Debretsion Paper

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF USERS OF COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ICT ON POVERTY IN ETHIOPIA:

A QUALITATIVE STUDY
by
Debretsion Gebremichael

JELENA VUCETIC, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
JOSE M. NIEVES, PhD, Committee Member
CYNTHIA CALONGNE, PhD, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
March 2011

UMI Number: 3445224

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3445224
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Debretsion Gebremichael, 2011

Abstract
The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as
a development tool have raised divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.
The purpose of this qualitative multiple-case study was to explore the role ICT plays in
addressing poverty in the context of the impact of community ICT centers on the user
community. Serving as the theoretical framework for the study were the input-process-
output contingency model of R. Benbunan-Fich, S. R. Hiltz, and L. Harasim (2005); the
innovation diffusion theory of E. M. Rogers (1983); the integral and systematic view of
ICT developed by R. Heeks (2002); and ICT and development of M. Torero and J. von
Braun (2006). In addition, the maximum variation strategy was used to select five
community ICT centers. Qualitative data were collected from focus group discussions,
interviews, observations, and documents to answer three research questions related to the
perception of users on the community ICT centers. Constant comparative analysis was
used to analyze individual cases, and cross case analysis was conducted. The findings
suggest that each community ICT center has demonstrated the benefits of using the center
and these benefits have an influence on the daily life of the users. However, the benefits
for individual centers were influenced by factors that were unique to each of the centers.
Insights from the study have important implications on effective utilization of community
ICT centers in addressing poverty. It is imperative to link community ICT centers with
the development program of the community to effectively use ICT to alleviate poverty.

iii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my fallen heroes of the war to topple
the military regime of Ethiopia who are my role models I can aspire to attain the level of
commitment I needed to continue my studies. They were sources of a constant
encouragement and inspiration to me as they posses abundant supply of commitment and
sense of fulfilling.
To my daughters, Rahwa and Retie who supported me in my entire journey.
Thank you for understanding the situation I was in and for possessing an unending
patience and support. To all other family members and friends who encouraged and
provided me unlimited support. I appreciate and give value to your backing.

iv
Acknowledgments
There are so many to acknowledge and it should be noted up front that these
acknowledgments are not made in any order of significance. All who are recognized here,
and those whom I inadvertently forget to acknowledge, made their valuable contributions
to me as I made my journey through this process. To each and every one of you I shall
always be sincerely grateful.
I want to extend my gratitude to my faculty mentor and chair, Dr. Jelena Vucetic,
for inspiring me with her concerns, timely guidance, and expertise. I felt privileged to
have been mentored by Dr. Jelena who made this dissertation a truly wonderful journey
and experience. I also want to thank my committee members Dr. Cynthia Calongne and
Dr. Jose M. Nieves for their contributions of knowledge and experience.
I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Ato Teferra Waluwa for
encouraging me to continue my studies and providing support when I needed it. I would
like to thank Mr. Bobak for encouraging and supporting my interest to study. Ato
Tessema Geda, deserve special thanks for all the support you extended during my studies
and most of all volunteered to facilitate the field visit and data collection.
Last, but not least, I would like to express my appreciation to the management and
all research participants of the five community ICT centers where this study was
conducted, I acknowledge your contributions to this study. I admire your interest and
passion for the development of ICT. I gratefully acknowledge and appreciate your
encouragement and cooperation with this research.

v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Rationale 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 7
Assumptions and Limitations 10
Conceptual Framework 10
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Introduction to ICT and Development 13
Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction 15
Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty 22
Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty 28
Telecentre Models in Africa 35
Theoretical Framework for Telecenters 36

vi
Impact Assessment of Telecenters 39
Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters 45
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 49
Research Design 50
Sample 56
Setting 57
Instrumentation 57
Data Collection 58
Data Analysis 62
Validity and Reliability 67
Ethical Considerations 69
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 71
Introduction 71
Overview of the ICT Community Centers 72
Sources of Qualitative Data and Demographic Data of Research Participants 76
Data Analysis and Interpretation 81
Findings 87
Research Question 1 88
Themes 89
Economic Benefits 91
Educational Benefits 99
Health Benefits 109
General Benefit of the Community ICT Centers 117

vii
Common Benefits Perceived by Individuals 125
Difference Between Individuals Perceptions 145
Cross Case Analysis 147
Summary of the Findings 153
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 157
Introduction 157
Summary 158
Findings and Related Conclusions 159
Summary of Thematic Groups 161
Conclusions 166
Implications of the Research Findings 168
Recommendations for Further Study 169
Reflections of the Researcher 170
REFERENCES 173
APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH 187
APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 188
APPENDIX C. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (AMHARIC
VERSION) 189
APPENDIX D. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT 190
APPENDIX E. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT CENTER 193
APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 197

viii
APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 199
APPENDIX H. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS AND USAGE
CHARACTERISICS 202
APPENDIX I. EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTS 206
APPENDIX J. EXCERPTS OF QDA MINER 3.2 CODING 210
APPENDIX K. RESULT OF AUTO-CODING BY WORDSTAT 6.1 214
APPENDIX L. FREQUENCY COUNTS FOR SUBCATEGORIES 215
APPENDIX M. RESPONSE ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS 217
APPENDIX N. RESPONSE ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS 218
APPENDIX O. RESPONSE ON HEALTH BENEFITS 219
APPENDIX P. RESPONSE ON GENERAL BENEFITS 220
APPENDIX Q. RESPONSE ON UNCOMMON BENEFITS 221

ix
List of Tables
Table 1. ICT Performance Measures 44
Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy 50
Table 3. Relationship of Research, Focus Group, and Interview Questions 82
Table 4. Initial Manual Codes Developed and Used by QDA Miner 3.2 Qualitative
Analysis Software 83
Table 5. Final Codes After Combination and Refinement of Manual and Auto-coding 85
Table 6. Frequency Counts for Categories 86
Table 7. Frequency Counts for Subcategories 126
Table H-1. Objectives of the Five Community ICT Centers 202
Table H-2. Services Offered and Number of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203
Table H-3. Demography of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203
Table H-4. No. of User and Non-User Research Participants 204
Table H-5. Educational Background of Participants 204
Table Q-1. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Economic Benefits
221
Table Q-2. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Educational
Benefits 221
Table Q-3. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Health Benefits
221
Table Q-4. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon General Benefits
222

x
List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 11
Figure 2. Heekss integral and systematic view of ICT. 17
Figure 3. Torero and von Brauns ICT and development: A conceptual base. 18
Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. 20
Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. 24
Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid. 41
Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. 55
Figure 8. Explanatory data display. 56
Figure 9. Template for coding study of ICT community centers (CITC). 64
Figure 10. Sample descriptive data display. 65
Figure 11. Age of interviewed participants of the study. 77
Figure 12. Frequency distribution of gender. 78
Figure 13. Educational background of participants. 79
Figure 14. Work status of participants. 80
Figure 15. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 89
Figure 16. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of LA community ICT center. 91
Figure 17. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of KY community ICT center 94
Figure 18. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of DH community ICT center. 95
Figure 19. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of TK community ICT center. 97
Figure 20. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of YY community ICT center. 98
Figure 21. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of LA community ICT center.
100

xi
Figure 22. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of KY community ICT center.
102
Figure 23. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of DH community ICT center.
104
Figure 24. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of TK community ICT center.
106
Figure 25. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of YY community ICT center.
108
Figure 26. Analysis of responses to health benefits of LA community ICT center. 110
Figure 27. Analysis of responses to health benefits of KY community ICT center. 111
Figure 28. Analysis of responses to health benefits of DH community ICT center. 113
Figure 29. Analysis of responses to health benefits of TK community ICT center. 115
Figure 30. Analysis of responses to health benefits of YY community ICT center. 116
Figure 31. Analysis of responses to general benefits of LA community ICT center. 118
Figure 32. Analysis of responses to general benefits of KY community ICT center. 120
Figure 33. Analysis of responses to general benefits of DH community ICT center. 121
Figure 34. Analysis of responses to general benefits of TK community ICT center. 123
Figure 35. Analysis of responses to general benefits of YY community ICT center. 124
Figure 36. Analysis of responses against common economic benefits. 127
Figure 37. Analysis of responses against common educational benefits. 129
Figure 38. Analysis of responses against common health benefits. 130
Figure 39. Analysis of responses against common general benefit. 131
Figure 40. Aggregated response of important services. 133
Figure 41. Response of important services against community ICT centers. 134
Figure 42. Aggregated response of second important services. 135
Figure 43. Response of second important service by community ICT centers. 136

xii
Figure 44. Aggregated response of most valued IT. 137
Figure 45. Response of most valued IT against community ICT centers. 138
Figure 46. Aggregated response of second important IT. 139
Figure 47. Response of the second important IT against community ICT centers. 139
Figure 48. Aggregated response of less important services. 140
Figure 49. Response of less important service by community ICT centers 141
Figure 50. Aggregated response of less important IT. 142
Figure 51. Response of less important IT by community ICT centers. 143
Figure 52. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on economic benefits. 148
Figure 53. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on educational benefits. 149
Figure 54. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on health benefits. 151
Figure 55. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on general benefits. 152
Figure 56. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 161
Figure H-1. Educational background of participants. 205

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Information and communication technology (ICT) was a basis for globalization
and now is one of the features or a prerequisite for development. The progress a country
registers depends on how much the socio-economic development is assisted by ICT. ICT
diffusion, development and sell are a measure of the development level of a nation. For
countries like Ethiopia, who are left behind in the global development, ICT, in addition,
is a weapon by which they can narrow the digital divide and thereby the development gap
between the developed and the developing countries.
Several researches have been conducted to understand the relation between ICT
and poverty. Although agreements are reached on the importance of ICT to development,
there are divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.
One of the common denominators observed in the literature is that in some aspect
of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed
areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of
economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor, Scott, & Woolnough,
2005). The World Bank (2000b) declared that information and communication
technologies hold the promise of enormous positive influence on countries' economic and
social development.
Effectiveness of ICT on Poverty

2

But the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to the
other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing opinion
camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that
claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction (p. 82). Bedi (1999) added to this
view, expressed differently as, The role and impact of these technologies are still
obscure (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen lies in between the previous two
views.
When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty
alleviation mentions Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income
inequality if conditions are not right. Alampay (2006), on the other hand, grouped the
views on the role of ICT in addressing poverty into three: optimist, pessimist, and
middle-ground.
This research, therefore, explores the link between ICTs, and poverty in
developing countries. The primary focus of this research is on the exchange of
information in the rural areas which is instrumental in improving their lively hood. In
addition, examination of the current scenario is conducted to identify or develop ICT
based on reliability, affordability and effectiveness to the rural communities.
To limit the scope, the study is conducted in the context of usage of ICT
community centers in Ethiopia which could facilitate in addressing or settling the gap
observed.


3

Background of the Study
The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies
(ICT) as a development tool have raised various views. The role ICT plays in addressing
poverty varies from one literature to the other. In the preliminary literature review, at
least two broad different camps were observed: those who declare that ICT is the panacea
of poverty (Talero & Gaudette, 1995) and those that argue that ICT has no significant
role in addressing poverty (Rodgers as cited in Bedi, 1999). In fact, there are few who
also argue that ICT can even widen the gap of income inequality. Alampay (2006), on the
other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.
According to Talero and Gaudette (1995), the use of information technologies is
enhancing change in the development of economies and societies. On a more skeptical
note, Rodgers (as cited in Bedi, 1999) pointed out that access to the new technologies is a
function of the existing income, education, and wealth distributions. It is argued that
both, the inability to access due to limited education or inappropriate language skills and
the prevalence of inequalities in access will tend to exacerbate information gaps and thus
increase inter-personal and inter-regional income inequality in developing countries.
Haseloff (2005) also underlined that the availability of ICT does not necessarily
guarantee that people are benefiting from it, confirming Gursteins (2003) concept of
effective use.
The variety of views expressed suggests that the role played by information and
communication technologies is still inconclusive and that the discussion concerning it
suffers from a lack of adequate evidence and information. The result of this research will

4

lay a good ground for future research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT
plays in addressing poverty. In addition, the result is expected to support in designing and
promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation programs and may contribute in developing a
comprehensive perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
Statement of the Problem
Several research studies showed the existence of relationship of ICT,
development and poverty alleviation (Batchelor et al., 2005; Miller, 2006). The outcome
of the research undertaken however varies in describing the role of ICT in poverty
alleviation (Bedi, 1999; Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). Therefore,
further research on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could
facilitate in addressing or settling the gap observed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention will be considered as applied to
community ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user
community. The result is expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled
poverty alleviation programs and will contribute in developing a comprehensive
perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
The general objective of this research is to examine different ICTs deployed in
varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by
extension to other developing countries.


5

Rationale
Researches differ in the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation (Bedi, 1999;
Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). As a result, conducting further research
on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could facilitate in
addressing or settling the gap observed.
Other motivation for the study was that few years back the Government and the
World Bank have committed substantial amount of finance to develop ICT infrastructure
and applications to change the life of the poor. Public investment in ICT infrastructure
and services have increased substantially from a paltry US$29 million in 2002 to US$300
million in 2004 and US $1.5 billion in 2007-2008 (Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, 2009). Specific among the projects financed by government and World Bank
was the establishment of community ICT centers. Increases in investment have resulted
in improvements in ICT infrastructure but the provision of services introduced at the
community ICT centers have yet to be examined whether they benefit the community.
In addition, to countries like Ethiopia where more than 80% of the citizens are
rural habitants, exploring the relationship between ICT and poverty can bring a great
contribution in transforming the country (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
2008).
On the other hand, the findings of the study will lay a good ground for future
research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
By studying the various scenarios of the multiple-cases, developers and users of ICT can
explore for ways to maximize the benefit of ICT deployment. In addition, the result is

6

expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation
programs. Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive
perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
Research Questions
The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and
Schindlers (2003) hierarchy of questions.
Top Research Question: What is the relationship between ICT intervention and
poverty alleviation in the context of poor communities?
Sub-questions:
1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT
centers in addressing poverty?
2. Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most important in
addressing poverty?
3. What is the difference between individuals perception on the use and benefits
of community ICT centers in addressing poverty?
Answers to these research questions were not conducted on Ethiopian ICT
community centers prior to this study. Moreover, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) indicated that more convincing empirical evidence is required on
the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochr & Girard, 2005). More clarity concerning
which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how they were used is needed.
Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of poverty ICTs are capable of
reducing most is also necessary to know. Therefore, overall there is a lack of knowledge

7

on the role of ICT on poverty and in particular in the context of ICT community centers
in Ethiopia.
Significance of the Study
The study lays foundation for further research that will show the relationship of
ICT and poverty alleviation. By understanding the factors that influence the use of ICT,
models could be developed that assist for improving the deployment and the benefit of
ICT. This will contribute in maximizing the return of ICT investment on development.
Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive perspective on the
role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
In addition, by understanding the reasons and factors that determine the
effectiveness of ICT on development, stakeholders will improve the way ICT is
deployed. Although many models are proposed, there is no full agreement on the role of
ICT on development. With better depth of understanding the factors, existing models and
approaches could be refined or new approaches could also evolve that guide ICT
deployment. An immediate outcome of the study is the ability of stakeholders to
influence the effective deployment of ICT.
Definition of Terms
ICT. The term information and communication technology (ICT) has many
definitions and two of the closely similar definitions related to the purpose of the
literature review are that of Torero and von Braun (2006) and Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1998) member countries.

8

Torero and von Braun (2006) defined ICT to encompass both equipment and
services that facilitate the electronic capture, processing, display, and transmission of
information. Broadly this includes the computing industry, electronic data processing
and display, telecommunication and related services, and audiovisual equipment and
services (p. 3). Related to the definition of Torero and von Brauns, in 1998, OECD
member countries agreed to define the ICT sector as a combination of manufacturing
and services industries that capture, transmit and display data and information
electronically (p. 19). In addition, in 2001, the Commission of the European
Communities stated that ICTs denote a wide range of services, applications, and
technologies, using various types of equipment and software, often running over telecom
networks (p. 3).
The definitions make a useful distinction between the equipment or
manufacturing and service dimensions of the ICT which clears way for understanding the
scope and breadth of ICT.
Poverty. Definition of poverty was developed by development economist Sen
(1999) and institutions such as the World Bank (2000b) and the Commission of the
European Communities (2001). Absolute poverty, as reflected by Wolfensohn and
Bourguignon (2004), is seen as the inability to achieve basic standards in nutrition,
health, education, the environment, and a voice in the decisions affecting poor peoples
lives (p. 8). Any individual who earns less than 1.25 USD/day is defined to be under
absolute poverty. Globally, the World Bank and the UN has developed a plan that will be
executed by countries to cut in half the number of poor people by 2015 (UNDP, n.d.). To

9

reach that goal, several development programs on agriculture, health, education, etc has
been outlined which will affect income and the standard of living of the poor. ICT is one
of the technologies that have a contribution in this endeavor.
Poverty, as discussed by Kelles- Viitanen (2003), is a highly complex socioeconomic
problem that should be tackled concurrently in various aspects. As a result, addressing
poverty requires the synergy of combined efforts that produces the most sustainable
results.
Community ICT center/Telecenter. There are several definitions of telecenter, two
among them are: one is the definition specified by Kanfi and Tulus (1998) of
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) as a site with facilities to provide
diverse information-based goods and services, and in addition supports social or local
economic development. The second definition is the one given by Doshi and Gollakota
(n.d.), who underlined that the basic element of a telecenter is a place that houses one or
more computers with internet access, printer and often has webcam.
According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects are identified.
The first type of telecenter initiative includes smal1 phone shops which have covered
parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The second type of telecenter initiative offers
greater scope to support socio-economic development by providing a wide variety of
public and private information-based goods and services to rural communities. These
telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters) are designed to offer
communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related subjects, and to serve as
local hubs for government information and services and for commercial activity.

10

Assumptions and Limitations
One of the limitations expected is that of data collection which will be confined to
the individuals and community ICT centers identified in the study. Second major
limitation might be due to some perception, the respondents might not have provided the
correct information which would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings.
Among the various limitations that are perceived in the study, the participants biased
response might be the most serious one.
Conceptual Framework
The research is an exploratory study that employs a qualitative multiple-case
study approach. The main area of focus will be on the effectiveness of using information
and communication technology in helping poor communities in getting information that
improves their standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis
will be the relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. As a result the key
variable under investigation is the user perceived benefits of using ICT.
The conceptual Framework developed to comprehend the scenario is depicted on
Figure 1. This conceptual framework was developed as a synthesis of existing
frameworks from literature. Community ICT centers are designed to provide technology-
based services to communities that did not have an opportunity to access computer
technology. As shown in Figure 1, the ICT community centers could not exist without
appropriate ICT policy, investment, and the necessary support for the operation of the
centers. Users and communities will benefit out of the center by accessing the services of
the community ICT center to achieve personal and business goals. Since the outcomes of

11

all these issues are contingent upon various contextual and environmental factors, aspects
of the input-process-output contingency model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005) served as the
theoretical framework for the study.

