LiteratureReviewontheImpactof PublicAccesstoInformationand CommunicationTechnologies

CISWorkingPaperNo.6
ArabaSey MichelleFellows April2009

Thisdocumentsummarizespreliminaryfindingsofaliteraturereviewofresearchontheimpactsofpublicaccess toinformationandcommunicationtechnologies.ThereportwaspreparedbyArabaSeyandMichelleFellowsfor theGlobalImpactStudy.


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,butyoucannotchangethisworkinanyway oruseitcommerciallywithoutthewrittenconsentofCIS. Forquestionsorinquiries,pleasecontactCISattheaddresslistedaboveoremailcisinfo@u.washington.edu.

LiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccess toInformationandCommunicationTechnologies
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.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

INTRODUCTION
Informationandcommunicationtechnologies(particularlycomputersandtheInternet)arewidelyacknowledged asimportantresourcesforsocioeconomicadvancementinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries.Thisis doublysoagainstthebackdropoftheglobaleconomywhichisdrivenbytheinformationage.Developing countries,however,faceenormouschallengesintheirabilitytoutilizetheseresourcesfortheirgrowthand developmentagenda.Limitationsrangefrominfrastructuralconstraintstoanindividualsabilitytoconvertaccess toinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(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

Inthecontextofthisdiscussion,publicaccessisdefinedascomputerandinternetservicesthatareopentothe generalpublic.Thuspublicheredoesnotrefertothesourceoffundingorthebusinessmodel.Bothprivately andpubliclyownedICTvenuescanbeconsideredpublicaccessvenuesaslongastheirservicesareopentothe generalpublic.Aninternetcafisthereforeapublicaccessvenue,whileaschoollibrarythatcanonlybeusedby studentsandstaffisnot. Thisargumentoverlooksthefactthatinternetcafsaresubjecttoahighdegreeofturnover,oftenduetothe samesustainabilitychallengesthatothertypesofvenuesface.

2 1

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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. 2. 3. 4. WhatisthenatureofexistingresearchontheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs? Inwhichdevelopmentfieldsofinteresthasthisresearchbeenundertaken? WhatdoestheexistingresearchevidencetellusabouttheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs? IsthereanyevidencethatdistinguishestheimpactsofdifferenttypesandmodelsofpublicaccessICT provision? 5. Whatgapsarethereintheexistingbodyofresearchonthistopic? Thisreviewpresentsfindingsonthesecondtofifthissues.5

AnotherstrandinthedebateconcernsthedistinctionsmadebetweenICTimplementationswithspecifically developmentorientedgoals(ICT4D),andICTimplementationwithaviewtofacilitatetechnologyappropriation, i.e.,leavingpeopletousetechnologyastheyseefit(ICTanddevelopment).BecausepublicaccesstoICTs discussionsareusuallycouchedintermsofsocioeconomicdevelopment,wefocusontheICT4Dperspectivein thispaper,withoutexpressingapreferenceforeitherperspective. TheGlobalImpactStudyofPublicAccesstoInformationandCommunicationTechnologyisafiveyear,CAD$7.2 millionresearchprojectsponsoredbyCanadasInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre(IDRC)andtheBill& MelindaGatesFoundation.Theprojectismanagedbytelecentre.orginpartnershipwiththeCenterfor Information&SocietyattheUniversityofWashingtonInformationSchool.

5 4 3

SeeSey(2008)foranoverviewoffindingsonthenatureofexistingresearch.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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
6 Thereviewdoesnotincludedocumentsthatonlydescribeparticularprojects;onlydiscusspublicaccess
typologies,definitions,orpolicy;orthatcriticallycommentonpublicaccessstrategies.Italsoexcludesdocuments thatfocusonthesocioeconomicimpactofICTsingeneral. ThebuildingofthisextensivedatabaseofrelevantliteraturewascoordinatedbyRicardoGomez,ElizabethGould, RuchaAmbikar,andChrisRothschildattheCenterforInformationandSociety. Theseincludedmembersoftheprojectsresearchteams,InternationalAdvisoryCommittee,sponsorsand partners.
9 8 7

Atthispointwedonotassessthequalityoftheresearchordiscussimpactassessmentmethodologies.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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 financialsustainabilityandlocalrelevanceofpublicaccessICTs.Findingsindicatethatpublicaccessvenues 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

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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).

