Technology & Social Change Group (TASCHA)@ the University of Washington Information Schooltascha@uw.edu

Connecting People for DevelopmentFindings of the Global Impact Study

The solution to development!

Invest, invest, invest!

HISTORY OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO ICTS

High expectations!

peregrinari

Mark Surman

Mark Surman

CSC India

PUBLIC ACCESS ICT RESEARCH

Top ICT4D research focus in the 2000s, but…

Inconclusive evidence

Anecdotal impact evidence

Scattered, isolated studies

No studies on indirect impacts or impacts on non-users

Claims “disadvantaged” populations not being reached

Conflicting claims about public access ICT models

ARE PUBLIC ACCESS ICT VENUES…

failures?

make_change

frivolous?

mikekogh

needed? digital.democracy irrelevant? DFID

this is a blank slide for photos or graphics

Lithuania

Ghana

Botswana

South Africa

Bangladesh

Philippines

Chile

Brazil

THE GLOBAL IMPACT STUDY

libraries telecenters cybercafés

DIFFERENT MODELS OF PUBLIC ACCESS

RESEARCH DESIGN

IN-DEPTH STUDIES

1. Infomediation – Bangladesh, Chile, Lithuania

2. Shared use – Ghana

3. Gaming and non-instrumental uses – Brazil

4. Mobile internet – South Africa

5. Interpersonal communication – Philippines

6. Benefit-cost – Chile

7. Livelihoods – Botswana

SURVEY SAMPLE

9

Venue breakdown by country

Libraries Cybercafés Telecenters Other Total

Bangladesh 4 99 148 0 251

Brazil 6 192 39 5 242

Chile 71 109 22 41 243

Ghana 4 220 14 12 250

Philippines 18 229 13 1 261

Total 103 849 236 59 1,247

User Survey:Non-User Survey:- 5,010 total (~1,000 in each country) - 2,000 total (~400 in each country)

Venue Survey: - 1,247 total (~250 in each country)

USER SNAPSHOTMajority of users are:

Young (68% under 25 years old) Male (65%) Educated (82% high school +) Students (44%) Employed (39%) Proficient in English (74%) Below poverty level (51%)

Majority of users: Have +3 years computer & internet experience

(60%) Have medium or high computer skills (80%) Have medium or high Internet skills (69%) Own ICTs:

• Computers (56%)• Internet access (28%)• TV (95%)• Radio (83%)• Mobile phone (96%)

Jewish Agency

Corycam

10

DIGITAL INCLUSION

Dorian V.

THE CRITICAL FIRST TOUCH

Bangladesh Brazil Chile Ghana Philippines0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

First use of computer at public access venueFirst use of Internet at public access venue

% o

f use

rs

A public access venue provided:• first ever contact with computers (50%) • first ever contact with the Internet (62%)

ONLY OPTION FOR ACCESS

Public access venues were the only source of access to the Internet for at least a third (33%) of survey respondents

The majority of respondents (over 55%) expect a decrease in their use of computers and the internet if public access venues are no longer available

To get help from other users

To get help from venue staff

Better equipment than home or work

No other option for computer access

To work or be with friends or other people

No other option for Internet access

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Main reasons for using public access venues

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Culture & language

Health information

Government services

News

Employment & business opportunities

Entertainment

Education

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Type of Information Sought

DEVELOPING ICT SKILLS

Public access venue

Home School0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ComputerInternet

Most important place where computer and internet skills were developed

INFOMEDIATION

Help build user capacity and confidence to explore ICTs

Mostly technical Most common type of assistance sought is for internet

connectivity problems (45%) Top three reasons for seeking help from venue staff: knowledge of:

hardware (33%), software (26%) info seeking (17%)

SEEKING HELP: THE BANGLADESH CASE

All Bangladesh Brazil Chile Ghana Philippines0

10

20

30

40

50

Frequency of seeking staff assistance%

of u

sers

17

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC IMPACTS

PERCEIVED IMPACTS VARY

Communication with family & friends

Education

Pursuing interests & hobbies

Meeting new people

Pursuing other leisure activities

Time savings

Access to employability resources & skills

Financial savings

Access to government information & services

Local language/culture activities

Health

Income

Sending or receiving remittances

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Positive

None

Negative

DOMAIN USE

Communications & Leisure

Education Employment & Income

Culture & Language

Health Governance0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of users engaged in domains in the last 12 months

DOMAIN USE & IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

USER NEEDS DRIVE USE

Didn'

t hav

e th

e ne

ed

Didn'

t thi

nk o

f it

No sp

ecifi

c re

ason

Secu

rity

of m

y in

form

atio

n

Privac

y

Som

e ot

her r

easo

n0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Why didn’t you use public access for…

Employment & Income Education HealthGovernance Culture & Language

% o

f u

se

rs

Did you search for a job? (57%)

Did you find information to apply? (89%)

Did you apply? (91%)

GOAL ACHIEVEMENT

Did you search for info on how to use government services? (64%)

Did you find information you were looking for? (94%)

Do you feel more knowledgeable on how to use? (95%)

Employment & Income

Governance

HIDDEN IMPACTS

DIRECT 18% of non-users surveyed were former public access users

30% of ex-users first used a computer at a public access venue

35% of ex-users first used the Internet at a public access venue

INDIRECT 60% of non-users have family or friends who use public access

10% have asked someone to use public access on their behalf

Up to 63% perceive positive impacts from family/friend’s use

MORE THAN FUN & GAMES

95%

6%

Has using public access computers for commu-nications and leisure improved your overall

ICT skills?

Yes No

Non-instrumental uses (gaming, social) can lead to instrumental

(employability) skills

Public access can help keep families connected when

separated by migrant work

KC Wong

EMAIL & SOCIAL NETWORKING

Users identifying email/social networking as most important resource for goal achievement

COMMUNICATION AND LEISURE

% of perceived positive impacts, by frequency of using public access for communication

Sending or receiving remittances

Income

Financial savings

Health

Local language & cultural activities

Access to government information & services

Access to employability resources

Time savings

Education

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Rarely Sometimes Most times you visit Every time you visit

% of users

CONCEPTUALIZING PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS

Are public access venues still relevant? Are public access venues substitutes for home access? Who are benefiting from public access use? Are impacts occurring in the “right” areas? Does venue type matter? What constitutes an impact?

Where does impact happen? How does impact happen? When does impact matter? Whose impact matters?

Are expectations realistic?

CHALLENGES OF MEASURING IMPACTS

Rick Davies & Jess Dart, The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique, 2005

Technology & Social Change Grouptascha.uw.edu | @taschagroup

globalimpactstudy.org | @ictimpact

Thank You

Araba Seyarabasey@uw.edu