Factors Activities Outcomes

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Effectiveness of information and communication
technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

The focus of the case study was on 5 community ICT centers located in several
parts of Ethiopia that have been operational for at least a year. Users of the ICT
community centers were interviewed on the benefits they got after the establishment of
the centers. Focus of the benefit was on utilizing the ICT centers for accessing
information that has brought benefit to the community. This was the bases for analyzing
whether ICT can support communities in improving their standard of living.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2 provides a review of related literature, beginning with literatures related
to ICT, development, and poverty. The review continues with literatures that discuss the
impact of telecenter as related to community development. It concludes with an
assessment of the current literature. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology chosen
ICT Policy
ICT investment
o Community
ICT centers
ICT support
Increased
economic
activity
o Marketing
informatio
n
Services
Economic
benefit
Social benefits
o Benefits to
communit
y

12

to answer the research questions, a justification for employing multiple-case qualitative
methodology, the purposeful sampling plan, plans for data collection, analysis, and
reporting, and concerns with reliability and validity. Chapter 4 presents the data collected
from participants in the study and analysis of the data in light of the research questions.
Chapter 5 briefly summarizes the purpose of the study, the research methodology, the key
findings, and provides conclusions from the analyzed data found in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
also contains recommendations for further research.

13

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to ICT and Development
The potential and deployment of information technology as a development tool
could be taken as a universally accepted view. The 2001 United Nation's Human
Development Report underscored that technological innovation is essential for achieving
the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, 2001) and recognized ICT as a technology
that can play a key role in development. In addition, the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS, 2004) underscored the role of ICT in supporting rural
development by helping to participate in global markets; transform the provision of basic
services; and increase opportunities for local development. Furthermore, Heeks (1999)
underlined that hundreds of billions of dollars per year are spent on ICTs, reflecting a
powerful global belief in the transformatory potential of these new technologies.
According to Best and Maier (2007), there is a great promise on the effects of
ICTs on development and poverty reduction in the global South. In addition, Pade,
Mallinson, and Lannon (2005) stressed that ICTs play a significant role in social and
economic development in developing countries. Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009)
noted that ICTs are widely acknowledged as important resources for socioeconomic
advancement in both developed and developing countries.
The 2002 report of Department for International Development (DFID) discussed
the roles of ICTs in regards to achieving the MDGs of eradicating extreme poverty and

14

hunger, and noted that ICT increases access to market information and lower transaction
costs for poor farmers and traders and enhance ability of developing countries to
participate in the global economy. In addition, the World Bank (2003) underscored that
ICTs can help to alleviate poverty by: stimulating macroeconomic growth; making
markets more efficient; improving social inclusion; and facilitating political involvement.
However, according to Franklin (2006), although there is a growing body of
evidence linking investment in ICTs to economic growth, but little convincing evidence
on the links to pro-poor growth. As a result several studies have been conducted to
examine the link between ICT and poverty. As stated by Munyua (2000), some studies
have focused on information systems serving rural communities on specific sectors such
as agriculture or health, instead of covering the rural community needs in a holistic
manner.
Several studies showed that the effects of ICT on poverty are treated in various
forms from conceptual to micro investigation of the issue. It was found that poverty is a
social phenomenon with a multitude of dimensions and likewise the publications
examined the effects of ICT on poverty from various facets. Just as poverty had several
manifestations, so was the mix of researches undertaken in studying the effect of ICT on
poverty.


15

Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction
The relationship of ICT and poverty could be expressed in various ways. But the
most important of all is a relationship conceptualized by theory, model or framework.
This provides a coherent understanding of the relationship that exists. E. M. Rogers
(1983) and Harris (2002) have contributed on conceptual researches on the effect of ICT
on poverty. In particular, E. M. Rogers (1983) developed the base for innovation
diffusion theory. The theory was applicable in diverse environments of innovations that
also include the use of ICTs. It is therefore imperative in understanding the spread and
use of ICTs in communities. Harris, on the other hand, developed a model that
demonstrate the relationship between ICTs and development which addressed the digital
divide in greater depth. This model was developed to facilitate implementation targeting
community development that empowered the community to develop their own agenda for
ICT-assisted development before deploying technology.
As the relationship of ICT, development, and poverty was studied by researchers
from several disciplines, they utilized various conceptual frameworks, approaches and
models to study the subject matter. Few among them are socio-technical (Walsham,
1997); rural livelihoods framework (Ellis, 2000); design-reality gap (Heeks, 2003);
capability approach (Alampay, 2006; Sen, 1999); the knowledge and information systems
perspective (Engels, 1997); the sustainable livelihood framework (DFID, 2001); social
construction of technology (SCOT) and actor-network theory (Kline & Pinch, 1990); and
diffusion theory (Doshi & Gollakota, n.d.; E. M. Rogers, 1983).

16

However, in this section, two conceptual models are considered and discussed.
One is the model developed by Heeks (2002) and the second is model developed by
Torero and von Braun (2006).
Heeks (1999) conducted research which provides a theoretical framework for
empirical studies in this area. He underlined the role of ICT as communication
technology to be more pronounced than information processing or production
technology. Further, Heeks (2002) developed an integral and systemic model of ICTs to
facilitate a contextual view of technology in order to understand it. The conceptual model
of Heeks (2002) is an information-centered approach with ICTs sitting alongside other
information-handling technologies, as an integral part of an overall factoral and
institutional environment that will significantly shape ICT-related impacts. This model is
depicted on Figure 2.


17

Figure 2. Heekss integral and systematic view of ICT. From i-development not e-
development: special issue on ICTs and development, by R. Heeks, 2002, Journal of
International Development, 14(1), 111. Copyright 2002 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Reprinted with permission.

On the other hand, Torero and von Brauns (2006) framework of ICT for poverty
alleviation directly addressed poverty and ICT. Torero and von Brauns broad conceptual
framework examines the driving forces affecting the supply and demand for ICT. It also
identifies economic and social benefits in general and poverty outcomes in particular, as
summarized in the following simplified chart (Figure 3).

18

Figure 3. Torero and von Brauns ICT and development: A conceptual base.
From Information and Communication Technologies for Development and Poverty
Reduction. The Potential of Telecommunications, by M. Torero & J. von Braun (2006).
Reprinted with permission.

In conclusion, both models perceive ICT beyond technology in the context of
broad factors. This view has strong ground as the development of ICT arguably has to
encompass broad arrays of factors beyond technology. It is noted that most of the factors
listed by Torero and von Brauns (2006) are incorporated in Heekss (2002) model but
not vice versa. The institutional factors of Heekss are not part of the broad context of
Torero and von Braun. Whereas Heekss put the factors as influencing, Torero and von
Brauns define them as driving forces. Hence, both models have differences in what the
factors are and their role in ICT for poverty.
According to Kuriyan, Ray, and Toyama (2008), the model for ICTs for
development (ICT4D) is based on increasing the well-being of the poor through market-
based solutions, and by using low-cost but advanced technologies. Recognizing the role

19

of ICT for development, Harris (2002), however, argued that for ICT to contribute in
poverty alleviation effort, the application of ICTs should always begin with a
development strategy. Subsequently, an information plan can be articulated that will be
followed by a technology plan. As noted by Labelle (2005), encouraging public policies
are necessary to make technologies tools for progress, but also make them socially
inclusive. Furthermore, UNDP has indicated that ICT is most effective when embedded
with already effective strategies for poverty reduction (Siochr & Girard, 2005). This
approach is depicted on Figure 4.


20

Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. From A
Framework for Poverty Alleviation With ICTs, by R. Harris, 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.communities.org.ru/ci-text/harris.doc

21

The approach followed by Harris (2002) could be taken as an approach that
operationalizes the model discussed earlier. In the model, ICT development was viewed
in the perspective of broad contextual factors for its implementation and Harris is
prescribing the need of development strategy before the information plan which in effect
calls for the need of addressing the contextual factors for implementing ICT.
Furthermore, Harris (2002) declared that according to the International Labor
Union (ILO), although investments in ICT are not sufficient cause for development, ICTs
can have a significant effect on socio-economic development. Martin and McKeown as
quoted by Harris (2002) suggest that the use of ICT is not adequate to address problems
of rural areas without an integrated rural development. It is noted that unless there is
minimal infrastructural development in at least transport, health, and education, it is
improbable that investments from ICT alone will change rural life. Similarly, Bedi (1999)
suggested that a minimum base of ICT penetration was required in order for these
technologies to influence and show impact on growth.
According to Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.), information gaps are one of the
problems associated with rural poverty. Jacobs and Herselman (2006), on the other hand,
underlined that information is critical to development; thus ICTs as tools of exchanging
information are not simply a connection between people, but a linking bridge in the chain
of the development process itself. Specifically, it has been argued that ICTs are used to
reduce poverty (Duncombe, 2001), and open window of opportunities for economic
development (World Bank, 1998). Access to information provides people with the

22

opportunity to support production, access markets, and engage in communication with
other people (Ellis, 2000).
Furthermore, Wims and Lawler (2007) stated that ICT-enabled access to
information can empower the poor as the hardest obstacle to sustainable development is
information poverty. According to Abraham (2007), ICTs can help in improving
information flows, reducing search costs and generally contributing to market efficiency.
In addition, Waverman, Meschi, and Fuss (n.d.) comprehensively examined the impact of
mobile telephony on economic growth in Africa. They found that usage of mobile
telephony has an encouraging result and impact on economic growth. Thus, Jacobs and
Herselman (2006) concluded that ICT can contribute to development process by
improving efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. However, Beardon (2005) argued that the
impact of ICT-based projects has generally fallen well below the optimistic expectations.
From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that for ICT to have effect on
development some conditions have to be satisfied. The first one is the recognition of ICT
development as part and parcel of broad development strategy. Hence, the need of
integrating ICT in the development strategy is essential. The second issue for ICT
development is the requirement of minimum development bases on infrastructure and
education. Unless these two factors are considered and put into effect, ICT deployment
might end up in failure.
Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty
Research evidence indicates that public access to ICT use has led to increase in IT
knowledge and aspirations (Bailey, 2009; Best, Kolko, Thakur, & Aitieva, 2007;

23

Fedotova, 2008; Lengyel, Eranusz, Fleki, Lrincz, & Sikls, 2006; Mercer, 2006). In
addition, Kumar and Best (2006) have found that the availability of e-government
services at public access facilities leads to lower levels of corruption in service delivery.
While some researchers have found limited evidence of employment-related
benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008; Parkinson &
Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area. Fedotova (2008) found that
participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT skills they had acquired
would help in their job search, and some felt it would help them to gain a promotion.
Moreover, Best et al. (2007) reported that eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of
the skills they gained at the computer center.
Overall, Alampay (2006) noted that there are disagreements on whether ICTs are
crucial to development. Three different views categorized as optimist, pessimist, and
middle-ground have emerged in the research conducted on the effects of ICT on poverty.
Optimists are those who uphold the view that access and use of ICTs facilitates
sustainable development (McNamara, 2000).
On the other hand, an opposing view underlines that ICT can and will increase the
current inequalities (Nulens, 2000). Some of the international development community
argues that African governments should focus on building schools, delivering basic
health care, electricity and clean water rather than on the building of costly ICT
infrastructure with their limited financial resources (Mahan & Misnikov, 2004;
Ngwenyama, Andoh-Baidoo, Bollou, & Morawczynski, 2006).

24

The view from the middle-ground considers that if ICTs are applied appropriately,
it can play a role in the development of a nation (Soeftestad & Sein, 2003). Furthermore,
there is anecdotal evidence that indicate access to ICT can have a significant effect on
changing the standard of life of the rural poor.
Heeks (2002) further provided a useful framework for comparing different views
about the expected impacts of ICTs in development, which is reproduced in Figure 5.

Optimism (It will be good.)

Neutrality (It will be good
and bad.)

Pessimism (It will be bad.)

Technological Contingency Social Determinism
Determinism (It depends) (People cause)
(Computers cause)

Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. From
i-development not e-development: special issue on ICTs and development, by R.
Heeks, 2002, Journal of International Development, 14(1), 111. Copyright 2002 John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Reprinted with permission.

Position A on Heekss (2002) framework, optimistic technological determinism,
is the view that Heeks recognized as characterizing most development organizations.
Heeks advocates is B, which views the types of impacts associated with technological
change as both good and bad, and which sees society rather than technological factors as
primary determinants of outcomes.
According to Alampay (2006) more field study is necessary to help determine the
validity of pessimistic, optimistic, or middle ground arguments. Although more cases are
being studied, empirical evidence on the impact of such interventions is very limited in
A
B


25

developing countries (Bedi 1999; OFarrell, Norrish, & Scott, n.d.). According to Heeks
(1999), there are questions on the real contribution of ICTs on national development.
Hence, more research is needed to determine the users of ICT and the level of benefit
distribution (Bedi, 1999). Furthermore, UNDP indicated that more convincing empirical
evidence is required on the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochr & Girard, 2005).
More clarity concerning which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how
they were used is needed. Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of
poverty ICTs are capable of reducing most is also necessary to know.
One of the common denominator observed in the literatures is that in some aspect
of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed
areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of
economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, Kelles-Viitanen (2003) tabled fundamental questions on the link
between ICT, development, and poverty alleviation. She argued whether economic
growth together with the ICTs alone will reduce poverty. She further declared that
economic growth is necessary but not sufficient factor to poverty reduction. She went
further to ask,
If poor people do not have access to basic education, how will they take
advantage of employment and income opportunities created by economic growth?
If there is discrimination and social exclusion, how will the discriminated and
excluded people take advantage of the expanded economic activities and share the
benefits of the economic growth? (p. 7)
However, the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to
the other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing opinion
camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that

26

claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction (p. 82). Bedi (1999) also added to
this view, expressed differently as, The role and impact of these technologies are still
obscure (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen which lies in between the
previous two adds other perspective to the role of ICT on poverty. Alampay (2006), on
the other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.
Similarly, Heeks (2002), although from different perspective, categorized three different
positions regarding the role of ICT.
When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty
alleviation cited Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income
inequality if conditions are not right. Moreover, E. M. Rogers (1995) underscored that
researches undertaken in developing countries has indicated that the diffusion of
innovations has contributed in widening the socioeconomic gap among the higher and
lower strata of a community.
As a result, an observation has been made on the different positions and views of
scholars in the role ICT can have on poverty alleviation. There are some authors who
believe ICT can address poverty. Torero and von Brauns (2006) book essentially
addresses the linkage between ICT and poverty alleviation. Some case studies done in
Africa were also in support to this side. Opiyo and KAkumu (2006) argued that ICT can
help informal sector to develop. Bjrhov (2006) supplemented this view by referring to
experience of Tanzania and Kenya that shows mobile opening up business that can
promote their standard of living.

27

There are now considerable evidences that telecommunications contributes to
socioeconomic development (Conradie & Jacobs, 2003; Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Mncube,
2003); studies have shown that access to information through telecommunications can
facilitate many development activities including agriculture, commerce, tourism,
education, health care and social services (Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Sebusang & Masupe,
2003). Ngwenyama et al. (2006) showed that complementary investments in ICT, health
and education can significantly increase development.
Based on the analysis of researches addressed in this research, an observation was
also noted that the researches on the effects of IT on poverty has several characteristics
(a) researchers have diversified disciplines (b) poverty is a multi-dimensional
phenomenon illustrated in various forms; so is the researches; (c) the level of analysis
was diversified ranging from conceptual to micro level of investigation; and (d) the
researches conducted employed diversified approaches and methods to study poverty. In
conclusion, analyses suggest that the types of researches conducted on the effect of IT on
poverty reflect the interdisciplinary nature of research, drawing upon a number of fields
and researchers.
In summary, in the literature review conducted there is a consensus on many areas
of ICTs role in development; however, the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation
could be taken as unsettled issue. As noted by Abraham (2007), there is considerable
speculation about the correlation between investments in telecommunications and
economic development. Yet, there has been very little research on whether there is a
connection between ICTs and economic growth. In addition, Ramirez and Richardson

28

(2005) asserted that the potential benefits that telecommunication services bring to rural
and remote communities are generally perceived as beneficial though their actual impact
is difficult to ascertain. In relation to this, Gurstein (2003) came with a notion of effective
use to address the extent to which people have access to the infrastructure and can put it
to work in practical ways.
Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009) stressed that despite the fairly long history
of the deployment of public access ICTs around the world, there is still no definitive
word on the utility of this approach. H. Rogers (2007) put this point as, Projects that
promote ICTs for poverty alleviation are mostly innovations that are in the early stages
(p. 31), which confirms that there is no consensus. Therefore, further research on this
issue could facilitate in addressing the gap observed.
Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty
According to a UNDP report developed by Siochr and Girard (2005), the
majority of poor across the globe are still beyond affordable reach of ICTs. Furthermore,
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU, 2009) identified lack of connectivity
and the cost of access as obstacles to access to information for the developing world. To
address these challenges and assist developing countries bridge the digital divide, ITU
underlined the need of creating public access centers such as telecenters.
ICT community centers, usually called telecenters, are mushrooming in
developing countries with the aim of bringing the benefits of ICT to the rural poor
(Roman, 2003). Since different types of telecenters are being implemented around the
world, there are various synonyms for 'telecenters'. Some examples are telecottages,

29

teleports, Information Kiosks, Information Centres, Multipurpose Community
Telecenters (MCTs), infocommues, Community Technology Centres (CTC), etc. Due to
this situation, there is not a universally accepted definition for 'telecenters' and no single
definition is claimed to be completely accurate. However, a general concept or broad
working definition of 'telecenters' is attempted by different groups.
Telecenter is defined as a community centre that offers shared access to ICTs for
the purpose of community level development and poverty reduction (Gomez & Martinez,
2001; UNDP, 2007); and as public places where community members can access a
variety of ICTs and related services (Colle & Roman, 2002; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008;
Proenza, n.d.).
According to Gomez, Hunt, and Lamoureux (1999), telecenters around the world
share a common characteristic; they are recognized as centers used for public ICT access
to achieve several development purposes. Telecenters were generally agreed to be tools
and not ends in themselves. As described by the World Bank (2000a), the telecenter is a
promising new model for deployment of service to communities. The view of the World
Bank is shared by many other researchers, including Harris (2004) and Fuchs (1997).
When applying ICTs for development, Harris emphasized the importance to target
disadvantaged and marginalized groups. In addition, Fuchs proposed telecenters as a
method of access to ICTs and as a solution to access difficulties in rural areas and in
regions mainly occupied by the poor.
Telecenters provide an alternative to the model of one-to-one individual access to
a computer that predominates in the developed world. According to Jensen and