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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. Itisthusnotsurprisingtofindthatdemandtendstobehighforservicessuchasemail,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.

Resolvingstudyproblems,email,websurfing,andreadingonlinenewspaperswerestillcitedasthemost importantuses.
10

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

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

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

donotengagefrequentlywithanyservice,thoughdesktoppublishingandgameplayingarethemostcommon;(2) newuserswhousetheInternet,onlinecoursepapers,phonecards,andFAXservicesonaverageofonceaday; and(3)superuserswhoregularlyusednearlyallofthetwentyfourservicesoffered,especiallySkypeforvoice communication. DownstreamImpacts Thereisalimitedamountofresearchoutputthatstronglydemonstratesthistypeofimpact.Suchfindingsare usuallybasedontheperceptionsofvenuestaff/managementandusers.Inaddition,anyfindingsrelatingto impactcanbesaidtoflowfromthebenefitsofaccesstoICTsingeneral.Thatis,theygenerallydonotreveal uniquecontributionsofpublicaccessasadevelopmentstrategy.Byextensionhowever,themostobviousimpact ofpublicaccessICTsisthattheavailability,andforsomepopulations,accessibilityofICTswithinthecommunityis enhancedmakingitpossibleforthoseuserstobenefitfromICTusealwaysdependingonotherconditionsin theirenvironment.Beyondthisthereisnoclearconvergenceofresultsondownstreamimpactsofpublicaccess ICTsingeneralorinparticularareas.Thissectionoutlinesfindingsinspecificdevelopmentdomainswherewe couldlocateempiricalresearch. Education ResearchevidenceindicatesthatpublicaccessICTusehasledtoincreaseinITknowledgeandaspirations(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. GovernanceandTransparency KumarandBest(2006)havefoundthattheavailabilityofegovernmentservicesatpublicaccessfacilitiesis positivelyassociatedwithuseofcertainservices.Useoftheseservicesleadstolowerlevelsofcorruptioninservice

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

10

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/employment Whilesomeresearchershavefoundlimitedevidenceofemploymentrelatedbenefits(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

11

Bothhoweverremainedfairlyoptimisticaboutthepotentialoftheproject.

Thisprogramincludesbothdigitalandbroadcasttechnologyservicessosomeofthebenefitsarenotrelatedto computerandinternetuse.

12

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

11

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. InstitutionalCapacity AnotherwayinwhichpublicaccessICTshavebeenfoundtobenefitinstitutionsisbyimprovingtheorganizational 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. Socialequityandtrust

13

Ulrichconsideredthisfiguretobeonthelowside.

Theauthorswerenotcertainthough,thatthesametypeofbenefitswouldaccruetonontelecenterhost organizations.

14

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

12

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). CivicEngagement AsmallnumberofstudieshaveconcludedthatpublicaccesstoICTshasfacilitatedcivicactivity.Thishasbeen achievedthroughtheprovisionofbothphysicalandinformationalresources,forexamplebyprovidingaccessto meetingrooms,andassistingwithvoterregistrationetc(Ashton,2007;Creech,2004;Finquelievich,2004;McClure etal,2000).Insomelocations,publicaccessICTusershavebeenfoundtodevelopleadershipcharacteristics, becomingmoreactiveinlocalandnationalpolitics,aswellasthepublicaccesscentersthemselvesactingas meetinggroundsforcivicactivity(Etta&ParvynWamahiu,2003;Paletal,2005). Health AnecdotalevidencefromatelecenterprojectinBangladeshindicatesthatthroughpublicaccessICTs,community membersgainedknowledgeonbasichygienepractices(Ashraf,2008). CultureandLanguagePreservation Thereislimitedempiricalevidenceonthistopic.TwostudiesmakereferencetotheeffectsofpublicaccessICTuse onculture,onepositive,theothernegative.Onthepositiveside,Wheeler(2007)assertedthatbyenablingwomen tohaveaccesstoinformationandcommunicationacrossgender,nationalandculturalborders,internetcafshad enablednewformsofpoliticalandsocialawareness.Robinson(2004),ontheotherhand,cametotheconclusion thatinternetcafsusehadtheresultofperpetuatingsocialcontrolbythemedia,promotingconsumptionof taboocontentbytheyouth,andcontributingtomigrationoutofcommunities. GenderEmpowerment

