMujer,9(2).

Gamage,P. &Halpin,E.(2007).ESriLanka:BridgingtheDigitalDivide.TheElectronic

Library,25(6).

Gibson,A.N.,JohnCarloBertot,CharlesR.McClure,LaurenMandel.(2008).FloridaPublicLibrariesandEGovernment:ServicesIssues,andRecommendations.InformationUseManagementandPolicyInstitute.

Gitta,S.,&IkojaOdongo,J.R.(2003).TheImpactofCybercafsonInformationServicesinUganda.FirstMonday,8(4).

Haseloff,A.M.(2005).CybercafsandTheirPotentialasCommunityDevelopmentToolsinIndia.JournalofCommunityInformatics,1(3),53 65.

Hudson,H.E.(2001).TheACACIAProgramme:DevelopingEvaluationandLearningSystemsforAfricanTelecentres.Vancouver.

Jafri,A.,Dongre,A.,Tripathi,V.,Aggrawal,A.,&Shrivastava,S.(2002).InformationCommunicationTechnologiesandGovernance:TheGyandootExperimentinDharDistrictofMadhyaPradesh,India.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.

Kaiser,S.(2005).CommunityTechnologyCentersandBridgingtheDigitalDivide.Knowledge,Technology&Policy,18(2),83100.

Kiri,K.&Menon,D.(2006).ForProfitRuralKiosksinIndia:AchievementsandChallenges.i4dMagazine.


23/27


Kumar,Richa.(2004).eChoupals:AStudyontheFinancialSustainabilityofVillageInternetCentresinRuralMadhyaPradesh.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment2(1),29.

Kumar,Rajendra,&Best,M.(2006a).ImpactandSustainabilityofEGovernmentServicesinDevelopingCountries:LessonsLearnedfromTamilNadu,India.InformationSociety,22(1),112.

Kumar,Rajendra&Best,M.(2006b).SocialImpactandDiffusionofTelecenterUse:AStudyfromtheSustainableAccessinRuralIndiaProject.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3).

Kuriyan,R.,&Ray,I.(2008).InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesforDevelopment:TheBottomofthePyramidModelinPractice.TheInformationSociety:aninternationaljournal,24(2),93104.

Kuriyan,R.,&Toyama,K.(2007).ReviewofResearchonRuralPCKiosks.

Latchem,C.,&Walker,D.(2001).PerspectivesonDistanceEducation:Telecenters: CaseStudiesandKeyIssues.Vancouver:TheCommonwealthofLearning.

Lengyel,G.,Eranusz,E.,Fleki,D.,Lrincz,L.,&Sikls,V.(2006).TheCsernfaExperiment:OntheAttemptto

DeployComputersandInternetinaSmallHungarianVillage.Journalof

Community

Informatics,

2(3).

Mayanja,M.(2006).RethinkingTelecentreSustainability:HowtoImplementaSocialEnterpriseapproach LessonsfromIndiaandAfrica.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3).

McClure,C.R.,Fraser,B.T.,Nelson,T.W.,&Robbins,J.B.(2000).EconomicBenefitsandImpactsfromPublicLibrariesintheStateofFlorida.FinalReport.

Mercer,C.(2006).TelecentresandTransformations:ModernizingTanzaniaThroughtheInternet.AfricanAffairs,105(419),243264.

Menon,D.,Kiri,K.,Toyama,K.(2006).RuralPCKiosks:WhoBenefitsandHow?NewDelhi:IndianTelecentre

Forum.

Miller,N.(2004).MeasuringtheContributionofInfoplazastoInternetPenetrationandUseinPanama.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,2(2).

Oestmann,S.,&Dymond,A.C.(2001).TelecentresExperiences,LessonsandTrends.Vancouver.

OECD(2007).MeasuringtheImpactsofICTUsingOfficialStatistics.http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/25/39869939.pdf

Pal,J.,Nedevschi,S.,Patra,R.,&Brewer,E.(2005).AMultidisciplinaryApproachtoStudyingVillageInternetKioskInitiatives:TheCaseofAkshaya.PolicyOptionsandModelsforBridgingDigitalDivides.UniversityofTampere,Finland.

Parkinson,S.(2005).Telecentres,AccessandDevelopment:ExperienceandLessonsfromUgandaandSouthAfrica.Warwickshire,UK:ITDG/Fountain/IDRC.

Parkinson,S.,&Lauzon,A.(2008).TheImpactoftheInternetonLocalSocialEquity:AStudyofaTelecenterinAguablanca,Columbia.MITPressJournals,ITID,4(3),18.


24/27


Parkinson,S.,&Ramrez,R.(2006).UsingaSustainableLivelihoodsApproachtoAssessingtheImpactofICTsinDevelopment.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3).Proenza, F.J.(2008).TowardsSustainableTelecentersinSriLanka.WorldBank.

Proenza,F.J.,BastidasBuch,R.,&Montero,G.(2002).TelecentersforSocioeconomicandRuralDevelopmentinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.InterAmericanDevelopmentBank(pp.17).Washington,D.C.:InterAmerican

DevelopmentBank.

Rajalekshmi,K.G.(2007).EGovernanceServicesThroughTelecenters:TheRoleofHumanIntermediary andIssuesofTrust.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,4(1),1935.

Robinson,S.(2004).CybercafsandNationalElites:ConstraintsonCommunityNetworkinginLatinAmerica.London:CommunityPracticeintheNetworkSociety.

Roman,R.,&Colle,R.D.(2002).ThemesandIssuesinTelecentreSustainability(DevelopmentInformaticsWorkingPaperNo.10):InstituteforDevelopmentPolicyandManagement.