30

Esterhuysen (2001), to meet the challenges caused by low penetration rates of new
information technology, public access to communication and information services are
being established through public and private programs across the developing nations. As
a result, telecenters are quickly growing as a means of providing universal access in
places where universal household ownership of a computer and telephone line is clearly
unrealistic (Fuchs, 1997; IDRC, 1999; Proenza, Bastidas-Buch, & Montero, 2001).
Parkinson and Lauzon (2008) noted that globally telecenters have become an accepted
model for creating greater and more equitable access to ICTs, with the understanding that
such access will in turn lead to development.
According to Heeks (2008), given that poverty concentrates in rural areas, the
model that fell into everyones lap was the rural telecenter. Toyama et al. (2005) also
added that rural PC kiosks are one manifestation of various attempts to apply ICT for
socio-economic development. Furthermore, Soriano (2007) expressed telecenters as
catalysts for information and knowledge that can create opportunities and choices for
rural communities.
As explained by Whyte (2000) telecenters are looked at as fast and cost effective
ways to provide marginalized communities with access to telecommunications and
information resources. Telecenters are also a viable approach to reducing poverty,
ranging from job creation, providing ICT skills, providing community with access to
information on social, educational, medical and other programs (Jensen & Esterhuysen,
2001). However, Pott (2003) argued that in order to contribute to development, the

31

creation of telecenters had to be connected to the existing community organizations and
initiatives.
Kumar (2004) underscored that stemming from a movement in Europe in the
1980s; telecenters are now arguably the most common type of ICT4D project. According
to Etta and Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003), the telecenter idea was born in 1985 in Velmdalen,
a small farming village in Sweden. In the decade that followed, cybercafs and similar
Netsurfing locales proliferated everywhere imaginableranging from the Casa Del
Corrigedor in Puno, Peru, to the Phlegmatic Dog in Moscow (Malloy, 2005). Fillip and
Dennis (2007) noted that the increase of telecenter popularity has occurred as the use of
lCT as a development tool has increased acceptance by governments, the private sector,
and NGOs.
According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects can be
identified from the literature. The small phone shops which have a good coverage in
Africa, Asia and Latin America are the first type of telecenter projects. These centers
have been successful in becoming source of revenue by offering basic telephone services,
fax and Internet services. However, the majority of these types of telecenters are in the
main cities and towns of the developing world and there is usually no explicit
commitment to wider developmental goals.
The second type of telecenter initiative offers greater scope to support socio-
economic development by facilitating the provision of a wide variety of public and
private information-based goods and services to rural communities. As remarked by
Madon (2005), these telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters)

32

are designed to offer communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related
subjects, and to serve as local hubs for government information and services and for
commercial activity. In addition, Van Belle and Trusler (2006) defined multipurpose
community telecenters as centers established to support and aid a disadvantaged group.
Roman (2003) underscored that the basic objective of telecenter is to provide
demand-driven communication and information services for community development.
Moodley (2005) added that telecenters are usually designed to provide a combination of
ICT services, ranging from email to full Internet and World Wide Web connectivity.
Furthermore, Rajalekshmi (2007) stated that telecenters function as multipurpose
community ICT access centers by providing e-commerce, e-governance, and other ICT
services. James (2005) added that while facilities and usage vary across telecenters, all
reflect the intention to address the issues of access by providing technology, develop
human capacity and encourage social and economic development. According to Rao
(2008), telecenters have evolved dramatically over the years in providing services from
access to computers and basic ICTs to include a wide variety of communications, content
and community development services. Furthermore, Best and Kumar (2008) stated that
these centers provide shared public access to ICTs and services via computers and the
internet.
Zongo (2001) noted that telecommunication and information services at
telecenters aim at a range of developmental objectives. Whyte (2000) provided a detailed
explanation of telecenters as potentially including basic communication such as phone,
fax, e-mail, Internet access, etc.; public and quasi-public sector services such as tele-

33

medicine, distance education, e-government, etc.; and access to information on markets,
transportation, price, and much more. Furthermore, many supporters of the telecenter
movement classify the services provided by telecenters as a kind of community
development, and often refer to them as community telecenters (IDRC, 1999).
Rao (2008), on the other hand, outlined the main category of services provided by
telecenters as (a) providing access to communication facilities and IT equipment; (b)
providing training in use of communication facilities and IT equipment; and (c) providing
on-demand ICTs for development services.
As stated by Rajalekshmi (2007), multipurpose community telecenters (MCTs)
have drawn attention from development agencies and other actors in the development
community, as potential vehicles for providing several social and development services,
much more than expanding access to ICTs. As a result, Colle (2005) noted that among
the most prominent driving forces behind the spread of ICTs and telecenters are the
Millennium Development Goals.
In the developing countries these centers were quickly linked to economic and
social development efforts at community level. As a result, proponents of telecenters
argue that telecenters are vitally necessary if the poor and marginalized are not to be left
behind (Gomez & Martinez, 2001; UNDP, 2001). Furthermore, H. Rogers (2007) stated
that telecenters generally claim to deliver benefits in the areas of health, education,
enterprise development, and agricultural improvement. He further asserted that access to
the abundant information sources and exchanges that the Internet facilitates is said to
empower communities towards development activities that will lift them out of poverty.

34

As discussed by Ashraf, Swatman, and Hanisch (2008), a telecenter project in
Bangladesh indicates that through public access to ICTs, community members gained
knowledge on basic hygiene practices. Moreover, Best et al. (2007), in their evaluation of
the eCenter project in Kyrgyzstan, underscored that social and economic development
impacts have been observed primarily through provision of necessary business and
communication services. On another similar research, Soriano (2007) concluded the
study by indicating positive implications of telecenters on economic, social, and human
aspects of rural poverty.
Furthermore, the 1998 World Bank report underscored that a telecenter provides
access to the rural poor (p. 158). Moreover, the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (2007) stated that telecenters all have a common goal: to serve the
community and support local development.
ITUs World Telecommunications Development Report of 1998 stated that
telecenters could play an important role in national strategies for universal access in view
of the fact that full universal service (a phone in every home) is not a realistic goal for
developing countries.
To summarize, the role of telecenters on development, the European parliaments
document on developing countries and the ICT revolution (Pedrelli, 2001) stated that
Telecenters are today considered one of the most - successful means to promote
ICT diffusion in the developing countries. They increase the access of people to
ICT, particularly the poor and people living in remote rural areas. The telecenters
help local communities improve their business performance: they allow the local
enterprises to gain access to accurate market and pricing information. Through the
Internet and other information transmission systems they can become aware of
new market opportunities and also benefit from the training and access to the
knowledge network provided by the telecenters. Farmers can also access current

35

meteorological reports, information about the spread of animal and plant diseases,
pests and their control. (p.54)

Modley (2005) underscored that given the novelty of access to ICT and the
shortage of guidelines for establishing and operating community telecenters, many
research questions remain open as to how this type of innovation can bring equitable
access to information resources that will contribute to sustainable development among
the most disadvantaged sections of the population. As remarked by researchers (Dhingra
& Misra, 2005; Rangaswamy & Toyama, 2005), often, solutions are designed without
adequate consultation with the rural end-user, leading to a design-reality gap. However,
despite the attention, Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) underlined that much remains
unknown about these centers and rigorous studies that lead to generalisable conclusions
are scarce. In addition, research conducted by Toyama et al. (2005) are skeptical of the
long-term value of these centers.
Telecenter Models in Africa
Since the telecenter strategy was recognized by international development
institutions around the world in the middle of the 1990s, pilot telecenter projects have
been implemented in developing countries. According to Jensen and Esterhuysen (2001),
in the last few years, many telecenter projects have sprung up throughout Africa in an
effort to provide access to telephony and other ICTs to areas with the lowest access to
these systems. Whyte (2000) named four distinctive telecenter models in Africa: basic
telecenter, private telephone shops driven by smaller demand, cyber-cafes, and externally
funded larger community multipurpose centers. These models all aim at stimulating and

36

responding to the demand for information and communication services that provide
access to telephones, faxes, photocopying machines, email and Internet services in-order
to strengthen the personnel and professional needs of the community as well as for
community development.
Theoretical Framework for Telecenters
Rogerss Diffusion Theory
Roman (2003) argued that telecenter research spans different cross-linked
conceptual levels of analysis and cannot be entirely framed within the bounds of a single
theoretical perspective. However, diffusion theory provides a general framework to
identify relevant research areas that may integrate other theoretical perspectives.
Diffusion of innovations theory (E. M. Rogers, 1983) represents an attractive point of
departure for telecenter practitioners and researchers. Diffusion of Innovations is believed
to be an appropriate theoretical framework for telecenters for at least three reasons: (a)
the predictive potential of diffusion theory makes it important for telecenter planning and
design, (b) diffusion theory offers a favorable incentive to drive telecenter research which
can contribute to develop the theory, and (c) diffusion theory is versatile and flexible to
suit the needs of multidisciplinary inquiry (Roman, 2003).
As identified by Roman (2003), there are three aspects of diffusion theory that are
relevant to telecenter application: the perceived attributes of innovations, the
communication aspects of the diffusion process, and the consequences of innovation
adoption.

37

Perceived attributes of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the three most
essential attributes of innovations in telecenters are relative advantage, compatibility, and
complexity. While relative advantage indicates the costs and benefits associated with the
adoption of an innovation, compatibility shows the perceived match of the innovation
with the value system and social norms of the potential adopters, and complexity
demonstrates the perceived degree of difficulty of the innovations in their understanding
and use.
Communication of innovation. E. M. Rogers (2003) noted that communication
is the exchange of information by which new ideas are shared between individuals. As
underscored by Best and Kumar (2008), communication is the very essence of diffusion
of innovations (p. 13). Further, Best and Kumar noted that media and interpersonal
communication are the two most useful means by which ideas are communicated. Roman
(2003) suggested that while interpersonal communication is more important for the final
decision to adopt, mass media are best for conveying the value of innovations.
Furthermore, E. M. Rogers (2003) suggested that diffusion is associated with the
existing community networks and that the concept of homophily is very important in the
communication of new ideas. Homophily is similarity in socio-economic position,
educational levels, etc. among individuals. According to E. M. Rogers (2003), diffusion
most probably takes place more effectively in a community where individuals are similar
in their socio-economic status, educational levels, beliefs, etc.
Consequences of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the study of the
consequences of innovations is a theoretically less developed subject probably because it

38

is conceptually separated from the rest of diffusion theory. Also, the subject is more
unequivocally connected to evaluation concerns. E. M. Rogers (1983) stated that research
on innovation consequences is admittedly challenging. The theory demonstrated how the
socio-structural environment influences innovation diffusion and adoption. Diffusion of
innovations, especially in the context of developing countries, tends to widen the
socioeconomic gap between the higher and lower status segments of a social system (E.
M. Rogers, 1983).
As this research examines the effect of ICT on poverty in the context of ICT
community centers, the research will focus on the consequence of adoption of diffusion
theory.
According to Salvador, Sherry, and Urrutia (2005), Agar (as cited in Salvador et
al., 2005) discussed a networked approach in contrast to that of E. M. Rogers (as cited in
Salvador et al., 2005), in which adoption happens as a result of a network of associations
embedded in the daily life of the participants. In the E. M. Rogers model, which is
labeled as top-down-diffusion model by Salvador et al., the technology is diffused and
the perspective from the point of diffusion is assumed to be sufficient. As discussed by
Salvador et al., this assumption is, by definition, an outsider's view and the technology
is imbued with that view.
Theory of Communication Effects Gap
Roman (2003) underlined that the application of the theoretical body of the
communication effects gap to understand the impact of telecenter programs makes
particular sense; at least for two reasons. First, there is the concept of differential effects.

39

In many cases, the objective of international development programs--at least of more
people-oriented and grass-roots trends in development practice is to find ways to alleviate
poverty by making sure that people most in need of positive change are reached.
Therefore, many scholars study how to reach lower status groups, so that communication
programs mitigate the already wide knowledge and communication effects gaps existent
in developing countries. Second, the theory of communication effects gap has an
underlying normative and practical value. Although research in this area is prone to bring
about important policy implications, its supporting theoretical body may also help shape
communication strategies. In other words, Roman (2003) noted that communication
effects gap is a kind of normative conceptualization oriented to action, or a practical
theory of communication that can serve as a useful approach to conceptualize and design
telecenter practice and research.
Impact Assessment of Telecenters
Many believe that telecenters provide an opportunity to gain access to the global
economy. Others view is that centers can skew benefits and create unintended
consequences. Hence, Telecenter impact assessments are expected to provide answers to
questions whether ICTs produces benefits to the users and communities they serve or not.
According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), impact assessment is needed to
validate the assumption that technology can and will play a key role in narrowing the
technological gap. Benjamin (2000) described the causal chain by which telecenters can
be theorized to have a positive impact on development as a rather long and tenuous one
expressed as

40

telecenters access to ICTs provide services assist development
Madon (2005) stated that the launching of numerous telecenter initiatives in the
developing world has been paralleled by significant efforts to develop performance
criteria and evaluation frameworks to assess their impact. Early work on this is fairly
recent, including Emberg's (1998) suggestions for an evaluative framework, a guidebook
on the subject by Whyte (2000), and a collaborative effort by Stoll, Menou, Camacho,
and Khelladi (2002) based upon several workshops and online collaborations.
However, Madon (2005) declared that while telecenter projects have been
running for several years now, evaluation of their impact has been an enormously eclectic
process, largely devoid of systematic research and planning (p. 413). In addition,
Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) also stated that there is no agreed upon assessment on
the impact of telecenters given the variety of telecenter experiences and communities
served.
Badshah, Khan, and Garrido (2005) underscored that assessing the value of
telecenters must consider several aspects of performance measurement. As shown in the
telecenter performance pyramid (Figure 6), value of the community ICT centers can be
assessed by employing four dimensions of performance measurement: organizational
capacity, operational capacity, strategic impacts and mission impacts (Badshah et al.,
2005).


41

Education, Social
& Economic
Development
Mission
By user By activity
Strategic Goals
Process Services offered
Operational
Hardware Software Telecom Expertise Financial
Organizational

Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid.

Adapted from United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.
Information Kiosks and Sustainability, by A. Badshah, S. Khan, and M. Garrido, 2005.

As discussed by Badshah et al. (2005), each level of the performance pyramid is
dependent upon the other level and in line with this the operational processes and services
are dependent upon having reasonable organizational resources. An operational
framework is the basis for fulfilling strategic goals needs and the longer-term mission-
based impacts are driven by the success of the strategic goals. The top two aspects of the
performance pyramid indicated the outcomes of the telecenter. The first outcome is
evaluated in terms of strategic goals impacts which indicate that the accomplishment of
the telecenter project's goals in benefiting communities and having them take advantage

42

of the community ICT center services. The strategic objectives of the telecenter
determines the strategic goals of a telecenter project.
The second outcome is evaluated by taking into account mission impacts which
reflect the ability of the telecenter to impact broader educational, social, and economic
development goals. As mission impacts are less tangible and longer term in nature than
other outcomes, measurement at the mission level is the most difficult. In addition,
several factors influence impacts at the mission level. However, by using the approach
followed in building the performance pyramid, it is possible to show the relationships
between the telecenter and mission impacts.
Problems with evaluation. Measuring the impact of community ICT centers is
challenging and H. Rogers (2007) discussed three critical problems with evaluating
telecenters. Firstly, telecenters commonly vary between entrepreneurial ventures,
community initiatives and development projects. This gives rise to a diversity of assorted
indicators that are required to assess the project; both qualitative and quantitative.
Secondly, telecenter outcomes occur at various levels, from the individual, to community,
national and international levels. Appreciating outcomes at each of these levels presents a
challenge to evaluators whose scope may be restricted by narrow perspectives,
insufficient tools or limited resources. Thirdly, telecenter projects are one type of human
development infrastructure where evaluation is highly dependent on time of deployment
and usage.
Badshah et al. (2005) also underlined that telecenter projects involve various
stakeholders other than the direct users of the telecenters. Also measuring the centers

43

value created on development are much broader than the normal business measures of
profitability and other related measures of financial value.
Measuring Impact of Telecenters
According to Badshah et al. (2005), to properly measure value of telecenters, a
multi-dimensional set of performance measures is required. Furthermore, Badshah et al.
identified internal and external stakeholders of telecenters. While the direct users of the
center directly access the services of the ICT kiosks to achieve personal or business
goals, the external stakeholders of the kiosks are customers that seek the services of the
ICT kiosks, but not directly for themselves.
As a result, these two stakeholders differ in how they evaluated the services of the
community ICT centers. While the social mission of the organization is the motivation
factor for upstream stakeholders, different needs and expectations are the reason for
downstream stakeholders to support community ICT centers. As downstream
stakeholders are the users of the kiosk services, their objectives are more activity-
oriented, and they assess the community ICT centers by how their individual goals are
met; rather than the achievement of broader social goals (Badshah et al., 2005).
According to Badshah et al. (2005), the performance measurement approach
(Table 1) can be used to develop a set of performance measures that are useful in
assessing the impacts of the telecenter. By describing performance, the approach helps to
determine if the community ICT centers have brought value for the stakeholders that
have an interest in the success or failure of these telecenters.


44

Table 1.ICT Performance Measures
Impact measures
Strategic goals Mission

User information Educational development

Size of user community IT literacy
# Users (by relevant demographics) General literacy
% of target population using Increase school capacity
% of local population using Access to information
# new users
# repeat users

Activity information Social development
Average time on-line use Healthier population
Average time off-line use Community safety
# of people taking classes Community building
# sites visited per user Reduced mortality
# look-ups per site
# on-line transactions Economic development
% of time system used Farm productivity
# health consultations Employment
# government correspondence Reduced transaction costs
Software package usage Reduced poverty
Other equipment usage Wealth creation

Adapted from United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.
Information Kiosks and Sustainability, by A. Badshah, S. Khan, S., and M. Garrido,
2005)

According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), both outputs and impacts are
used to assess social impact. Whereas outputs are the measurable actions that result
directly from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social
problem it was intended to address.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and
Virtual System Processing (2006) also added that impact of telecenters could be
measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts. For measuring social

45

impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken as the main
domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters income,
changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected (UNESCO
& Virtual System Processing, 2006).
Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters
According to Donner (2007), the most logical source of the research on the
exploration of telecenters is the established literature on ICTs and economic
development. Many advocates for telecenters, however, come from the emerging field of
Community Informatics. Community informatics is the application of ICTs to enable
underserved populations and particularly to support local economic development, social
justice, and political empowerment (S. Marshall, Taylor, & Yu, 2003).
Researches contain at least two broad approaches to the role of ICTs in
development. Some studies emphasize productivity- the ability to do the same or similar
things faster, more frequently, or at lower cost thanks to the introduction or use of ICTs.
Other studies emphasize structural or social change, where new patterns of ICT use are
associated with significant transformations in the availability of information, suppliers, or
customers and in the constitution of communities, networks, or organizations.
Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.) underlined that most prior research has focused on
supply-side factors such as connectivity, poor infrastructure, management of telecenters
and high deployment costs. But demand-side approach is necessary to understand the
needs and preferences of the people. In addition, studying the perception of the user and
ICT use is necessary.