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

13

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.In otherwords,severalreportsthatpurporttobeexaminingdownstreamimpacts,inrealitypresentdata andconclusionsonvenuesetup,operations,access,andusagepatterns.Twofactorsmayberesponsible fortheprominenceofsustainabilitydiscussionsintheliterature:oneisthatvenuesobviouslyhaveto existandbesustainedforsomeperiodoftimeinordertobringaboutimpacts;thesecondandpotentially moresignificantfactoristhatwhileresearchersmaysetouttoidentifyimpacts,findingsoflimitedorno impactsleadstoafocusonuncoveringthecausesoftheapparentlackofimpactandmaking recommendationsforimprovedperformance. 2. Asaresultoftheabovesituation,researchconclusionsgenerallystillspeaktothepotentialratherthan actualimpactofpublicaccesstoICTs.Inthisrespect,despitethetendencyformoststudiestofindthat publicaccessICTsareunderperforming,theperceptionthattheyareanimportantmeansofbridging digitalgapsremainsstrong.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

14

3.

StudieshavenotestablishedaclearlinkbetweenpublicaccesstoICTsandsocioeconomic change/impacts.Researchersarebeginningtogobeyondanecdotalevidenceofdownstreampublic accessimpactsonendusers,butarestilllimitedintheirabilitytomakedefinitivestatementsabout impacts.Thisisprobablynotforwantoftryingconsideringthechallengesinvolvedintryingtoidentify andattributespecificimpactstospecificICTusage.Thereisatrendtowardtheviewthattheimpactsof publicaccesstoICTsaresohighlytiedtocontextsthatgeneralizabilitymaybeimpractical.Thisisanarea inwhichmuchworkremainstobedone.Inparticular,theuseofuniformorconsistentimpactindicators forpublicaccessICTsisalmostnonexistent.15Somestudiesprovidegeneralmeasuresofimpactsuchas statementsaboutthepercentageofpeoplewhogotajobaftercompletingatrainingprogram.Few attempttomeasureoutcomessuchasconsumersurplus,reductioninunemploymentorincreasein literacylevels;andevenfewerattempttoattachanykindofstatisticalsignificancetotheirfindings. Furthermore,itisnotalwaysentirelyclearwhetherobservedorperceiveddownstreamimpactsare directlyrelatedtopublicaccessICTuseornot.