RomnM.,&Guerrero,A.(2005).ImpactEvaluationoftheBiblioredesAbretuMundoProject,September2005.

Samarajiva,R.(2007).TelecentersorMobiles?ConnectingSriLankanFamiliesattheBottomofthePyramid.

Selwyn,N.(2003).ICTforall?AccessanduseofPublicICTSitesintheUK.Information,Communication&Society,6(3),350 375.

Sey,A.(2008).PublicAccesstoICTs:AReviewoftheLiterature.Seattle,WA:UniversityofWashingtonCenterforInformation&Society(CIS).Availableathttp://globalimpactstudy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/02/ipailitreview1008.pdf.

Sharma,C.,SharmaSarita,&Subhedar,U.(2008).PuttingICTsintheHandsoftheWomenofKanpurandtheChikanEmbroideryWorkersofLucknow.InformationTechnologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(2),6.

Sheppard,

K.

(2001).The

Remote

Community

Service

Telecentres

of

Newfoundland

and

Labrador,

Canada.

Vancouver.

Simpson,L.,Daws,L.,Pini,B.(2004).PublicInternetAccessRevisited.TelecommunicationsPolicy.28(34).

Siochr,S..,&Girard,B.(2005).CommunityBasedNetworksandInnovativeTechnologies:NewModelstoServeandEmpowerthePoor:UNDP.

Stewart,J.(2000).Cafematics:theCybercafeandtheCommunity.Edinburgh:UniversityofEdinburgh.

Strover,S.,Chapman,G.,&Waters,J.(2004).BeyondCommunityNetworkingandCTCs:Access,DevelopmentandPublicPolicy.TelecommunicationsPolicy,28,21.

Subramanian,S.(2006).ICTLearning:IsitMoreValuablefortheYoung?InternationalJournal

of

Education

and

DevelopmentusingICT,2(1),11.

Ulrich,P.(2004).PovertyReductionthroughAccesstoInformationandCommunicationTechnologiesinRuralAreas.ElectronicJournalofInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries,16(7).

Wheeler,D.(2007).EmpowermentZones?Women,InternetCafes,andLifeTransformationsinEgypt.InformationTechnologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(2).


25/27


VanBelle,JeanPaul&Trusler,Jonathan(2005)AnInterpretivistCaseStudyofaSouthAfricanRuralMultiPurposeCommunityCentre.TheJournalofCommunityInformatics,1(2),pp.140157.


26/27


APPENDIXA

RecommendedReading:ResearchReviews

Kuriyan,R.,&Toyama,K.(2007).ReviewofResearchonRuralPCKiosks.Availableathttp://research.microsoft.com/research/tem/kiosks/.

A

summary

of

a

comprehensive

review

of

research

on

rural

Internet

kiosks.

Latchem,C.,&Walker,D.(Eds)(2001).Perspectivesondistanceeducation:Telecenters: Casestudiesandkeyissues.Vancouver:TheCommonwealthofLearning.

Acollectionofaccountsoftelecenterprojectsaroundtheworld.Providesanearlyassessmentofthestate

ofthetelecentermovement.

Paul,J.,Katz,R.,&Gallagher,S.(2004).Lessonsfromthefield:Anoverviewofthecurrentusesofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesfordevelopment.WorldResourcesInstitute.http://www.digitaldividend.org/pdf/lessons.pdf

AnanalysisofdataonICTprojectsintheDigitalDividendsClearinghousedatabase.Onechapterfocuses

ontelecenterprojects.

Proenza,F.J.(2008).PublicAccesstoICTs:Whatdowewanttoknow?Whatdowealreadyknow?Wheredowegofromhere?


27/27

APPENDIXB

EvaluationFrameworks:

Ashraf,M.M.,Swatman,P.,&Hanisch,D.J.(2007).SomeperspectivesonunderstandingtheadoptionandimplementationofICTinterventionsindevelopingcountries.TheJournalofCommunityInformatics,3(4).

Brophy,P.(2002).Theevaluationofpubliclibraryonlineservices:measuringimpact.InThePeoplesNetwork,2002WorkshopSeriesIssuePapersno.1.http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//P/pn_impact_issue_paper_pdf_4218.pdf

Eve,J.&Brophy,P.2001.TheValueandImpactofITAccessinPublicLibraries:FinalReport.LibraryandInformationCommissionResearchReport102.http://www.cerlim.ac.uk/projects/vital/

Gomez,R.andReilly,K.(2002).Comparingapproaches:TelecentreevaluationexperiencesinAsiaandLatinAmerica.InternationalInformation&LibraryReview,34,5778.

Hudson,H.E.(2001).TheACACIAprogramme:DevelopingevaluationandLearningsystemsforAfricanTelecentres.InD.WalkerandC.Latchem(Eds.),Perspectivesondistanceeducation:Telecenters: Casestudiesand

key

issues

pp.

159

168.

Vancouver:

RothenbergAalami,J.&Pal,J.(2005).RuralTelecenterImpactAssessmentsandthePoliticalEconomyofICTofDevelopment(ICT4D).BerkeleyRoundtableontheInternationalEconomyPaper164.http://repositories.cdlib.org/brie/BRIEWP164

Rutkauskiene,U.(2008).Impactmeasuresforpublicaccesscomputinginpubliclibraries.VilniusUniversity.

Whyte,A.(1998)TelecenterresearchframeworkforAcacia.http://www.idrc.ca/acacia/ev101972011DO_TOPIC.html

Whyte,A.(2000).AssessingCommunityTelecentres: GuidelinesforResearchers.Availablefromhttp://www.idrc.ca/en/ev94152011DO_TOPIC.html

Documents

CIS WorkingPaperNo6