46

Mukerji (2008), on the other hand, underscored that the notion of a telecenter has
closely evolved with the understanding about ICTs and Development from a purely
techno-economic view to that of technology being embedded in the local economic,
political, institutional and sociocultural context.
Overall, the emphasis of telecenter movement over time has shifted from
technology to services geared towards catering all kinds of information and
communication needs of the people. Furthermore, in the context of developing countries
the concept of infomediary or intermediary emerged to overcome barriers of low levels of
literacy and skills (Mukerji, 2008)
As stated by Roman (2003), the use of telecenters for rural development is
attracting the attention of academic and non-academic researchers. At this stage,
telecenters are spread as pilot projects and field experiments. Therefore, the issue of
project evaluation is critical. Above anything else, there is a strong interest in the effects
of these projects on economic and social indicators, as impact evaluation would
presumably have important policy implications.
Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) have conducted an existing summary and assessment
of telecenter research. It has been noted that a majority of ICT for development projects
have failed either totally or partially in achieving their stated objectives. Heeks (2008)
warned that there is danger of design versus reality gaps: mismatch between the
assumptions and requirements built into the design and the on-the-ground realities of
poor communities. As a result, researchers have proposed a number of theoretical
frameworks for understanding the reasons for success or failure of such projects,

47

including the critical success factor model (Heeks & Bhatnagar, 1999); scenario analysis
(Aichholzer, 2004); stakeholder theory (Bailur, 2007); and economic and financial
sustainability models (Best & Maclay, 2002).
According to Soriano (2007), although telecenters are considered as an instrument
of poverty reduction, others argue that resources are better spent on roads, education,
health or food security. Although some researchers have found limited evidence of
employment-related benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon,
2008; Parkinson & Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area.
Fedotova (2008) found that participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT
skills they had acquired would help in their job search. Best et al. (2007) reported that
eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of the skills they gained at the computer
center. Studies have not established a clear link between public access to ICTs and
socioeconomic change/impacts. Because a lot of these are qualitative studies, they are not
associated with indications of size of impacts.
Although there are some guidelines for developing and implementing telecenters,
much work is required to develop a systematic understanding of the potential and
limitations of telecenters as a mechanism for social and economic development (Bailey,
2009; Colle, 2005). Generally, empirical evidence on the impacts of telecenters, and more
broadly, of lCTs on development has generally found to be lacking (Gomez & Martinez,
2001; OFarrell et al., n.d.; Panos, 2002). As noted by Gomez and Reilly (2002), when it
comes to evaluating what kind of benefit or development telecenters bring to a
community, we are only beginning to scrape the surface (p. 1). Furthermore, Kuriyan,

48

Toyama, and Ray (2005) suggested that there should be further empirical research to
explain the link between services provided by rural community telecenters and social
development. According to UNDP (2007), there is little understanding of how telecenters
contribute to development or even skepticism that they are capable of doing so
sustainably.
As a result, telecenters have drawn researchers for the past decade and
consequently, there is an increasing amount of publications on telecenters. Most of the
researches conducted are case studies of relevant telecenter issues (Colle & Roman,
2001; Latchem & Walker, 2001); some are original field research (Proenza et al., 2001).
In addition, there are also a number of publications specifically devoted to telecenter
research (Hudson, 2001; Roman & Blattman, 2001; Whyte, 2000). Furthermore, the
literature growth on information systems has turned to be an important reference for
telecenter researchers in developing countries (Heeks, 2002).
Many of these articles study important aspects of telecenter development but lack
a solid theoretical background. On this line, McNamara (2003) underscored that the lack
of convincing knowledge providing a framework for maximizing the impact of ICT
projects can be partially attributed to the lack of detailed evaluations of ICT projects. In
addition, Roman (2003) underlined that no particular conceptual model seems to guide
telecenter planning, and no specific theory is inspiring research questions either.
Furthermore, Badshah et al. (2005) underscored that telecenter is at preliminary stage of
research and noted the need of intensive research on the subject.

49

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Review of the Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention was considered as applied to community
ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user community.
The research used a qualitative multiple-case study approach to tackle the puzzle.
The general objective of this research was to examine different ICTs deployed in
varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by
extension to other developing countries.
Research Questions
The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and
Schindlers (2003) hierarchy of questions. The hierarchy starts with an observed business
dilemma that, in turn, stimulates a management question. The management question
spawns research questions. As underlined by Yin (2008), in case study questions are
posed to you, the investigator, not to an interviewee (p. 86). In addition, Yin noted that
the potentially relevant questions for case study research can occur at any five levels.
However, in relation to the levels, Yin advised to concentrate heavily on level 2 (p. 87)
for a case study research. As a result of this approach, the research questions developed
are level 2 questions which will be answered by the researcher.

50

The research method is chosen to answer the research questions, which answers
the management question. Table 2 shows the research question hierarchy.

Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy
Question or Statement
Business Dilemma Deployment of ICT to address poverty has a mixed outcome. Some
interventions are failing to achieve the desired result and as a consequence
meager resources and efforts are wasted.

Management
Question
How can ICT be effectively utilized to address poverty?

Research Questions 1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community
ICT centers in addressing poverty?
What are the common benefits perceived by individuals
using the community ICT centers?
2. Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most
important in addressing poverty?
2.1 Which services and ICTs are considered as the most
2.2 Which services and ICTs are considered as the least
3. What is the difference between individuals perception on the use
and benefits of community ICT center in addressing poverty?
3.1 Which benefits identified by individuals are not
commonly listed as benefits of community?
3.2 Why is there a difference between individuals
perceptions on the use and benefits of community ICT
centers?

Research Design
The study in this dissertation was designed to determine the effectiveness of using
ICT in helping poor communities in getting information and services that improve their

51

standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis was the
relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. Therefore, the research is an
exploratory study as opposed to confirmatory theory-testing study (Creswell, 2003).
According to Creswell (2003), exploratory studies are most advantageous when
not much has been written about the topic or the population being studied (p. 30). As
an exploratory study it requires a holistic and a flexible methodology. With the objective
of collecting experiences of telecenter users the research requires an in depth study with
inputs of varying perspectives and experiences from users of the community center. Thus
the characteristic of this research requires the selection of a qualitative methodological
approach. According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods produce a wealth of detailed
information about a small number of people and cases, which increase the depth of
understanding of the cases and situations studied. As a result to answer the questions
developed, a qualitative multiple case study was conducted to determine the effectiveness
of ICT on poverty based on users perception. In-depth interviews provided the necessary
flexibility and each interview was built upon the previous one to generate and pursue a
new set of inquiries.
Appropriateness of Approach
Exploratory Qualitative Multiple Case Study Method
Any research method has to be examined in the context of the scope and depth of
the study. As every area of research has its own best method, there is no one size fits all
best method for all scenarios. However, this research employed a qualitative multiple
case study method. The case study methodology is used because as stated by Yin (2003)

52

as well as Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993), it satisfies the three tenets of qualitative
method: describing, understanding, and explaining. According to Merriam (1998), a case
study is used to uncover the phenomenon under study & related views of users and other
actors. Yin (2008) further defined case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (p.18). According
to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003), Researchers generally do case studies for one of three
purposes: to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible
explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenomenon (p. 439).
Yin (2008) noted that the evidence of multiple-case designs is often considered
more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust. Yin
(2008) further added that if you want a high degree of certainty you may take five, six, or
more replications. He stated that the rationale for multiple-case designs derives directly
from the understanding of literal and theoretical replications. Literal replication is used to
replicate a similar result of a case study while theoretical replication is used when there
are contrasting theories (Yin, 2008). Thus, this research employ a qualitative multiple
case study method to attain the purpose of the research.
The multiple case study used two levels of sampling: sampling at the site level
and at the participant level. The sampling strategy used for this study was maximum
variation (Creswell, 2007). ICT community centers and users of the centers were selected
on certain criteria using maximum variation strategy which allowed the representation of
diverse cases and to fully describe multiple perspectives about the cases. The maximum

53

variation strategy (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2002), the process of seeking the greatest
range of diversity, or variation, in the selection of participants is a strategy that promotes
validity and reliability in a study. The maximum variation strategy was applied in the
selection of the telecenters and participants. Each telecenter was as different as possible
in characteristics such as region, ethnic diversity, and demographics. In effect the
selection of the telecenters was based on a purposeful sampling to get maximum relevant
information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling will
intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the
research problem under examination (p. 118). Furthermore, Patton (2002) noted that
the purpose of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will
illuminate the questions under study (p. 46).
Patton (2002) stated that qualitative findings grow out of three kinds of data
collection (p. 4). In-depth, open-ended interviews; direct observation; and written
documents were the three kinds of qualitative data identified by Patton.
The study used questions from prior recognized researches to address validity and
reliability. However, the most important factor in obtaining valid and reliable results
using questionnaire is ensuring that the questions used for the interview adequately
represent the research question under examination. Furthermore, after the development of
the questionnaire, field test was conducted to test and improve the validity and reliability
of the interview.
In addition to interview, data was collected in the form of field notes gathered
through direct observation. That means observation tends to eliminate the inaccuracy and

54

bias of some data. In the study various documents were also collected and analyzed. The
documents were an invaluable addition to the data stream that serves to corroborate and
augment evidence gathered from other sources. Furthermore, triangulating information
obtained from the multiple sources was used so as to ensure data currency and validity.
Yin (2008) argued that with data triangulation, the potential problems of construct
validity can be addressed because the multiple sources of evidence essentially provide
multiple measures of the same phenomenon.
Hierarchies of Criteria in Evaluating Telecenters Impacts
UNESCO and Virtual System Processing (2006) underlined that impact of
telecenters could be measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts.
Economic and social impacts of telecenters are measured using several indicators. For
measuring social impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken
as the main domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters
income, changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected
(UNESCO & Virtual System Processing, 2006).
Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) indicated that social impact is comprised of
both outputs and impacts. While outputs are the measurable actions that result directly
from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social problem
it was intended to address.
As a result, Figure 7 is developed to evaluate telecenter impact.

55

Impact of Telecenter
Economic
Social
General
Income
Agricultural
income
Employment
Distance
Learning
Computer basic
skills
Education
Health
Health
facilities
Health
Improvement
Foreign
languages

Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. From The
Social-Economic Impacts of ICTs in Rural Iran, by UNESCO & Virtual System
Processing (2006). .

The variables involved in addressing the role of ICT on poverty are represented
by Figure 8.

.


56

Figure 8. Explanatory data display. Effectiveness of information and communication
technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

Sample
The study was essentially a multiple case study which used two levels of
sampling: sampling at the site level and at the participant level and the sampling strategy
used for this study was maximum variation (Creswell, 2007, p. 126). ICT community
centers and users of the centers were selected on certain criteria using maximum variation
strategy which allowed the representation of diverse cases and to fully describe multiple
perspectives about the cases. In effect it was a purposeful sampling to get maximum
relevant information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling
will intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the
research problem under examination (p. 118). According to Patton (2002), purposeful
sampling refers to selecting information-rich cases, from which one can learn a great deal
about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research. The purposive sampling

57

enabled the researcher to identify participants who have the experience in using the
community ICT center and was willing to share their experience with the researcher
about the effectiveness of ICT on poverty reduction.
Setting
The focus of study was on 5 information and communication technology (ICT)
community centers located in several parts of Ethiopia that were operational for at least a
year. Users of the ICT community centers were interviewed on the benefits they got after
the establishment of the centers. Focus of the benefit was on utilizing the ICT centers for
poverty alleviation. This was the bases for analyzing whether ICT can support
communities in improving their standard of living.
Instrumentation
Questionnaire was adopted to inventory the benefits of the telecenter. In addition,
a focus group was employed with a type of semi-structured interview that was carried out
in a group setting. The interview developed was guided by the five categories of
questions namely opening, introductory, transition, key, and ending developed by
Krueger (1998). Each focus group consisted of 810 people and to allow the smooth flow
of conversation, participants were selected from similar socioeconomic and cultural
backgrounds.
Researchers Role
The role of the researcher in this study was multi-dimensional, and started as the
designer and founder of the study. More important was the functional role, which this

58

section relates to. The functional role was that of moderator and administrator of the
questionnaire, focus group discussions, then analyzing and interpreting the findings.
Data Collection
The study was undertaken in 5 different ICT community centers located in
different regions of the country. A purposive sample was used in selecting five
community ICT centers that meet the following criteria:
1. Center that has been operational for more than a year.
2. Relevance of the service provided to the poor community.
3. Located in diverse geographical areas.
4. Representation of different services and community.
The data gathered from the sources was the bases for conducting the study on the
effect of using different ICTs within the community centers; fixed telephone, internet and
email. The ICT community centers in the villages shaded light on the extent to which use
of ICTs contributed to effective poverty alleviation. In addition, the deployed ICTs were
evaluated for the extent to which they were integrated into the daily lives of the people.
The unit of analysis of this research was the community ICT centers role in addressing
poverty and information was collected by interviews, focus groups discussion, direct
observation, and documentation. Using multiple methods to collect data enhances the
validity of case study findings through a process known as a triangulated research
strategy. As stated by Yin (2008), collecting data in this way helps the researcher
organize and document the case study, as in experimental studies. Yin further suggested
that, in all research, consideration must be given to construct validity, internal validity,

59

and external validity. Thus, the multiple sources of evidence that was used in this study
served as a way to ensure construct validity.
According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), Campbell many decades ago
promoted the concept of triangulation - that every method has its limitations, and multiple
methods are usually needed. Triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods,
data, theory, etc. Studies that depend on only one method are more vulnerable to errors
linked to that particular approach. Patton (2002) also argued that triangulation in
qualitative study can be attained by combining both interviewing and observations (p.
248). This resulted in the mix of data collecting methods in this researchinterviewing,
observation, and document analysis.
As interview was the primary source of data, interview protocol was developed
with open-ended questions. Rubin and Rubins (1995) guided interview approach seems
best suited for this study. The topics and issues were chosen in advance, and then
structured to a certain extent. Suitable for group interviews, the interview guide approach
was used to gather data from the focus group sessions. Not only does this approach keep
the interaction focused, it also allows individual perspectives and experiences to emerge
(Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Participants were selected with the support of the managers of the ICT community
centers and were the top four frequent users of each center in total 20 frequent users were
interviewed. Four non-users of the ICT community centers were also interviewed for
comparing and contrasting to the experience of users of ICT community centers.

60

Direct observation was used to understand and study the activities of the ICT
community centers as related to the focus of the study. In addition, documented data of
the activities of ICT community centers was also a source of data for extracting
information on previous achievements and other issues related to the study.
The study was essentially a multiple-case study which used questions from prior
recognized researches to address validity and reliability (Ernberg & ITU, 1998).
However, the most important factor in obtaining valid and reliable results using
questionnaire is ensuring that the questions used for the interview adequately represent
the research question under examination. Furthermore, after the development of the
questionnaire, field test was conducted to test and improve the validity and reliability of
the interview. The field test was also necessary to check whether the questions in local
language convey the same message to the participants and to get feedback on the
readability and clarity of the questionnaire items. The field test was conducted by the
investigator of this research by engaging five managers of the ICT community centers
who were not part of the target population for this research.
In addition to interview, a focus group discussion was also employed with a type
of semi-structured interview carried out in a group setting. According to Pattton (2002),
the focus group method is, first and foremost, an interview (p.385), which engages a
small group of people on a specific topic. In other words, a focus group is a special
interview. Introducing a focus group separately from interview methods was from the
consideration that characteristics and techniques are distinguished between the two. The
focus group approach is not merely a discussion, although direct interactions among

61

participants often occur. On this line, Krueger (1994) highlighted the nuances between an
interview and a focus group interview: The term interviewer tends to convey a more
limited impression of two-way communication between an interviewer and an
interviewee. By contrast, the focus group affords the opportunity for multiple interactions
not only between the interviewer and respondent but among all participants in the group.
The focus group is not a collection of simultaneous individual interviews, but rather a
group discussion where the conversation flows because of the nurturing of the moderator.
With the object to get high-quality data in a social context where people can consider
their own views in the context of the views of others, focus group interviews have helped
collect valuable research data.
In the focus group discussion, the emphasis was on exploring the diversity of
viewpoints of the participants on the community ICT center and its role on poverty
alleviation. Each focus group consisted of 8-10 people and for allowing the smooth flow
of conversation, participants were selected from similar socio-economic and cultural
backgrounds. Thus, separate focus groups were held for each type of group. Unique
concerns and issues of each group concerning the effectiveness of ICT on poverty
alleviation was the focus of the discussion. The investigator was a facilitator and a
recorder of each focus group meeting and the time it took was from one and a half to two
hours. Yin (2008) noted that audiotapes certainly provide a more accurate rendition of
any interview than any other methods.
Furthermore, data was collected in the form of field notes gathered through direct
observation. That means observation tends to eliminate the inaccuracy and bias of some

62

data. In the study various documents were also collected and analyzed. Merriman states
that many documents are easily accessible, free and contain information that would take
the investigator an enormous amount of time and effort to gather otherwise (Merriman,
1998, p. 125). Documents can add another piece to the puzzle in constructing meaning
from all the data that the researcher collects during field visits. The documents will be an
invaluable addition to the data stream that serves to corroborate and augment evidence
gathered from other sources. Yin (2003) included artifacts in the sources of evidence for
case studies. According to Tellis (1997), artifacts can broaden the perspective of the
researcher and provide additional contextual data. Physical and electronic artifacts were
examined during field visits and, whenever possible, photographed. Notes relevant to the
artifacts examined during field visits were recorded in the researchers journal as part of
the field notes.
Furthermore, triangulating information obtained from the multiple sources was
used so as to ensure data currency and validity (Hartono, Lederer, Sethi, & Zhuang,
2003). Triangulation, mapping one set of data upon another (Silverman, 2006), was also
used extensively in this study, for example, comparing the perception of users, focus
group participants and non users. Reflexive journaling, as stated already, was used
extensively during the study as well as during the report-writing stage.
Data Analysis
Cross-case synthesis was taken as analytic technique for this research (Creswell,
2007, p. 163). Yin (2008) noted that cross-case synthesis specifically applies to the
analysis of multiple cases. By this technique, the findings from the five community ICT

63

centers were aggregated and the synthesis was more robust than a single case study
research.
The template for coding this research depicted on Figure 9 takes the five
community ICT centers as the cases to illustrate the precode specifications. For each
community ICT center, codes exist for the context and description of the community ICT
center. Also, codes were developed for themes within each community ICT center, and
for themes that were similar and different in cross-case analysis. Finally, codes for
generalizations and assertions across all cases were developed so that people can learn
from the case either for themselves or to apply to a population of cases (Creswell, 2007,
p. 163).
Drawing Conclusions
Partially ordered cross-case matrices are the basis for the important data-
formatting, data-standardizing, and data-reducing functions that support descriptive
analysis of the ICT community centers. Inductive analysis was used in the qualitative
inquiry approach of this research. The strategy of inductive designs was to allow the
important analytical dimensions to emerge from data collected in the research without
presupposing in advance what the important dimensions will be (Patton, 2002). Analysis
was conducted on each ICT community center to identify patterns and themes and this
was followed by comparing and contrasting relationships between the variables and
cases. Predictor-outcome matrix was used to observe and analyze how several
contributing factors function together in the use of ICT in development.