Gapsintheliterature Gapsintheliteratureincludethefollowing: i. SystematicimpactanalysesNotwithstandingthefairamountofresearchthathasalreadybeen conducted,asignificantamountofadditionalworkisrequiredinordertogetafullandaccurate representationofthepublicaccessphenomenoninthecontextofdevelopment.Whatislackingisaclear, comprehensiveanddeliberateresearchagendathatcoversmultiplelocationsandmodels,spans significanttimeframes,andconsciouslybuildsonpreviousresearch. ii. Macrolevelimpactanalysesthisisunderstandablyadifficulttaskandfewscholarshavetriedtolink individualpublicaccessusetocommunityornationallevelimpacts. iii. Analysesoftheimpactofpublicaccessvs.privateaccess,orotherinvestigationstoidentifythevalue addedbypublicaccessICTfacilitiesSofarwehavenotencounteredanystudiesthatattemptto elaboratearoleofpublicaccesstoICTsthatsetsitapartfromothertypesofaccess.Asalreadynoted, onecouldarguethattheimpactsobservedfrompublicaccessICTusearesimplytheimpactsofaccessto ICTsregardlessofthesourceofaccess.Whilethiswouldnotbeanegativeoutcome,thedistinctionis importantforaproperunderstandingofhowpublicaccessICTsfitintodevelopmentplans. iv. Measurementofthemagnitudeofimpactsthegapinthisareaishuge.Oftentimescategoriesofimpacts areindicatedwithoutnecessarilyobtainingameasureofthemagnitudeofthoseimpacts.Additionally, becausealotofthesearequalitativestudies,theyarenotassociatedwithindicationsofsizeofimpacts.

Althoughsomeimpactframeworkshavebeendeveloped(seeAppendixA),thesearegenerallytailoredtowards programevaluation,andthereislittleindicationthatresearchersaredrawingontheseforacademic investigations.

15

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

15

v.

CostbenefitanalysesofpublicaccessprovisionNotsurprisingly,intheabsenceofdataonmagnitudeof impacts,thereisalsolimitedanalysisoftherelationshipbetweencostsandbenefitsofprovidingand usingpublicaccessICTs.

vi.

Determinationsofimpacttimeframesthisisanotherareathatbegsformoreattentioninordertodraft amodelofpublicaccessevolutionandtoanswerquestionssuchaswhentoexpectvisibleimpactsfrom publicaccessICTuse.

vii.

Impactofpublicaccessonspecificsectors(health,education,civicengagement,etc)thisreviewhas identifiedinvestigationsinsomeoftheseareas,buttheyaregenerallyquitesparseandmeasuresof impactareusuallyvague.

viii.

Impactofdevelopmentvs.leisureactivitiesatpublicaccesssitesagrowingareaofinterest,itis becomingmoreandmoreimportanttohaveresearchthatexplorestheroleofsocial,personaland entertainmentusesofpublicaccess.Isthedominanceofthesetypesofuseasignoffailedinvestment? Oraretheultimateoutcomesofthesebehaviorsbeingoverlookedbecausetheactivitiesdonotfit traditionalnotionsofdevelopment?

ix.

Comparisonofdifferentpublicaccesstypesandbusinessmodelsfewstudieshaveexplicitlysetoutto compareandcontrasttheprovisionofpublicaccessICTsthroughdifferentvenuetypesandbusiness models.

x.

ExaminationoflibrariesaspublicaccessICTvenues(indevelopingcountries)thelibraryliteratureis somewhatchallengingtoassesspartlybecauseresearchersoftenfocusontheimpactoflibrariesin generalandnotjustanICTaccessrelatedcomponent.Inaddition,thereisalmostnopublishedresearch ontheimpactofICTaccessindevelopingcountrylibraries.16

xi.

Examinationoftelephonyinparticularandtechnologicalconvergenceingeneraldespitesignificant evidencetosuggestthattelephony(especiallymobiletelephony)remainstheprimarymeansof communicationandinformationacquisitionforpoorpeople,littlehasbeendonetoinvestigatethese trendsinthecontextoftheiractualconsequencesforand/orpotentialsynergieswithpublicaccessICT use.

ConceptualizingPublicAccessICTImpact InthecontextofICTfordevelopment,impactisachallengingconcepttocapture.17Changesbroughtaboutasa resultoftheuseofinformationandcommunicationgenerallyoccurthroughindirectprocesses,makingitdifficult toidentifycausalrelationships.Debatesrageaboutwhatconstitutesimpactandwhenithappens.Andhoweverit

16

ThiscouldbebecausethereisinfactnoICTaccessintheselibraries(Chisenga,2004).