64

In Depth portrait
Of CITC
CITC
Context
CITC 1
CITC 2
CITC 3
CITC 4
CITC 5
CITC
Description
CITC 1
CITC 2
CITC 3
CITC 4
CITC 5
Within-CITC
Theme analysis
CITC 1
CITC 2
CITC 3
CITC 4
CITC 5
Themes
Similarity Difference
Generalizations

Figure 9. Template for coding study of ICT community centers (CITC).

Data of the research was displayed by using the approach of Miles and Huberman
(1994). By display it is meant that a visual format that presents information
systematically, so the user can draw valid conclusions and take needed action (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 91). As identified by Miles and Huberman, formats for displaying
qualitative data fall into two major families: matrices and networks. Figure 10 depicts
sample descriptive data display that was used in the study.


65

Factors User 1 User 2
ICT policy

Encouraging Prohibitive
ICT infrastructure

Reliable Unreliable
Business model

Public-private Public
Skill

Moderate Low
Management

Non-existence Effective
Technical support

Inadequate Adequate
Services offered

Fax, copier Telephone, internet
Entrepreneurship

Lacking Strong
Information provided

Government information Health information
Figure 10. Sample descriptive data display. Effectiveness of information and
communication technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

Computer Application Strategy
Software package QDA Miner V. 2.0 (Lewins & Silver, 2008) was planned to use
to conduct comparison, identify potential clusters of cases, and has adequate variable and
data storage capacity. In reality, software package QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1
were used in this research. As there was some quantitative data like frequency to appear
in the study, the statistical capability was also an added feature for the choice of the
software package.
The Researchers Role
The researcher integrated qualitative data throughout the research process. The
integration in data collection process involved combining open-ended questions of an
interview with open ended questions of focus group discussion. During the data

66

analysis process, the researchers role was interpreting and analyzing the evolved and
developed qualitative themes or codes (Creswell, 2003).
The role of the researcher in qualitative research was to address concerns that
emphasize the relationship between the researcher and the participants. Creswell (2003)
cited the following practices as part of the role of the qualitative researcher
1. Position himself or herself and bring personal values into the study
2. Focus on a single concept or phenomenon
3. Study the context or setting of participants
4. Collaborate with participants and collect participant meanings
5. Make interpretations of the data and validate the accuracy of findings
(p. 19)
As an instrument of data collection in the study it is necessary for the researcher
to have an ongoing means of separating impressions, feelings, and early interpretations
from descriptions (Hatch, 2002, p. 86) as data are collected. Reflexivity is the
researchers ability to systematically acknowledge and reflect upon personal biases,
values, prejudices, and views (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 2002) as the researcher becomes
an instrument of data collection and a participant in the research. Reflexivity brings an
honest and open self to the study that is aware of the need to bracket (Hatch, 2002;
Merriam, 2002), or separate, personal biases and document the potential influence of
personal values. A research journal of field notes, personal reactions, and other raw data
(Hatch, 2002) was maintained throughout the course of the study. This journal served as
the primary means of bracketing personal biases, values, prejudices, and views (Creswell,

67

2003; Merriam, 2002) identified by the researcher. As C. Marshall and Rossman (2006)
pointed out, writing notes, reflective memos, thoughts and insights is invaluable for
generating the unusual insights that move the analysis from the mundane and obvious to
the creative (p.161).
Validity and Reliability
In the research, major issues of concern in regard to bias and validity emanate
from the researcher and the participants of the research. The research was conducted on
one of the World Bank funded projects where the researcher has not a direct
responsibility but a general management stake. Hence, bias of interpretation and analysis
of the data and situation could surface during the research and this implies that
interpretive validity will be a question. In addition, second major limitation could emerge
from the participants due to some perception by which they might not provide the correct
information which would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings. The
participants could also incline to tell what the researcher wants to hear which will
jeopardize the credibility of the study.
Yin (2008) indicated that quality of any research design can be judged by certain
logical tests. According to U.S. Government Accountability Office (as cited in Yin, 2008),
concepts that have been offered for these tests include trustworthiness, credibility,
confirmability, and data dependability. In case study research, the four tests have been
summarized as construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin,
2008). According to Yin, to increase construct validity, three tactics are used in case
study research. The first is the use of multiple sources of evidence, the second tactic is to

68

establish a chain of evidence, and the third tactic is to have the draft case study report
reviewed by key informants (p. 42).
Internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies which is not the
scope of this research. External validity on the other hand deals with the problem of
knowing whether a studys findings are generalizable beyond the immediate case study
(Yin, 2008). The objective of reliability is to be sure that, if a later investigator followed
the same procedures as described by any earlier investigator and conducted the same case
study all over again, the later investigator should arrive at the same findings and
conclusions (Yin, 2008). The researcher increased the reliability of the design by
listening to audio taped interviews multiple times. In addition, the transcriptions are
stored electronically on a computer file.
In this study, credibility was addressed using several techniques. Field test was
undertaken to review the research questions and the structured questionnaire to establish
the credibility and trustworthiness of the study. Other techniques used were persistent
observation, the purpose of which was to identify those characteristics or elements in
each ICT community centers that were most salient to the issue of concern. Triangulation
or the use of multiple cases, methods, and sources of evidence was also used to add to the
credibility of the study. Gall et al. (2003) noted that using multiple methods to collect
data about a phenomenon can enhance the validity of case study findings through a
process called triangulation (p. 447). Yin (2008) also noted that findings or conclusions
in case studies are likely to be more accurate and convincing if they derive from different
sources of information and collection methods.

69

The researcher enhanced transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the
research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. In addition,
generalizability was increased by studying five cases and attempt was made to relate it to
studies conducted elsewhere to find any thread of generalizability. The study is
dependable as the outlined approach will be instrumental in replicating the study
elsewhere. Furthermore, the researcher is responsible for describing the changes that
occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the
study. To enhance confirmability the researcher documented the procedures for
checking and rechecking the data throughout the study (Trochim, 2006, p. 2).
Ethical Considerations
As the research involves human participants, participants privacy, dignity, well-
being, and freedom were safeguarded. To guarantee these, the next guidelines were
followed: (a) explanation was given to potential participants as to the purpose and nature
of the research so they can freely choose whether or not to become involved; (b)
participants were informed on their right to refuse to answer any questions or participate
in the study; and (c) obtained informed consent from organizations and individuals that
participate in the study.
To avoid any ethical issues to arise during the research, the researcher acquired
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to avoid any violation of human rights.
The researcher developed an informed consent form for participants to sign for literate
participants or oral commitment for those who are illiterate before they engage in the

70

research. The form acknowledges that participants rights have been protected during
data collection (Creswell, 2003).
Yin (2008) underlined that the basic skills required for a case study are the ability
to ask good questions and interpret the answers, to be a good listener, to be adaptive and
flexible, to have a firm grasp of the issues being studied, and to be unbiased by
preconceived notions. Yin further related case study fieldwork with the role of detectives.
The researcher of this study is qualified to conduct the present study as a result of being a
PhD candidate and being guided and supervised by a doctoral committee. In addition, the
researcher has more than 15 years of experience in managing several IT projects and has
some experience in contributing research articles for academic journals. Furthermore, the
researcher has the skills outlined by Yin as a consequence of several trainings and field
experience in the human and electronic intelligence both as an officer and a manager.
Currently, the researcher is a Director General of ICT development agency which lays a
good ground for understanding the issues around ICT usage for development in real life
projects and other engagements.
Furthermore, the researchers code of ethics was based on integrity when
conducting research, collecting data, drawing conclusions, and presenting findings.
Conclusions were driven by the data only and not by expectations. In addition, when
writing the research report, the researcher avoided using any biased language against
persons because of gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic group, disability, or age
(Creswell, 2003).

71

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Introduction
This study was conducted to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty and
the general objective of this research was to examine different ICTs deployed in varied
conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia.
In this chapter an analysis of the data gathered throughout the study is presented.
The sources of data collected in this study were drawn primarily from an on-site focus
group discussion and interviews with users and non-users of the community ICT centers.
Observation notes were also taken during focus group discussion and interviews. In
addition, a review of the archival records was conducted on documents, such as the
periodical performance reports of the centers and the consultant reports of the centers.
Data from the Information and Communication Technology Assisted Development
(ICTAD) project which established the community ICT centers were also collected, to
provide a context for the study. The data from each of these sources were triangulated
into a detailed analysis of each of the five cases.
Finally, the data generated by the study were organized and analyzed based on the
research questions and related themes. The study addresses the following questions:
1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT centers
in addressing poverty?

72

addressing poverty?
3. What is the difference between the individuals perception on the use and the
benefits of the community ICT centers in addressing poverty?
This chapter presents a detailed description of each case, the themes that emerged
from the cases, and a cross-case analysis. The chapter is organized into four sections. The
first section describes the five community ICT centers. In the second section, the data
analysis and interpretation is reviewed and the resulting data display of categories and
sub-categories is presented. In the third section, a synthesis of the findings of the five
cases is presented in the context of each of the three research questions. In the fourth
section, the cross-case analysis and summary of Chapter 4 are presented.
Overview of the ICT Community Centers
Community ICT centers from five different regions and parts of Ethiopia
provided the diversity mix for this study. One community ICT center was from pastoralist
region and another one from the capital city. The remaining three community ICT centers
represent different regions and communities with different culture, language, and
lifestyle.
The context was further defined in that the five community ICT centers consist of
two youth centers, one pastoralist, one environment based center, and one health (HIV)
association center. The five community ICT centers visited during the course of this
study were DH, KY, LA, TK, and YY ICT center. The community ICT centers were
visited during May, June, and July 2010.

73

DH Community ICT Center
The DH Community ICT center was established in July 2008 with the initiation of
DH branch in collaboration with the Health Bureau and the technical, financial and
advisory support of the Ethiopian Information and Communication Technology
Development Agency (EICTDA, 2009) ICT Assisted Development project management
unit (PMU).
The center has been established with the overall objectives of providing access to
ICT and assisting communities to improve their livelihood through the use of appropriate
ICT that facilitates increased access to markets, development information and public
services (EICTDA, 2009).
The center operates in a space provided by the Kebele (local) administration
equipped with different ICT equipments (Computers, photocopy machine, printer, fax
machine, binding machine, and LCD projector) and furniture. The ICT community center
offers computer training, Internet, photocopy, secretarial, fax, binding, scanning and
telephone services. In addition, the library, recreational services (TV, cafeteria, indoor
and out-door games) and information on HIV/AIDS and reproductive health are provided
at the center.
KY ICT Center
The KY Town Youth Association ICT center was established in August 2008
with the initiation of the KY Town Youth Association facilitated through the Woreda
(district) Bureau of Capacity Building and the technical, financial and advisory support of
the EICTDA, ICT Assisted Development PMU (EICTDA, 2009).

74

KY Town Youth Association ICT center was established with the overall
objectives of providing ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their
involvement and contribution towards the socio-economic development of the country.
The center provides computer training, Internet, photocopy, telephone, secretarial,
binding, recreational (TV show, cafeteria, indoor outdoor games) and library services to
the members of the association as well as to the local community with affordable
payment, up to date information on job opportunities, education, health, and
psychological counseling.
LA Community ICT Center
The LA community ICT center was established in September 2008 with the
initiation of LA irrigation farmers cooperative facilitated through the regional bureau of
capacity building and the technical, financial and advisory support of EICTDA, ICT
Assisted Development PMU (EICTDA, 2009). The LA irrigation farmers cooperative
was established in 2004 with the objective of creating an agro-pastoralist community and
sustainable livelihood. The association has 20 members and undertakes its farming
activity on 100 hectares of land.
The ICT center has been established with the overall objectives of providing ICT
access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their involvement and contribution
towards the socio-economic development of the country. The center is operating in the
place provided by the LA irrigation farmers cooperative and financial support of ICTAD
and equipped with different ICT equipments (computers, photocopy machine, printer, fax
machine, binding machine, LCD projector) and furniture.

75

TK Youth Community ICT Center
The TK Youth Community ICT Center was established in November 2008 with
the technical financial and advisory support provided by EICTDA, ICT Assisted
development PMU (EICTDA, 2009).
The TK youth community ICT center was established with the overall objective
of providing ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their involvement
and contribution towards the socio economic development of the country with a special
focus on environmental protection. The center is housed in the room provided by the TK
and cleaned youth association and different ICT equipment (computers, photocopy,
printer, fax, binding machine, LCD projector and furniture) are put in place.
The center is located in a residential area where most dwellers are from low
income group. The center is housed in the heart of a village where the association under
which the center is established has achieved an exemplary task by changing an
accumulated garbage area into a horticultural garden. The place is also an ideal spot for
environmental education.
YY ICT Center
The YY Community ICT Center was established in October 2009 with the
technical financial and advisory support provided by EICTDA, ICT Assisted
development PMU (EICTDA, 2009). The goal of the youth center aims at proper leisure
time activities and giving adolescents the opportunity to learn through ICT, access
national and global information, and become informed and responsible citizens.

76

The ICT services at the center include computer training, Internet, and secretarial
services.
Overall, the five community ICT centers provided several services to the
community in the vicinity of the center. Based on the annual report from the community
ICT centers, the utilization of the ICT community centers in terms of service that they
offer and the demography of users of the ICT community centers are added in Appendix
H.
Sources of Qualitative Data and Demographic Data of Research Participants
For each community ICT center, two focus group discussions, four user and four
non user interviews were conducted. Participants of this multiple-case study were
heterogeneous and consisted of people who differed in age, gender, educational
backgrounds, and work status. While the age of the participants ranged from 18 to 65
years, 65% of the participants age ranges in 18-30 years old (Figure 11).


77

Figure 11. Age of interviewed participants of the study.

In terms of gender mix the interviewed users and non users were 27 male and 13
female and 30% of user participants were female while 35% of non users participants
were female (Figure 12).


78

LA KY DH TK YY
Gender
Male Female
C
o
u
n
t
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of gender.

There was also a variation in the educational levels of the interviewed participants.
Most of the interviewees (60%) had either secondary or vocational level education.
However, 10% of the participants had never been in school and as a result couldnt read
and write (Figure 13).


79

Frequency distribution of education
Frequency
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
None
Pre-primary
Primary
Lower secondary
Upper secondary
Post-secondary
non-tertiary
First stage of tertiary

Figure 13. Educational background of participants.

Whilst 75% of the interviewees were employed, 25% were either students or
unemployed (Figure 14).


80

Figure 14. Work status of participants.

Regarding focus group composition, in each community ICT center there were
two groups one composed of employed and elders and the second one composed of
students, unemployed and youth. The ten focus groups each have participants in the range
of 7 - 11 numbers of participants. Overall, the ten focus group discussions involved 94
participants out of which 36% were female participants.
Focus group discussion was conducted after each participant demonstrated their
willingness to participate in the discussion. During the entire study, with the exception of
one all the participants agreed, gave their views and comments and stayed until the end of
the discussion.
Interviews were conducted via face to face on each site. Out of 40 interviewees 30
gave signed and 8 verbal consent to be interviewed. 8 participants who gave verbal

81

consent are all non users and 4 of them cannot read and write. The remaining two of the
participants agreed to sign but the consent form was returned unsigned.
Almost all interviewees and all group discussion participants allowed the
interviews to be audio taped. All group discussions and 39 out of the 40 interviews were
recorded except one who responded in writing. During the research, two recorders were
ready and no equipment malfunctioned. All interviews and focus group discussion were
conducted by the researcher. At the conclusion of all interviews, the tape recorded data
consisted of approximately 1523 minutes of interviews, & was transcribed into 220 pages
of text (Appendix I provides part of the transcripts)
In addition, the researcher took hand written notes during all focus group
discussion meetings and interviews and transcribed the notes immediately after the
conclusion of the interview.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data from focus group discussions, interviews, observations, and documents were
organized electronically for each community ICT centers in four large files using
Microsoft Office Word 2007. As a result, a very large body of information was amassed
during the three months in which data was collected.
Organization of Qualitative Data
Each focus group and interview question was designed to investigate particular
aspects of the community ICT center participating in the study. Table 3 maps each focus
group and interview question with its related research question.


82

Table 3. Relationship of Research, Focus Group, and Interview Questions
Research question Focus group
question
Users question Non-users
question
1. What is the perception of
individuals on the benefits
of community ICT centers
What are the common benefits
perceived by individuals using
the community ICT centers?
1

5, 6, 7
Section 2: 2, 3, 4, 6,
7

Section 3: 1, 2, 3, 4
Section 2: 2, 3,
4, 5, 13, 14, 15

Section 2: 6, 16
2. Which services and ICTs of
the community ICT centers
are most important in
addressing poverty?

2.1 Which services and ICTs
are considered as the most
important in addressing
poverty?
2.2 Which services and ICTs
are considered as the least
important in addressing
poverty?

2, 3

4
Section 2: 1

Section 2: 5
Section 2: 1, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Interviews and Focus Group Discussion
All contents of the transcribed interviews were read by the researcher while
listening to the tapes to insure that all data was captured as accurately as possible. Once
checking was complete the initial analysis of the interview data began. The documents
which were initially saved as MS word files were imported to QDA Miner 3.2 qualitative
software for analysis. Each focus group discussion and interview was segmented by
question number and coded using QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 qualitative analysis
software.

83

This phase of analysis was accomplished via a number of repeated and thorough
readings (Creswell, 1998) of the focus group discussion and interview data set for the
purpose of detecting key words, phrases, or repeating sequences of words. An excerpt
from the focus group discussion and interview in which QDA Miner 3.2 software features
were used is included in Appendix J.
The categories developed at the initial stage of the study for capturing the impact
of the community ICT centers are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Initial Manual Codes Developed and Used by QDA Miner 3.2 Qualitative
Analysis Software

Category Outputs/Codes
1. Economic General Income
Employment
Agricultural income
Saving
2. Education computer skills
Distance learning
foreign languages
3. Health Health Improvement
Health facilities

Initially, coding was done manually by employing QDA Miner 3.2 coding
capability. Subsequent to this the automated coding system of WordStat 6.1 was used to
check the accuracy and capture segments that were missed with manual coding.
Appendix K provides table of codes developed by employing auto coding feature of
WordStat 6.1.