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

17

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

16

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 constitutesanimpact(onavailability).Otherimpactscouldthenflowfromthisavailability. WhenimpactisdefinedbroadlytoincludetherangeofpossibilitiesfromICTavailabilitytoindirectimpactson nonusers,itbecomespossibletoseparatetheimpactsofICTsingeneralfromtheimpactsofpublicaccesstoICTs. Fromthisperspective,evidenceonpublicaccessvenueperformanceprovidesinformationabouttheimpactof publicaccessontheavailabilityandaccessibilityofaccesstoICTsavenuethatachievessustainabilityand providesrelevantservicestoitscommunityhastheeffectofmovingresidentsfromastateofnoaccesstoICT infrastructureand/orservices,toastateofhavingmereand/ormeaningfulaccesstothisresource.Evidenceon usercharacteristicsaswellasthelevelofpatronageofpublicaccessICTservicesprovidesinformationaboutthe impactofpublicaccessonpeoplesinformationandcommunicationresourcesandtherangeofICTrelated activitiestheyareabletoengagein,aswellasanyspecialaddedvaluederivingfrompublicaccessuse.And evidenceondownstreamimpactsprovidesinformationabouthowtheinformationandcommunicationresources

Seeforexample,Brophy,P.(2002).Theevaluationofpubliclibraryonlineservices:Measuringimpact. http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//P/pn_impact_issue_paper_pdf_4218.pdf.
18

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

17

usedatpublicaccessvenueslead(ordonotlead)tospecifictypesofchangesintheachievementofspecificsocio economicwelfaregoals.ThesechangesmayberelatedtotheuseofICTsingeneralortotheuseofpublicaccess ICTsinparticular. Althoughtheresearchconductedsofarhasprovidedimportantinsightsintothedynamicssurroundingpublic accessICTs,severalgapsremain,especiallyintheareaofidentifyingdownstreamimpacts,measuringthemand makingvalidandreliablelinkagestopublicaccess.Itislikelythatbothinvestmentandresearcheffortswill continueinanefforttounderstandandreapbenefitsfrompublicaccessICTs.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

18

REFERENCES
Adomi,E.E.(2007).OvernightInternetBrowsingAmongCyberCafUsersinAbraka,Nigeria.TheJournalof CommunityInformatics,3(2). Amariles,F.,Paz,O.P.,Russell,N.,&Johnson,N.(2006).TheImpactsofCommunityTelecentersinRuralColombia. JournalofCommunityInformatics,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).AnExtendedFrameworktoInvestigateICTImpactonDevelopmentat theMicro(Community)Level.16thEuropeanConferenceonInformationSystems.Galway,Ireland. Ashton,H.&Thorns,D.(2007)TheRoleofInformationCommunicationsTechnologyinRetrievingLocal Community.City&Community,6(3). Bailey,(2009).IssuesAffectingtheSocialSustainabilityofTelecentresinDevelopingContexts:AFieldStudyof SixteenTelecentresinJamaica.TheElectronicJournalonInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries.36(4). Bar,F.,&Best,M.(2008).FromtheEditors:AssessingtheImpactofPublicAccesstoICTs.Information Technologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(3),2. Bell,T.(2006).Villagecomputing:AStateoftheField.ReflectionsontheVillageComputingConsultation.Grameen Foundation. Benjamin,P.(2001).TelecentresinSouthAfrica.TheJournalofDevelopmentCommunicationTelecenters&ICTfor DevelopmentCriticalPerspectives&VisionsfortheFuture,12(2). Bertot,J.,McClure,C.R.,&Ryan,J.(1999).ImportanceofCaliforniaPublicLibrariesinIncreasingPublicAccessto theInternet:FinalReport.SanMateo,CA:PeninsulaLibrarySystem. Bertot,J.C.,Jaeger,P.T.,Langa,L.A.,&McClure,C.(2006).PublicAccessComputingandInternetAccessinPublic Libraries:TheRoleofPublicLibrariesinEgovernmentandEmergencySituations.FirstMonday,11(9). Bertot,J.C.,McClure,C.R.,&Ryan,J.(1999).TheImportanceofCaliforniaPublicLibrariesinIncreasingPublic AccesstotheInternet.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaStateLibrary. Best,M.,Kolko,B.,Thakur,D.,&Aitieva,M.(2007).AssessmentofEconomicGrowthImpactsoftheeCenters ProjectinKyrgyzstan: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).AssessingtheNeedandPotentialofCommunityNetworkingfor DevelopmentinRuralIndia.TheInformationSoceity:AnInternationalJournal,19(5). Cecchini,S.&Raina,M.(2004).ElectronicGovernmentandtheRuralPoor:TheCaseofGyandoot.Information TechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,2(2).