84

Following the automated coding result, revision and refinement was done on the
manual coding. As a result, two new categories (general benefit and general interest)
emerged and some new subcategories as compared to the initial design. While the general
interest category mainly represents expectations and interests of non-users of the center,
general benefits reflect the perceptions on the benefits of the centers by both user and non
user participants. Finally, the codes were grouped following the research design with the
added new thematic areas (Table 5).


85

Table 5. Final Codes After Combination and Refinement of Manual and Auto-coding
Category Subcategory/Code
Economy Agri Income
Employment
General Income
Promotion
Saving
Education Computer skill
Distance Education
Foreign language
General Knowledge
Scholarship
School support
Health Health facility
Health Improvement
Knowledge and Skill
General Benefit Access
Communication
Secretarial services
General interest Information about economy
Information about education
Information about health
Information from friends
Market needs
Private centers
Seek information
Seek treatment
Travel to get access

As stated by Gall et al. (2003), recording the number of times a code is observed
or frequency counts may be beneficial when conducting research. In line with this, the
frequency counts, number of cases and the percentages of cases related to the categories
developed in relation to focus group discussions and the interview transcripts are depicted
in Table 6.

86

Table 6. Frequency Counts for Categories
Frequency No. Cases % Cases
Education 273 48 96.00%
General benefit 185 48 96.00%
Economy 224 42 84.00%
General interests 161 37 74.00%
Health 52 31 62.00%

Note: Cases in the analysis software refers to participants of the research. One focus group is also included
as one participant and hence one case in the software analysis.

Overall, education and general benefit were the two highly rated categories of
benefits of the community ICT centers (96% of the participants). Next follows economic
benefits (84%) and health benefits (62%).
Frequency Counts for Subcategories
The frequency counts, number of cases and the percentages of cases related to the
subcategories developed in relation to focus group discussions and the interview
transcripts are depicted in Appendix L. From the subcategories, access was taken as the
highest general benefit obtained from the community ICT centers (86%). Following to
access saving was considered as the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers (74%).
The least perceived benefit from the designed outputs was health improvement (12%).
Under the category of education, the highest rated benefit was found to be
acquiring computer skill (66%). While for health category, getting health knowledge and
skill got 58% of participants, information about economy (34%) got the highest return
from the general interests category.


87

Observations
Each community ICT center was visited and data collected on the context and
general situation of the center. In addition, the researcher wrote as many notes as possible
in a researchers field journal during interviews and focus group discussions. All
observation data was transcribed and recorded in the electronic file for observations as
soon as possible after returning from the field visits.
Documents
Documents and reports were collected and examined during each field visit by the
researcher. The study utilized documents pertaining to the community ICT centers
objectives and history, annual reports and policy documents, print and electronic
newspapers, as well as empirical data collected from previous studies. Thus, document
analysis was also utilized to provide the complete answers to all the research questions
asked.
In summary throughout the analysis of the data a number of analytic strategies as
identified by Creswell (1998) were utilized. These strategies included writing memos and
comments, reducing information, counting frequency of codes, relating categories,
highlighting certain information in the description, displaying findings in tables and
figures, and comparing cases.
Findings
The findings are presented in the context of each of the three research questions.
In an effort to enhance the robustness of the study, and add to the validity and reliability
of the study community ICT centers were selected from different regions and community.

88

That is to say, the strategy of maximum variation (Creswell, 2007) was employed. In
addition, participants represent various educational background, work status, age and
gender.
Research Question 1
What is the Perception of Individuals on the Benefits of Community ICT
Centers in Addressing Poverty?
Research question 1 is the core question of the study and yielded the most
complex set of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers in addressing
poverty. The purpose of the study was to explore the role of ICT in poverty. During the
coding and re-coding process as no new codes emerged, an organizational structure for
perceptions of individuals became apparent.
All codes excluding general interests of non users could be organized into three
groups with a fourth category called General Benefits. This organization is illustrated
in Figure 15.

89

Economic Social
General
Income
Agricultural
income
Employment
Distance
Learning
Computer basic
skills
Education
Health
Health
facilities
Health
Improvement
Foreign
languages
Knowledge
and Skill
General
Knowledge
Scholarship
Schooling
Support Saving
Job
Promotion Secretarial
Services
communication
Access
General
Benefits

Figure 15. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings.

Themes
Themes emerged from the analysis of the data collected on the perceptions of
individuals on the benefits of the community ICT center. The themes were:
Agri income. Incomes obtained by selling agricultural products by using the services
of the community ICT center.
Employment. Employment opportunity registered as a result of using the services
provided at the center.
General income. Income obtained by conducting IT enabled owned business
(secretarial services and/or computer maintenance) after taking computer training at the
community ICT center.

90

Job promotion. Promotion in job assignment and salary that was a result of skill
development at the center.
Saving. Saving noted as a result of using the services at the center.
Computer literacy and skill. Computer knowhow and skill developed as a result of
the trainings provided at the center.
Distance education. Distance learning conducted by using the services of the center.
Foreign language. Foreign language taught by using the services of the center.
General knowledge. An added or new general knowledge obtained from the center.
Scholarship. An opportunity to pursue further studies abroad by using the services at
the center.
School support. Support given to school education by way of the services provided at
the community ICT centers to teachers and students.
Health facility. Health facility accessed as a result of the operation of the center.
Health improvement. Health improvement observed as a result of using the services
of the center.
Health knowledge and skill. Getting health related knowledge and skill of diseases,
and their treatment from the center.
Access. ICT access facilitated by the center.
Communication. The ability to exchange information locally and internationally for
work, social, and personal matter by using the services at the center.
Secretarial services. Provision of services like writing, printing, binding, copying,
etcat the center.

91

Analysis of each case study against participants responses will begin with
economic benefits, and proceed to education, health, and general benefits.
Economic Benefits
Research participants had shared their perception on the economic benefits
obtained from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated
responses indicated that affordability of the services and the resulting saving was the
highest benefit (80% of respondents) obtained from the LA community ICT center. The
next economic benefit identified was agri income (60% of respondents). The aggregated
analysis of the economic benefit perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 16.

LA
Job promotion General Income Employment Agri Income Saving
C
o
u
n
t
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 16. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of LA community ICT center.


92

Based on the data analysis conducted, both focus group discussion participants
and user interviewees at LA community ICT center came out with four economic benefits
of the community ICT center out of which three are common benefits. The three
commonly identified economic benefits were saving, employment, and agri income. In
addition, the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving and
agri income as benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix M for response of research
participants on economic benefits of LA community ICT center.
Agricultural income was one of those identified as an economic benefit obtained
from the center by focus group (2 counts, 2 cases, 100% of the focus groups) and users (2
counts, 2 cases, 50% of users). In addition, agri income was also recognized as an
economic benefit of ICT by non-users (2 counts, 2 cases, 50% of non-users).
Participant of focus group 1 stated that their association cultivates cotton and they
acquire the information on the price and other status of the crop at the international
market using internet of the center. They will only let their export happen when there will
be a good price at the international market. One participate of the focus group recalled a
time in which the price of one kilo of cotton being around 16 Birr (nearly 1 US dollar)
and sold after delayed for some time and got 19.50 Birr (nearly 1.2 US dollar). They
explained that they exported their cotton to Australia and Turkey. The researcher found
that the only center where users of community ICT center were involved in export of
agricultural product was LA community ICT center.
A participant from focus group 2 noted that some people here use the internet as
their main source of information on vacancy announcements. In terms of economic

93

benefit, user participant 5 noted that I got promotion in my office because of the writing
skills I developed at the center. Hence, the two most important economic benefits
perceived by users of LA community ICT center were affordability of the services and
the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (3
counts, 3 cases, 75% of users).
The lowest economic benefit identified by users of the center was job promotion.
Focus group participants at LA rated all the four benefits identified as the highest
economic benefits they got (2 cases, 100% of focus groups).
KY Community ICT Center
The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection, indicated
that affordability of the services and the resulting saving is the highest benefit (60% of
respondents) obtained from the use of the ICT center. Employment opportunity (50% of
respondents) was the other higher rated economic benefit. Figure 17 represents the result
of the analysis on economic benefits of KY community ICT center.


94

KY
Job promotion General Income Employment Saving
C
o
u
n
t
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 17. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of KY community ICT center

The data analysis indicated that both focus group discussion participants and user
interviewees recognize three and four economic benefits of the community ICT center
respectively out of which three are common benefits. The three commonly identified
economic benefits were saving, employment, and general income. See Appendix M for
response of research participants on economic benefits of the center.
According to data collected from the center, the two most important economic
benefits perceived by users were affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4
counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (3 counts, 3 cases, 75% of
users).


95

The result of the analysis of interviews conducted at DH showed that saving was
the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from the DH community ICT center.
The next economic benefit identified by analysis was employment opportunity (80% of
respondents). Figure 18 represents the analysis of the interviews on economic benefits of
DH community ICT center.

DH
Agri Income Job promotion General Income Employment Saving
C
o
u
n
t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 18. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of the DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated four economic
benefits, user interviewees came out with five benefits of DH community ICT center.
Saving, employment, general income and job promotion were the economic benefits
identified by both focus group discussion participants and user interviewees. In addition,
the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving, employment,

96

and general income as an economic benefits of ICT usage. The response of research
participants on economic benefits is included in Appendix M.
The two most important economic benefits perceived by users were saving (4
counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of
users). Other economic benefits identified by users were job promotion (1 count, 1 case,
25% of users), and general income (1 case, 25% of users).
Research participants had shared their perception on the economic benefits
obtained from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the
aggregated responses showed that employment opportunity was the highest benefit (80%
of respondents) obtained from the ICT center. The next highest economic benefit
identified was affordability of the services and the resulting saving (70% of respondents).
The aggregated analyses of the perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 19.


97

TK
Job promotion Agri Income General Income Saving Employment
C
o
u
n
t
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 19. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of TK community ICT center.

and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center identified five and three
economic benefits of the community ICT center respectively out of which three are
common benefits. The three commonly shared economic benefits by both focus group
discussion participants and user interviewees of the TK youth Community ICT center
were saving, employment, and general income. In addition, the non-user group
interviewees also included in their expectation saving and employment as benefits of ICT
usage. See Appendix M for response of research participants on economic benefits.
Affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of
users) and employment opportunity (4 cases, 100% of users) were found to be the two
most important economic benefits perceived by users of TK youth community ICT
center.

98

YY Community ICT Center
The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, indicated
that affordability of the services and the resulting saving was the highest benefit (70% of
respondents) obtained from the use of the ICT center. Employment opportunity (50% of
respondents) was the other higher rated economic benefit. Figure 20 represents the result
of the analysis on economic benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY
Job promotion General Income Agri Income Employment Saving
C
o
u
n
t
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 20. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of YY community ICT center.

The result of the data analysis indicated that both focus group discussion
participants and user interviewees addressed five and three economic benefits of the
community ICT center respectively out of which three were common benefits. The three
commonly recognized economic benefits were saving, employment, and agri income. In
addition, the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving, agri

99

income and general income as benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix M for response of
research participants on economic benefits of YY community ICT center.
According to data collected and processed from the center, the two most
important economic benefits perceived by users of YY community ICT center were
affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of users)
and employment opportunity (3 counts, 3 cases, 75% of users). A participant of focus
group 46 stated that, whenever you have the same backgrounds both in the education
and work experience, having the computer training is a plus and in this regard there is a
greater chance for you to get a promotion or a new post.
Educational Benefits
Research participants had shared their perception on the educational benefits
obtained from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated
responses indicated that computer literacy and skill developed as a result of the training
conducted at the community ICT center was the highest benefit (70% of respondents)
obtained from the LA community ICT center. The next expected educational benefit was
getting access and learn foreign languages (40% of respondents). The aggregated
analyses of the perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 21.

100

LA
Count
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Distance Education
General Knowledge
School Education Improvement
Foreign language
Computer skill

Figure 21. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of LA community ICT center.

and user interviewees at LA community ICT center perceived three educational benefits
of the community ICT center out of which two were common benefits. The two
commonly shared educational benefits were computer skill, and distance education. In
addition, the non-user group interviewees also came out with three educational benefits
of ICT usage, one of which was identified by focus group and user participants (computer
skill). Furthermore, they have also added two of their general interests they expect from
ICT intervention: to get supportive information about education and access to foreign
language. In fact, acquiring access to foreign language got the highest expectation (4
cases, 100% of non-users). However, contrary to expectation, foreign language was not
one of the benefits recognized by focus group participants and user interviewees. On the

101

other hand, in contrast to users and focus group participants, non-users did not mention
distance education as an educational benefit.
Demonstrating the benefits of the center for distance education, a user participant
5 noted that I am a student at a university in the capital city and when I missed once my
exam, I contacted the university and got my exam through fax. This female user
participant finally concluded that I am following my distance education program thanks
to the service of the center.
See Appendix N for response of participants on educational benefits of LA
The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection, indicated
that computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents) obtained
from the use of the ICT center. School support (50% of respondents) was the next higher
rated educational benefit. Figure 22 represents the result of the analysis on educational
benefits of KY community ICT center.


102

KY
Count
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Distance Education
Scholarship
Foreign language
General Knowledge
Computer skill

Figure 22. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of KY community ICT center.

The data analysis found out that both focus group discussion participants and user
interviewees perceived five and two educational benefits of the community ICT center
respectively out of which two were common benefits. The two commonly recognized
educational benefits of the center were computer skill, and general knowledge. In
addition, the non-user group interviewees also identified four educational benefits of ICT
usage, two of which were recognized by both focus group and user participants. See
Appendix N for response of participants on educational benefits of KY community ICT
center.
According to data collected and processed from the center, computer literacy and
skill appeared to be the highest educational benefits accrued from KY ICT center both by
focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (4 cases,
100% of users). The school educational support appeared to be the second highest

103

educational benefits of the ICT center by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus
groups).
According to a teacher in focus group 12, their school has an agreement of
partnership with the center to use the computer available in the center rather than
purchase new ones which have become instrumental in saving the school expenses. In
addition, he expressed that we have an ICT department in our school and those students
who took the computer training at the center were active in their studies. Furthermore
the teacher added that our students print and copy handouts, books and other academic
materials with reasonable prices at the center. In addition, another participant of focus
group 12 noted that rural schools also got copier service at the center.
The other educational benefits were found to be general knowledge (1 case, 25%
of users) for user and non user participants, and computer skill (1 case, 25% of non users)
and scholarship (1 case, 25% of non-users) for non users.
The result of the analysis of interviews conducted at DH community ICT center
showed that computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (60% of respondents)
obtained from the DH community ICT center. The next educational benefit identified by
analysis was school educational support (50% of respondents). Figure 23 represents the
analysis of the interviews on educational benefits of DH community ICT center.


104

DH
Count
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Scholarship
Foreign language
General Knowledge
Computer skill

Figure 23. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated four benefits, user
interviewees discussed two educational benefits of DH community ICT center. Computer
skill and general knowledge were the educational benefits identified by both focus group
discussion participants and user interviewees. In addition, the non-user group
interviewees also came out with three educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which
was recognized by focus group and user participants (general knowledge). See Appendix
N for response of participants on educational benefits of DH Community ICT Center.
Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest educational benefit accrued
from the DH ICT center both by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups)
and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). During data collection, one participants of
focus group 33 assessed the value of computer skill by comparing the period before and
after the computer training and summed his experience by underlining that:

105

I can say that we were acting as if we were handicapped; we do have hands and
yet we were acting as if we didn't have that and we have eyes to see but we were
acting like visually impaired people. After the computer training, we were been
able to have a hand to operate and an eye to see. Our hands are active and strong
enough and our eyes are wide open to see the true benefit and use of the
technology.

In addition, school educational support appeared to be the other highest
educational benefits of the ICT center (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). According to a
teacher user participant 26, I used to write exam papers in hand. Now using the
accessible resources of the centre I prepare exams in computers. It makes my work easy
which in turn help to reduce the work burden of my secretary too. He added that
Teachers with good ICT skills used ICT more and more often in a student-centered way
of teaching. Moreover, according to a female student participant of focus group 24, a
student who uses internet has lots of knowledge and got respect and has great confidence
in class. In addition, she noted that it is better to use excel than calculator for our course
work and assignment.
Furthermore, acquiring general knowledge at the services of the center was also
noted as an educational benefit by focus groups (1 case, 50% of focus groups). The other
educational benefits from the center were found to be general knowledge for user
participants (1 case, 25% of users), and non user participants (1 case, 25% of users) and
scholarship for focus group discussion participants. Demonstrating the benefit of the
center in scholarship, a participant of focus group 23 noted that my kids are one of the
beneficiaries of this service in getting scholarship. My daughter after a frequent

106

communication she succeeded in getting a scholarship in South Korea. My son also got a
chance to go to Switzerland for short course by using the internet at the center.
Research participants had shared their perception on the educational benefits of
TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses showed that
computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents) obtained from
the ICT center. The next highest educational benefit of the center was school educational
support (50% of respondents). The aggregated analyses of the perceptions are represented
graphically in Figure 24.

TK
Count
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
General Knowledge
Scholarship
Foreign language
Computer skill

Figure 24. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of TK community ICT center.

and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center came out with three

107

educational benefits of the community ICT center out of which two are common benefits.
The two commonly recognized educational benefits were computer skill, and scholarship.
In addition, the non-user group interviewees also expected and identified three
educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which was identified by focus group and user
participants (computer skill). See Appendix N for response of participants on educational
benefits of TK youth community ICT center.
Overall, computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest educational
benefits of TK youth ICT center both by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus
groups) and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). School education support appeared
to be the other highest educational benefits accrued from the ICT centers by focus group
discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). One participant of focus group 35 indicated
that the students who are getting the services of the center are very active in ICT. They
are even helping the other students at their class. According to a participant of focus
group 35, he has made a connection/contact with an institution working on Africa's
Environmental Network and this has enabled him to attend an international leadership
training seminar in Denmark.
The lowest educational benefit was found to be scholarship opportunity for user
participants (1 case, 25% of users), and computer skill for non user participants (1 case,
25% of non-users).
The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, indicated
that school education support was the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from

108

the use of the ICT center. Computer literacy and skill (60% of respondents) was the other
higher rated educational benefit. Figure 25 represents the result of the analysis on
educational benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY
Count
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Distance Education
Foreign language
Scholarship
General Knowledge
Computer skill

Figure 25. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of YY community ICT center.

interviewees recognized three and four educational benefits of the community ICT center
respectively out of which two were common benefits. The two commonly shared
educational benefits were computer skill, and scholarship. In addition, the non-user group
interviewees also identified four educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which is
recognized by focus group and user participants (computer skill). See Appendix N for
response of participants on educational benefits of YY community ICT center.