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

19

 Chisenga,J.(Ed.).(2004).TheUseofICTsinAfricanPublicLibraries.ASurveyofTenCountriesinAnglophoneAfrica. Oxford:InternationalNetworkfortheAvailabilityofScientificPublications(INASP). Coward,C.(December2008).WhyDoTelecentersDeserveOngoingAttention?TelecentreMagazine. Creech,H.(2004).EvaluationofUNESCO'sCommunityMultimediaCenters:UNESCOInternalOversightService; InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment. Crump,B.,&McIlroy,A.(2003).TheDigitalDivide:Whythe"DontWantTos"WontCompute:Lessonsfroma NewZealandICTProject.FirstMonday,8(12). Dangwal,R.,Jha,S.,Chatterjee,S.,&Mitra,S.(2005).AModelofHowChildrenAcquireComputingSkillsfrom HoleintheWallComputersinPublicPlaces.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,2(4),4160. Etta,F.E.,&ParvynWamahiu,S.(Eds.).(2003).InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesforDevelopmentin Africa.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.Sonlastecnologasdeinformacin ycomunicacinunarmaefectivaparalucharcontralapobreza?.(WomeninLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Are informationandcommunicationtechnologiesaneffectivetooltofightpoverty?)RevistaVenezolanadeEstudios delaMujer,9(2). Gamage,P.&Halpin,E.(2007).ESriLanka:BridgingtheDigitalDivide.TheElectronicLibrary,25(6). Gibson,A.N.,JohnCarloBertot,CharlesR.McClure,LaurenMandel.(2008).FloridaPublicLibrariesandE Government:ServicesIssues,andRecommendations.InformationUseManagementandPolicyInstitute. Gitta,S.,&IkojaOdongo,J.R.(2003).TheImpactofCybercafsonInformationServicesinUganda.FirstMonday, 8(4). Haseloff,A.M.(2005).CybercafsandTheirPotentialasCommunityDevelopmentToolsinIndia.Journalof CommunityInformatics,1(3),5365. Hudson,H.E.(2001).TheACACIAProgramme:DevelopingEvaluationandLearningSystemsforAfricanTelecentres. Vancouver. Jafri,A.,Dongre,A.,Tripathi,V.,Aggrawal,A.,&Shrivastava,S.(2002).InformationCommunicationTechnologies andGovernance:TheGyandootExperimentinDharDistrictofMadhyaPradesh,India.London:Overseas DevelopmentInstitute. Kaiser,S.(2005).CommunityTechnologyCentersandBridgingtheDigitalDivide.Knowledge,Technology&Policy, 18(2),83100. Kiri,K.&Menon,D.(2006).ForProfitRuralKiosksinIndia:AchievementsandChallenges.i4dMagazine.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

20

 Kumar,Richa.(2004).eChoupals:AStudyontheFinancialSustainabilityofVillageInternetCentresinRural MadhyaPradesh.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment2(1),29. Kumar,Rajendra,&Best,M.(2006a).ImpactandSustainabilityofEGovernmentServicesinDevelopingCountries: LessonsLearnedfromTamilNadu,India.InformationSociety,22(1),112. Kumar,Rajendra&Best,M.(2006b).SocialImpactandDiffusionofTelecenterUse:AStudyfromtheSustainable AccessinRuralIndiaProject.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3). Kuriyan,R.,&Ray,I.(2008).InformationandCommunicationTechnologiesforDevelopment:TheBottomofthe PyramidModelinPractice.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.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3). Mayanja,M.(2006).RethinkingTelecentreSustainability:HowtoImplementaSocialEnterpriseapproachLessons fromIndiaandAfrica.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3). McClure,C.R.,Fraser,B.T.,Nelson,T.W.,&Robbins,J.B.(2000).EconomicBenefitsandImpactsfromPublic LibrariesintheStateofFlorida.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.Information TechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,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).AMultidisciplinaryApproachtoStudyingVillageInternetKiosk Initiatives:TheCaseofAkshaya.PolicyOptionsandModelsforBridgingDigitalDivides.UniversityofTampere, Finland. Parkinson,S.(2005).Telecentres,AccessandDevelopment:ExperienceandLessonsfromUgandaandSouthAfrica. Warwickshire,UK:ITDG/Fountain/IDRC. Parkinson,S.,&Lauzon,A.(2008).TheImpactoftheInternetonLocalSocialEquity:AStudyofaTelecenterin Aguablanca,Columbia.MITPressJournals,ITID,4(3),18.

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

21

Parkinson,S.,&Ramrez,R.(2006).UsingaSustainableLivelihoodsApproachtoAssessingtheImpactofICTsin Development.JournalofCommunityInformatics,2(3).Proenza,F.J.(2008).TowardsSustainableTelecentersinSri Lanka.WorldBank. Proenza,F.J.,BastidasBuch,R.,&Montero,G.(2002).TelecentersforSocioeconomicandRuralDevelopmentin LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.InterAmericanDevelopmentBank(pp.17).Washington,D.C.:InterAmerican DevelopmentBank. Rajalekshmi,K.G.(2007).EGovernanceServicesThroughTelecenters:TheRoleofHumanIntermediaryandIssues ofTrust.InformationTechnologiesandInternationalDevelopment,4(1),1935. Robinson,S.(2004).CybercafsandNationalElites:ConstraintsonCommunityNetworkinginLatinAmerica. London:CommunityPracticeintheNetworkSociety. Roman,R.,&Colle,R.D.(2002).ThemesandIssuesinTelecentreSustainability(DevelopmentInformaticsWorking PaperNo.10):InstituteforDevelopmentPolicyandManagement. RomnM.,&Guerrero,A.(2005).ImpactEvaluationoftheBiblioredesAbretuMundoProject,September2005. Samarajiva,R.(2007).TelecentersorMobiles?ConnectingSriLankanFamiliesattheBottomofthePyramid. Selwyn,N.(2003).ICTforall?AccessanduseofPublicICTSitesintheUK.Information,Communication&Society, 6(3),350375. Sey,A.(2008).PublicAccesstoICTs:AReviewoftheLiterature.Seattle,WA:UniversityofWashingtonCenterfor Information&Society(CIS).Availableathttp://globalimpactstudy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/02/ipailit review1008.pdf. Sharma,C.,SharmaSarita,&Subhedar,U.(2008).PuttingICTsintheHandsoftheWomenofKanpurandthe ChikanEmbroideryWorkersofLucknow.InformationTechnologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(2),6. Sheppard,K.(2001).TheRemoteCommunityServiceTelecentresofNewfoundlandandLabrador,Canada. Vancouver. Simpson,L.,Daws,L.,Pini,B.(2004).PublicInternetAccessRevisited.TelecommunicationsPolicy.28(34). Siochr,S..,&Girard,B.(2005).CommunityBasedNetworksandInnovativeTechnologies:NewModelstoServe andEmpowerthePoor:UNDP. Stewart,J.(2000).Cafematics:theCybercafeandtheCommunity.Edinburgh:UniversityofEdinburgh. Strover,S.,Chapman,G.,&Waters,J.(2004).BeyondCommunityNetworkingandCTCs:Access,Developmentand PublicPolicy.TelecommunicationsPolicy,28,21. Subramanian,S.(2006).ICTLearning:IsitMoreValuablefortheYoung?InternationalJournalofEducationand DevelopmentusingICT,2(1),11. Ulrich,P.(2004).PovertyReductionthroughAccesstoInformationandCommunicationTechnologiesinRural Areas.ElectronicJournalofInformationSystemsinDevelopingCountries,16(7). Wheeler,D.(2007).EmpowermentZones?Women,InternetCafes,andLifeTransformationsinEgypt.Information Technologies&InternationalDevelopment,4(2).