109

According to data collected and processed from the center, the two most important
educational benefits perceived were computer skill both by focus group discussion (2
cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviewees (3 cases, 75% of users) and school
education support by focus group discussion (2 case, 100% of focus groups). According
to a teacher participant of focus group 46, he used the center for downloading several
materials from the internet and stated that he downloaded C++ at the center which was a
bit expensive to buy at the nearby town. Another participant of the same focus group also
noted that,
I use the internet as my reference when I carry on my educational career. This has
been hardly possible when I was a student as there was no access to the internet. I
am now using the center as a means to download different materials/documents
from the internet with cheaper expense.

In addition, non-users recognized the benefits of ICT in the development of
computer skill and acquiring general knowledge at the services of the center was also
noted as an educational benefit by users (2 cases, 50% of users).
The lowest educational benefit was found to be distance education opportunity for
user participants (1 case, 25% of users) and computer skill for non user participants (1
case, 25% of non users).
Health Benefits
Research participants had shared their perception on the health benefits obtained
from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses
indicated that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (50% of respondents)

110

obtained from the LA community ICT center. The aggregated analyses of the perceptions
are represented graphically in Figure 26.

LA
Health facility Knowledge and Skill
C
o
u
n
t
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 26. Analysis of responses to health benefits of LA community ICT center.

and user interviewees at LA community ICT center came out with two and one health
benefits of the community ICT center respectively and out of which one was found to be
a common benefit. The one commonly shared health benefit was health knowledge and
skill. In addition, non-user group participants also recognized health knowledge and skill
as one of the expected benefits of ICT. See Appendix O for response of research
participants on health benefits of LA community ICT center.
According to a participant of focus group discussion 2, the health benefit we get
is that the trainers first browse any information regarding HIV and provide the training to

111

us. Hence, the most important health economic benefit perceived by users of LA
community ICT center was health knowledge and skill by focus group discussion (1 case,
50% of focus groups) and user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users).
Health facility was another health benefit recognized by focus group participants
(1 case, 50% of focus groups) only.
The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection indicated
that health knowledge and related skill was the highest benefit (60% of respondents) of
the ICT center. Health facility (40% of respondents) was the other higher rated health
benefit. Figure 27 represents the result of the analysis on health benefits of KY
KY
Health Improvement Health facility Knowledge and Skill
C
o
u
n
t
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 27. Analysis of responses to health benefits of KY community ICT center.


112

interviewees perceived two and three health benefits of the community ICT center
respectively and out of which two are common benefits. The two commonly shared
health benefits were health knowledge and skill, and health facility. In addition, non-user
group participants identified one of the benefits recognized by user and focus group
participants (knowledge and skill). See Appendix O for response of research participants
on health benefits of KY community ICT center.
According to data collected and processed from the center, the most important
health benefit perceived by users was getting health knowledge and skill by focus group
discussion (1 case, 50% of focus groups) and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). A
participant of focus group discussion 16 noted that the center provided education of
HIV, saved youth from rampant sex and protected youth from wasting time in drinking
alcohol and instead spent time on useful activities.
Health facility was another health benefit identified by focus group participants (2
case, 100% of focus groups) and users (2 cases, 50% of users).
showed that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents)
obtained from the DH community ICT center. The next health related benefit recognized
by analysis was the provision of health facility (20% of respondents) at the community
ICT center. Figure 28 represents the analysis of the interview on health benefits of DH

113

DH
Health Improvement Health facility Knowledge and Skill
C
o
u
n
t
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 28. Analysis of responses to health benefits of DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated three health
benefits, user interviewees came with one benefit of DH community ICT center. Health
knowledge and skill was the health benefit identified by both focus group discussion
participants and user interviewees. Similarly, non-user group participants identified
knowledge and skill as one of the benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix O for response of
research participants on health benefits of DH community ICT center.
According to a participant of focus group discussion 23, using internet of the
center, we were able to access international annual reports and other materials from
UNAIDS. We were also communicating with Alliance International, an institution
working on HIV/AIDS to raise our knowledge.
As a consequence, a participant of focus group discussion 24, concluded that
now we know everything about HIV AIDS, stigma and discrimination, voluntary

114

counseling and testing and the likes. In the sense of expressing the impact of the center,
a participant from the same group underscored that as a result of the information I got
from the center, I have a change of attitude on HIV positive. Now we have developed our
understanding of how to care HIV positive, and feel the sense of responsibility and
humanity we must have towards HIV positive.
Hence, the most important health benefit perceived by users was getting health
knowledge and skill by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user
interviews (3 cases, 75% of users). Furthermore, focus group participants recognized
health facility (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and health improvement (1 case, 50% of
focus groups) as health benefits of the center.
Research participants had shared their perception on the health benefits obtained
from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated
responses showed that health knowledge and skill was the highest health benefit (60% of
respondents) of the ICT center. The aggregated analysis of the health benefit perceptions
are represented graphically in Figure 29.


115

TK
Health Improvement Knowledge and Skill
C
o
u
n
t
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 29. Analysis of responses to health benefits of TK community ICT center.

and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center shared their view on one and
two health benefits of the community ICT center respectively and out of which one was
found to be common benefit. The commonly identified health benefit of the ICT center
was health knowledge and skill. See Appendix O for response of research participants on
health benefits of TK youth community ICT center.
According to a participant of focus group discussion 35, We have been
promoting about a green plant traditional medicine called 'Artemisia' in our website. In
addition, there is a way in which we get some information on ways of understanding the
dosage of the different traditional medicine from abroad which would help us apply to
our situation.


116

The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, showed
that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (50% of respondents) obtained
from the use of the ICT center. Other health related benefit identified was health
improvement. Figure 30 represents the result of the analysis on health benefits of YY

YY
Health Improvement Knowledge and Skill
C
o
u
n
t
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 30. Analysis of responses to health benefits of YY community ICT center.

interviews came out with one and two health benefits of the community ICT center
respectively. Health knowledge and skill was commonly recognized health benefit of the
center. In addition, non-user group participants identified health knowledge and skill as

117

one of the health benefits of ICT. See Appendix O for response of research participants
on health benefits of YY community ICT center.
According to data collected from the center, the most important health benefit
perceived by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews
(2 cases, 50% of users) was health knowledge and skill.
General Benefit of the Community ICT Centers
Research participants had shared their perception on the general benefits obtained
from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses
indicated that access and communication are the highest benefits (90% of respondents) of
LA community ICT center. The next general benefit identified was the provision of
secretarial services (30% of respondents) at the community ICT center. The aggregated
analysis of general benefit perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 31.


118

LA
secretarial services communication access
C
o
u
n
t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 31. Analysis of responses to general benefits of LA community ICT center.

and user interviewees at LA community ICT center recognized three and four general
benefits of the community ICT center respectively out of which three are common
benefits. The three commonly shared general benefits of the LA community ICT center
were access, communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits
identified by non-user group were similar to all the benefits identified by user group. See
Appendix P for responses of research participants on general benefits of LA community
ICT center.
Getting ICT access was recognized as highest benefit by user interviews (3 cases,
75% of users) and focus groups (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). Similar to user
interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases,
100% of non-users).

119

User participants expressed that as a result of the access they got at the center,
they have saved several wastes in terms of time and finance to travel to other towns in
search of access (4 cases, 100% of users). In fact, user participant 3 noted that all the
hardships that we were facing traveling all those long distances are no more happening
now and we are benefiting as a result of that saving money and energy. In addition, a
participant from focus group 1 underscored that prior to having the internet access at the
center, we had to travel 200 km all the way to Adama town to get access. Now we are
communicating with anybody or any institution anywhere in the country. Previously we
were using post office to send mails now fax saving time and cost.
The other highest benefit was communication perceived by focus group (2 cases,
100% of focus groups) and user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users). Non-users also
recognized and expected communication as a general benefit (4 cases, 100% of non-
users).
The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection,
demonstrated that access was the highest benefit (80% of respondents) of the ICT center.
Communication for exchange of information (70% of respondents) was the other higher
rated general benefit. Figure 32 represents the result of the analysis on general benefits of
KY community ICT center.

120

KY
C
o
u
n
t
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 32. Analysis of responses to general benefits of KY community ICT center.

The data analysis showed that both focus group discussion participants and user
interviewees perceived three and four general benefits of the community ICT center
respectively and three benefits were found to be common. The three commonly
recognized general benefits were access, communication and secretarial services. In
addition, access and communication were also identified by non-user group as general
benefits of ICT use. See Appendix P for response of research participants on general
benefits of KY community ICT center.
According to data collected from the center, the most important general benefit
perceived by users was getting access by user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users) and
focus groups (1 case, 50% of focus groups). Similar to user interviews, the highest
general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases, 100% of non-users).
The other highest benefit, communication, was recognized by focus group (2 cases, 100%

121

of focus groups) and by user interviews (2 cases, 50% of users). Non-users also expected
communication as a general benefit (3 cases, 75% of non-users). A secretarial service
was also recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (1 case, 50% of focus
groups) and user interviews (2 cases, 50% of users).
showed that ICT access was the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from the
DH community ICT center. The next general benefit identified by analysis was
communication services (70% of respondents). Figure 33 represents the analysis of the
interviews on general benefits of DH community ICT center.

DH
C
o
u
n
t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 33. Analysis of responses to general benefits of DH community ICT center.


122

Analysis of focus group discussion participants and user interviewees came out
with three general benefits of DH community ICT center. Access, communication and
secretarial services were commonly recognized benefits by both users and focus group
discussion participants. In addition, all the general benefits identified by non-user group
were similar to all the benefits recognized by user group. The response of research
participants on general benefits is included in Appendix P.
The two most important general benefits perceived by users were getting access
(3 cases, 75% of users) and communication (4 cases, 100% of users). Similar to user
interviews, the highest general benefit expected by non users was getting access (4 cases,
100% of non-users) and communication (4 cases, 100% of non-users) of ICT. A
secretarial service was also recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (1
case, 50% of focus groups), user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users) and non users (1 case,
25% of non users).
Research participants had shared their perception on the general benefits obtained
from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated
responses showed that ICT access was the highest benefit (80% of respondents) of the
ICT center. The next highest general benefit identified was communication services (70%
of respondents). The aggregated analysis of the general benefits perceptions are
represented graphically in Figure 34.

123

TK
C
o
u
n
t
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 34. Analysis of responses to general benefits of TK community ICT center.

and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center perceived two general benefits
of the community ICT center. One commonly shared benefit by both users and focus
group discussion participants was secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits
expected by non-user group were benefits recognized by user or focus group. See
Appendix P for response of research participants on general benefits of TK youth
Overall, the most important general benefit perceived by users of TK youth
community ICT center was getting ICT access (4 cases, 100% of users). Similar to user
interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases,
100% of non-users). According to user participant 37, I have no financial capacity to
take a computer training elsewhere. In line with this, user participant 39 added that had

124

it not been for this affordable service center, I could have delayed my training. With
delay I could even have lost my interest to learn computer.
The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection,
demonstrated that getting ICT access was the highest benefit (90% of respondents)
obtained from the use of the ICT center. Secretarial services and communication (60% of
respondents) were the other higher rated general benefits. Figure 35 represents the result
of the analysis on general benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY
C
o
u
n
t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 35. Analysis of responses to general benefits of YY community ICT center.

interviews came out with three and four general benefits of the community ICT center
respectively out of which three are common benefits. The three commonly shared general

125

benefits were access, communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general
benefits identified by non-user group were similar to all the benefits identified by user
and focus group. See Appendix P for response of research participants on general benefits
of YY community ICT center.
Based on the data analysis of the center, ICT access was the most important
general benefit perceived by user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users), focus groups (2
cases, 100% of focus groups), and non users (3 cases, 75% of non users). According to
user participant 50, he noted that:
we have started to save money as we only need to pay half of that of the others.
We have also started to save the amount of money we used to spend for
transportation to Hawassa (town) and all the other expenses when we go there.
Though we try to come as early as possible back home, there were times where
we spend money for tea, coffee and food. We also saved for our work which was
used to be wasted in search of ICT access.

Furthermore, the other highest benefit of the center was communication
recognized by focus group (1 case, 50% of focus groups) and by user interviews (4 cases,
100% of users).
Common Benefits Perceived by Individuals
Using the features of QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 analysis software, report
of categories and subcategories against respondents was generated to identify the
commonly stated benefits based on the frequency of responses. As a result, the benefits
that have aggregate respondents of at least 50% were taken as an indication of commonly
shared perception.

126

As a result of this exercise at the level of categories, all benefit categories of this
research got greater than 50% respondents in aggregate (Refer Table 6). This implies that
economy, education, health, and general benefits were perceived as common benefits by
more than 50% of research participants.
Overall, education and general benefit were the two highly rated benefit
categories of the community ICT centers by 96% of the participants. Next follows
economic benefits (84%), general interests (74%) and health benefits (62%).
When common benefits are examined at the level of aggregated subcategories the
common benefits shared by most respondents were: computer skill, communication,
saving, employment, knowledge and skill, school education improvement and access.
The frequency counts of subcategories developed in relation to focus group discussions
and the interview transcripts are depicted in Table 7.

Table 7. Frequency Counts for Subcategories
Frequency No. Cases % Cases
Access 88 43 86.00%
Saving 96 37 74.00%
Communication 67 35 70.00%
Computer literacy & skill 142 33 66.00%
Employment 55 31 62.00%
Health knowledge & skill 37 29 58.00%
School education support 66 27 54.00%

From the subcategories, access was taken as the highest general benefit obtained
from the community ICT centers (86%). Following to access saving was considered as
the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers (74%). While acquiring computer

127

literacy and skill (66%) was the highest rated benefit under the category of education,
health knowledge and skill got the highest response in health category (58%).
Common Economic Benefits
Focus group discussion participants and user interviews recognized five common
economic benefits. The five commonly shared economic benefits of the centers were
saving, employment, agri income, job promotion and general income. In addition, the
non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation four of the commonly
recognized economic benefits as benefits of ICT usage. Figure 36 depicts the response of
common economic benefits of the community ICT centers.
Common economic benefits
SAVING EMPLOYMENT GENERAL INCOME AGRI INCOME JOB PROMOTION
N
o

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0

Figure 36. Analysis of responses against common economic benefits.

Affordability of the services and the resulting saving obtained from the study
appeared to be the highest commonly shared benefit of the ICT centers both in focus
group discussion (36 counts, 10 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (53

128

counts, 20 cases, 100% of users). Another major commonly recognized economic benefit
obtained from the centers was employment (25 counts, 17 cases, 85% of users) and (24
counts, 10 cases, 100% of focus groups).
General income was the other commonly accepted economic benefit of the
community ICT centers by users (5 counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) and focus groups (22
counts, 9 cases, 90% of focus groups).
Common Educational Benefits
Analysis indicated that focus group discussion participants and user interviews
shared five common educational benefits. The five commonly identified educational
benefits of the center were computer skill, school education improvement, distance
education, general knowledge, and scholarship. In addition, the non-user group
interviewees also expected six educational benefits of ICT usage, four of which were
recognized by focus group and user participants. Figure 37 depicts common educational
benefits of the community ICT centers.


129

No of respondents
36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0
C
o
m
m
o
n

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
COMPUTER SKILL
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
SCHOLARSHIP
DISTANCE EDUCATION

Figure 37. Analysis of responses against common educational benefits.

Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest commonly recognized
educational benefits of the ICT centers both by focus group discussion (87 counts, 10
cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (51 counts, 19 cases, 95% of users).
The support given to school education appeared to be the second highest commonly
perceived educational benefit of the ICT centers both by focus group discussion (36
counts, 9 cases, 90% of focus groups) and user interviews (25 counts, 15 cases, 75% of
users). Non-users also recognize the benefits of ICT in supporting school educational
programs (5 counts, 3 cases, 15% of non-users) and development of computer skill (4
counts, 4 cases, 20% of non-users). Another commonly identified educational benefit
recognized by users (4 counts, 3 cases, 15% of users) and focus groups (12 counts, 5
cases, 50% of focus groups) was getting the opportunity of scholarship by using the
services of the centers.

130

Getting information about education was identified by non users (27 counts, 14
cases, 70% of non-users) as a general interest they expect to get from ICT.
Common Health Benefits
Focus group discussion participants and user interviews shared three common
health benefits. The three common perceived health benefits of the center were health
improvement, knowledge and skill, and health facility. In addition, the non user group
interviewees also expected two of the benefits recognized by user and focus group
participants. The identified benefits were health improvement, and knowledge and skill.
Figure 38 depicts common health benefits of the community ICT centers.
Common health benefits
KNOWLEDGE_AND_SKILL HEALTH FACILITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
N
o

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0

Figure 38. Analysis of responses against common health benefits.

Getting knowledge and skill about health appeared to be the highest commonly
perceived benefit of the ICT centers both in focus group discussion (14 counts, 8 cases,
80% of focus groups) and user interviews (17 counts, 16 cases, 80% of users). Health

131

facility was another commonly shared health benefit by user (2 counts, 2 cases, 10% of
users) and focus group participants (6 counts, 5 cases, 50% of focus groups).
Common General Benefits
Focus group discussion participants and user interviews perceived three common
general benefits. The three commonly shared general benefits were access,
communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits expected by
non-user group were similar to all the benefits recognized by user and focus group.
Figure 39 depicts common general benefits of the community ICT centers.

Common general benefits
ACCESS COMMUNICATION SECRETARIAL_SERVICES
N
o

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 39. Analysis of responses against common general benefit.

While users recognized ICT access (34 counts, 17 cases, 85% of users), focus
group participants favored communication (18 counts, 8 cases, 80% of focus groups) as
the highest general benefit of the center. The second highest benefit of the center was

132

communication for users (27 counts, 13 cases, 65% of users), while access was for focus
groups (20 counts, 7 cases, and 70% of focus groups). Secretarial services was also
recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (15 counts, 7 cases, 70% of focus
groups) and user interviews (10 counts, 8 cases, 40% of users).
Similar to user interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was
getting access (34 counts, 19 cases, 95% of non-users). Non-users also recognized and
expected communication as a general benefit (22 counts, 14 cases, 70% of non-users) of
ICT.
Research Question 2
Which Services and ICTs of the Community ICT Centers are most Important in
Addressing Poverty?
Most Important Services
Participants of the group discussion had much to say about their perception on the
importance of the services offered at the community ICT centers. Computer training
provided at the community ICT centers got the highest aggregated valued service (8
cases, 80% of focus groups). However, 10% of the respondents came with other highly
valued services: secretarial and an internet services. Figure 40 depicts the aggregated
response of important services.

133

Services
training secretarial service internet
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 40. Aggregated response of important services.

Responses gathered from all the community ICT centers demonstrated that
computer training was indeed the highest rated service. Figure 41 depicts the response of
important services by community ICT centers.