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

22

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

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

23

APPENDIXA
RecommendedReading:ResearchReviews Kuriyan,R.,&Toyama,K.(2007).ReviewofResearchonRuralPCKiosks.Availableat http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem/kiosks/. AsummaryofacomprehensivereviewofresearchonruralInternetkiosks. Latchem,C.,&Walker,D.(Eds)(2001).Perspectivesondistanceeducation:Telecenters:Casestudiesandkey issues.Vancouver:TheCommonwealthofLearning. Acollectionofaccountsoftelecenterprojectsaroundtheworld.Providesanearlyassessmentofthestate ofthetelecentermovement. Paul,J.,Katz,R.,&Gallagher,S.(2004).Lessonsfromthefield:Anoverviewofthecurrentusesofinformationand communicationtechnologiesfordevelopment.WorldResourcesInstitute. http://www.digitaldividend.org/pdf/lessons.pdf AnanalysisofdataonICTprojectsintheDigitalDividendsClearinghousedatabase.Onechapterfocuses ontelecenterprojects. Proenza,F.J.(2008).PublicAccesstoICTs:Whatdowewanttoknow?Whatdowealreadyknow?Wheredowe gofromhere?

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

24

APPENDIXB
EvaluationFrameworks: Ashraf,M.M.,Swatman,P.,&Hanisch,D.J.(2007).Someperspectivesonunderstandingtheadoptionand implementationofICTinterventionsindevelopingcountries.TheJournalofCommunityInformatics,3(4). Brophy,P.(2002).Theevaluationofpubliclibraryonlineservices:measuringimpact.InThePeoplesNetwork,2002 WorkshopSeriesIssuePapersno.1. http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//P/pn_impact_issue_paper_pdf_4218.pdf Eve,J.&Brophy,P.2001.TheValueandImpactofITAccessinPublicLibraries:FinalReport.Libraryand InformationCommissionResearchReport102.http://www.cerlim.ac.uk/projects/vital/ Gomez,R.andReilly,K.(2002).Comparingapproaches:TelecentreevaluationexperiencesinAsiaandLatin America.InternationalInformation&LibraryReview,34,5778. Hudson,H.E.(2001).TheACACIAprogramme:DevelopingevaluationandLearningsystemsforAfrican Telecentres.InD.WalkerandC.Latchem(Eds.),Perspectivesondistanceeducation:Telecenters:Casestudiesand keyissuespp.159168.Vancouver: RothenbergAalami,J.&Pal,J.(2005).RuralTelecenterImpactAssessmentsandthePoliticalEconomyofICTof Development(ICT4D).BerkeleyRoundtableontheInternationalEconomyPaper164. http://repositories.cdlib.org/brie/BRIEWP164 Rutkauskiene,U.(2008).Impactmeasuresforpublicaccesscomputinginpubliclibraries.VilniusUniversity. Whyte,A.(1998)TelecenterresearchframeworkforAcacia.http://www.idrc.ca/acacia/ev101972011 DO_TOPIC.html Whyte,A.(2000).AssessingCommunityTelecentres:GuidelinesforResearchers.Availablefrom http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev94152011DO_TOPIC.html

CISLiteratureReviewontheImpactofPublicAccesstoICT

25