134

DH LA YY KY TK
training secretarial service internet
C
o
u
n
t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 41. Response of important services against community ICT centers.

Participants of the group discussion had shared their perception on the second
important services offered at the community ICT centers. Result of the analysis showed
that secretarial services provided at the community ICT centers got the second highest
valued service (5 cases, 50% of focus groups). Figure 42 depicts the aggregated response
of second important services.


135

Services
secretarial service internet copy
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 42. Aggregated response of second important services.

Data analysis showed that a secretarial service was the second highest rated
service by all the community ICT centers. Internet service was also rated next to
secretarial services by four community ICT centers (Figure 43).

136

LA KY DH TK YY
secretarial service internet copy
C
o
u
n
t
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 43. Response of second important service by community ICT centers.

Most Valued IT
Participants of the group discussion have discussed about their perception on the
importance of the ICT equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers.
As the result of the discussion, computer as an IT technological devise got the highest
valued IT technology at the community ICT centers (7 cases, 70% of focus groups).
Figure 44 depicts the response of most valued IT.

137

Technology
Computer Internet others
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 44. Aggregated response of most valued IT.

Responses gathered from the community ICT centers also demonstrated that
computer was indeed the highest rated IT. Figure 45 depicts the response of most valued
IT against community centers.

138

LA KY DH TK YY
C
o
u
n
t
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 45. Response of most valued IT against community ICT centers.

Participants of the group discussion had identified the second important ICT
equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers. Internet as an IT
technology got the second highest valued IT technology (6 cases, 60% of focus groups).
Figure 46 depicts the response of the second important IT.

139

Technology
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 46. Aggregated response of second important IT.
Based on data gathered from all the community ICT centers, internet was the
second highest rated IT. Figure 47 depicts the response of the second most valued IT by
community ICT centers.
LA KY DH TK YY
C
o
u
n
t
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 47. Response of the second important IT against community ICT centers.

140

Which Services and ICTs are Considered as the Least Important in Addressing
Poverty?
Least Important Services
Participants of the group discussion had valued Internet services provided at the
community ICT centers as the least important valued service (3 cases, 30% of focus
groups). However, the respondents expressed that it was not the value of the internet
service that got low rating but the availability of the service and other capacity of usage
of the internet that turned it to be low valued. Binding & scanning services provided were
also on the low valued list of services. Figure 48 depicts the response of less important
services.
Services
binding scanning internet secretarial service Fax
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Figure 48. Aggregated response of less important services.


141

Analysis of the data gathered from all the community ICT centers indicated that
internet service was considered as the least provided service at three centers. Two centers
valued scanning and secretarial services as least important services. Figure 49 depicts the
response of less important services against community ICT centers.
LA KY DH TK YY
binding scanning internet secretarial service Fax
C
o
u
n
t
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 49. Response of less important service by community ICT centers

Least Important IT
Participants of the group discussion had shared their perception on the level of
importance of the ICT equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers.
Fax as an IT technological devise at the community ICT centers got the lowest valued IT
technology (3 cases, 30% of focus groups). Figure 50 depicts the response of less
important IT.


142

Technology
scanner binder internet fax others
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Figure 50. Aggregated response of less important IT.

The analysis of data gathered from community ICT enters indicated that three
centers put fax as the least IT in importance. Scanner and internet as technology were
also rated less important at two centers. Figure 51 depicts the response of less important
IT against community ICT centers.


143

LA KY DH TK YY
scanner binder internet fax others
C
o
u
n
t
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 51. Response of less important IT by community ICT centers.

Research Question 3
What is the Difference Between Individuals Perception on the Use and Benefits of
Community ICT Center in Addressing Poverty?
Uncommon Benefits Listed by Individuals
Using the QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 analysis software, report of
categories and subcategories against respondents was generated to identify benefits not
commonly stated by individuals based on the frequency of responses. As a result, the
response below 50% was taken as an indication of not commonly shared perception.
At category level, there was not any category left unaddressed by the responses
collected from the five community ICT centers. However, from the subcategories,
distance education was taken as the lowest unshared benefit by respondents (8%). The
other low rated benefits were: health improvement (12%) from health category;

144

secretarial service (40%), from general benefit category, and agri income (26%) from
economic category (Appendix L).
Uncommon Economic Benefits
All the economic benefits recognized in this research were found to be commonly
shared however; two of the benefits have a lower rate of response. Agri income and job
promotion were the economic benefits that got the lowest response. Appendix Q depicts
the uncommon economic benefits.
Based on the analysis conducted, job promotion by users (5 counts, 3 cases, 15%
of users) and focus group (9 counts, 3 cases, 30% of focus groups), and agricultural
income by focus groups (14 counts, 4 cases, 40% of the focus groups) and users (4
counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) were identified as low rated economic benefits obtained
from the centers. Agri income was also listed as a low rated economic benefit of ICT by
non-users (4 counts, 3 cases, 15% of non-users).
In relation to the community ICT centers, the lowest economic benefits
recognized were job promotion (LA, DH & KY), and general income (KY and TK ).
Uncommon Educational Benefits
Acquiring general knowledge at the services of the centers was noted relatively
low rated educational benefit by users (10 counts, 8 cases, 40% of users), focus group
participants (11 counts, 3 cases, 30% of focus groups) and non-users (5 counts, 5
cases, 25% of non-users). See Appendix Q for table of the uncommon educational
benefits.

145

Conducting distance education was the other low rated educational benefit of the
community ICT centers as analyzed from data of users (4 counts, 2 case, 10% of users)
and focus groups (2 counts, 2 cases, 20% of focus groups).
The other lowest benefits identified in relation to the community ICT centers were
distance education (LA & YY), general knowledge (TK), and scholarship (TK & YY).
Uncommon Health Benefits
Low rated health benefit obtained from the centers was health improvement by
user (5 counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) and focus groups (1 count, 1 case, 10% of focus
groups). While health improvement was recognized by KY, YY, TK community centers,
health facility was identified by only KY community ICT center. See Appendix Q for a
table that depicts the uncommon health benefits.
Uncommon General Benefits
All the general benefits identified in this research were found to be commonly
shared by all except that ICT access was not part of the general benefits noted by TK
community ICT center. See Appendix Q for a table that depicts the uncommon general
benefits.
Difference Between Individuals Perceptions
By design the research has implemented maximum diversity strategy and as a
result, ICT centers and research participants represent diversity. Consequently,
perceptions of research participants were expected to vary. Major factors observed during
the study that influenced the various perceptions observed were: location of the center,
demography of users (work status, age, education), and computer skill.

146

Location of the Community ICT Center
The centers were located in different regions of the country which has a great
impact on their influence on the users and community around the centers. Three centers
were found to be the only places with ICT access availability. The users of these centers
have benefited better than the other centers where there was an access alternatives. One
center that was located around cotton producer pastoralists was used for searching market
information to export cotton. Hence, the difference of perceptions on the benefits of
Demography of Users
The participants of the research had a great variety in work status, age, and
education. Some of the participants were unemployed and some employed. As a result,
the purpose of using the services of the center varied whether the user was an employ or
not. While, employees were using the center for acquiring information related to their
work and office obligations, unemployed ones used the system essentially in search of
job vacancy. Some elders were using the center to reach distant family members and
relatives in the country and abroad, whereas youth were using the center to download
music and videos for entertainment. However, students were using the center to get
reference materials for their studies and in search of scholarships and distance education.
Therefore, demography of users influenced the purpose and use of the center and resulted
divergent view on the benefits of community ICT center.


147

Computer Skill
Computer skill was another major factor in the use of the center. Those research
participants who had relatively better computer skill were using the centers service in
particular the internet to help their purpose. But some, who did not have the skill to
browse the internet, could not benefit much from the center. Hence, a difference in
perception also emanated from users difference in computer skill.
Cross Case Analysis
The cross case analysis demonstrated that all ICT centers exhibited several
benefits to individuals and communities living around the centers. All centers had similar
ICT equipment and nearly provide same kind of services. However, the kind and degree
of the benefits they provided was varied.
The variety and depth of benefits at LA community ICT center was much higher
than the other centers in depth of the benefits users of the centers got. YY community
ICT center followed next to LA community ICT center and then KY community ICT
center. DH and TK youth community ICT centers trail behind the three centers. The first
three centers were unique access centers in the area. Dependency of users on the centers
and impact of the center on users was comparatively high. Prior to the operation of the
centers, communities of the three centers were travelling to nearby towns for ICT access.
As a result, they witnessed noticeable levels of benefits after the opening of the centers.
In all the community ICT centers, affordability & the resulting saving was the
highest perceived economic benefit obtained from the ICT centers. Employment
opportunity was also perceived as the other highest economic benefit by interviewed

148

users of all community ICT centers. The lowest economic benefits identified were job
promotion (LA, DH & KY ICT centers), and general income (KY, DH and TK youth ICT
center).
Cross case comparison was also done by employing the features of WordStat 6.1,
the result essentially confirmed the analysis and conclusions made. The result is
represented in Figure 52 where the size of the circle represents the magnitude of
participant responses.

Figure 52. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on economic benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was also
done on the economic output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters
showed that LA and YY community ICT centers belong to one group and KY, DH, and

149

TK youth community ICT centers to another based on the similarity they exhibited on
economic benefits.
Regarding educational benefits, in all the community ICT centers, computer
literacy and skill was perceived as the highest educational benefit obtained from the ICT
centers. General knowledge was the second highest benefit of the centers per the response
of all the interviewed users of the centers. The other lowest benefits identified were
distance education (LA & YY community ICT centers), general knowledge (TK youth
community ICT center), and scholarship (TK youth & YY community ICT centers).
The result of cross case comparison by WordStat 6.1 is depicted in Figure 53
illustrating the comparison of all centers on educational benefits.

Figure 53. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on educational benefits.

150

The highest number of educational benefits (4) of ICT was identified by non users
of YY and KY community ICT centers and lowest number of educational benefits (3)
was identified by TK youth and LA community ICT centers. However, DH community
ICT center identified three educational benefits of ICT.
By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was also
done on the educational output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two
clusters showed that LA youth community ICT center belonged to one group and
remaining centers to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on educational
benefits.
In all the community ICT centers, health knowledge and skill was found out to be
the highest perceived health benefit obtained from the ICT centers. While health
improvement was the second highest benefit identified by three centers (KY, TK, and YY
community ICT centers), health facility was identified by only one community ICT
center (KY community ICT center).
Only the focus group discussion at one center (DH community ICT center)
identified three health benefits while focus group at KY and LA community ICT centers
identified two health benefits. YY and TK youth community ICT centers identified only
one health benefit.
Cross case comparison was also done by employing WordStat 6.1; the result
augments the analysis and conclusions made. The result is represented in Figure 54.

151

Figure 54. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on health benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was done on
the health output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters showed
that LA, DH, TK and YY community ICT centers belonged to one group and KY
community ICT center, to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on health
benefits.
The two general benefits recognized by all the community ICT center of the study
were access and secretarial services. One community ICT center (KY) identified six
general benefits of community ICT center. While the community ICT center of DH and
YY recognized five of the benefits, LA community ICT center perceived four and TK
youth community ICT center came with three general benefits.
While three general benefits of ICT was identified by non users of community
ICT centers of LA, KY, DH, and YY, TK youth community ICT center identified 2
general benefits. Communication and secretarial services was identified by all centers,

152

whereas access was expected benefit by all community ICT centers non-users except TK
Cross case comparison was also done by employing WordStat 6.1, and the result
is represented in Figure 55.

Figure 55. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on general benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was done on
the general benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters indicated that DH and YY
community ICT centers belonged to one group and LA, KY, and TK youth community
ICT centers to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on general benefits.
Five general benefits of ICT were identified by non users of LA, YY and DH
community ICT centers. While TK youth community ICT center identified 4 general
benefits, KY community ICT center identified 3 benefits. However, a secretarial service
was identified by 3 centers (LA, DH, and YY community ICT centers).

153

Overall, when viewed through the lens of Heekss (2002) ICT model, although
the centers exhibited varied effect, this research showed that the analysis of benefit
perceptions of all five centers demonstrated that ICT can have a role on poverty.
Summary of the Findings
Chapter 4 reviewed the findings obtained by the researcher during field studies
and site visits made at LA, KY, DH, TK, and YY community ICT centers to explore the
use of ICT in addressing poverty reduction. The five community ICT centers used
various forms of ICT technology to provide services aimed at supporting the users and
communities around the centers in their quest for information and services that influenced
their daily life. Although the centers are located on varied environment, similar ICTs and
services are provided in all centers.
For this multiple case qualitative study, the researcher used published literature;
observation field notes; focus group discussions, interviews of users and non users of the
community ICT centers on the impact of ICT. Important issues and themes were
identified in the findings of this study by analyzing the perception of research
participants.
A noticeable difference between the community ICT centers was the diversity of
the areas of operation, kind of owners and the purpose and use of the services provided at
the centers. At LA community ICT center the owners and managers of the center are
pastoralists who started to grow mainly cotton and use the center as a tool to get
information to export their agricultural product which can have a direct impact on their
living by getting better price for their product. As the center is the only one in the

154

heartland of the desert area of LA, the availability of access in the area has brought an
immediate impact on their life. Had it not been for the center, time, finance, and energy
could have been wasted in search of ICT services as it used to be prior to the opening of
the center.
In contrast, TK community ICT center is located at the heart of the capital city,
Addis Ababa and level and depth of influence on the users life is limited as there are
other alternatives of ICT access and communication. A consequence of this reality may
have been that the impact of TK youth community ICT center to the life of the user does
not appear to be as powerful as LA community ICT center in the scope of ICT
influencing poverty.
Next to LA community ICT center, YY and KY community ICT centers appear to
have great influence in addressing poverty by virtue of being unique centers of their kind
to provide ICT service to users and community around. When viewed as a continuum
across location from remote to capital city, the remote centers showed a greater benefit
for users of the center and community.
As a result, the findings of the research revealed that ICT has an impact on
poverty and specifically on economic, educational, and health status of individuals. The
study supported and complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided
the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda.
The multiple case study conducted based on reports, observation notes, and
transcripts of interviews and focus group discussions obtained in this qualitative case
study, supports the following conclusions:

155

1. The community ICT centers were active with the focus of providing Internet
and local network access and secretarial services to communities living near
the centers and not local content programs.
2. Most centers served multiple functions as community resource centers.
3. Location of the center for the community greatly affected the use of ICT. The
center itself should be easily accessible to provide access.
4. All centers demonstrate varied level of economic, educational, health, and
general benefits.
5. In all the community ICT centers, employment opportunity, affordability &
saving were the highest perceived economic benefits of the centers.
6. In all the community ICT centers, computer literacy and skill was perceived as
the highest educational benefit obtained from the ICT centers.
7. In all the community ICT centers, health knowledge and skill was found out to
be the highest perceived health benefit obtained from the ICT centers.
8. The two general benefits identified by all the community ICT centers of the
study were ICT access and secretarial services.
9. Comparatively, all effective centers were located in remote and small town
settings. As a result, the impact of TK youth community ICT center to the life
of the user does not appear to be as powerful as LA community ICT center in
the scope of ICT influencing poverty.
10. The community ICT centers role on poverty was the result of multiple factors.

156

11. The centers complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided
the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda.
As a concluding remark, each community ICT center in this multiple case study
has demonstrated benefits of using the center which have an influence in the daily life of
the users. However, individual centers benefit were influenced by factors unique to each
of the centers. That is to say, factors that were related to location, demography of users,
computer skill, communication diffusion, and local contents in each center had their
imprints on the outcome and impact of community ICT centers.

157

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention was considered as applied to community
ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user community.
Data examined and analyzed during the study provided answers to the research questions
and underscored specific strategies used to improve the impact of ICT on poverty. The
study addresses the following questions:
1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT centers
addressing poverty?
3. What is the difference between individuals perception on the use and benefits
of community ICT center in addressing poverty?
This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the results, the conclusions,
and implications of ICT on poverty. The chapter ends with recommendations to include
further research and suggestions to improve the results of the study.


158

Summary
This study explored five community ICT centers in view of examining the
consequence and impact of ICT on the user community. Chapter 1 introduces the problem
and the need of research on the role of ICT on poverty. Chapter 2 contains the literature
review related to ICT and development and provided assessment of current literature on
the effects of IT on poverty. Chapter 3 contains the methodology, including the research
procedure, collection of data, and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presented and discussed
the result of data collection.
Chapter 1
Chapter 1 detailed the need for more research on the role of ICT on poverty.
Chapter 1 also documented the several researches that have been conducted on the
importance of ICT to development and the relation between ICT and poverty. Three
research questions presented the problem to be studied. Significance of the study,
limitations of the study and conceptual framework was also explained.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 presented the Literature Review. In Chapter 2, the researcher provided a
review of literatures related to ICT, development, and poverty. In this chapter, the
researcher analyzed literatures that discuss the impact of telecenter as related to
community development and outlined an assessment of the current literature. The
findings gathered from Chapter 2 provided comprehensive literature and references on
the role of ICT on poverty and the effect of community ICT centers on communities.


159

Chapter 3
Chapter 3 provided the methodology for the research study. The researcher used a
qualitative multiple case study to explore the effectiveness of ICT on poverty based on
users perception. According to Gall et al. (2003), Researchers generally do case studies
for one of three purposes: to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop
possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenomenon (p. 439). The focus of study
was on 5 community ICT centers located in several parts of Ethiopia that were
operational for at least a year. Data was collected from focus group discussions,
interviews, direct observations, and documents at the community ICT centers.
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 presented a detailed description of the five community ICT centers and
analysis of the themes that emerged from the cases. In this chapter, a synthesis of the
findings of the five cases was presented in the context of each of the three research
questions and cross case analysis was finally dealt.
Findings and Related Conclusions
The conceptual models that guided this qualitative multiple case study were
comprised of the models developed by Heeks (2002), Torero and von Braun (2006), the
input-process-output contingency model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005) and E. M. Rogerss
(1983) innovation diffusion theory. Overall, the potential and deployment of information
technology as a development tool could be taken as a universally accepted view. However,
researches indicated that ICT as development tool arguably has to encompass broad
arrays of factors beyond technology.

160

This qualitative multiple-case study focussed on ICT intervention as applied to
community ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user
community. For this qualitative case study, the researcher used data from focus group
discussions, interviews, observations, and documents detailing the role of the community
ICT centers and their impact on the communities daily life.
Research Question 1
Research question 1 was the core question of the study and yielded the most
complex set of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers in addressing
poverty. Research participants perceived economic, education, health, and general
benefits as common benefits of the community ICT centers. Overall, education and
general benefit were the two most often recognized benefit categories of the community
ICT centers. Research participants underscored the value of the community ICT centers
on supporting their educational needs in various forms.
The researcher expected that computer skill and distance education would be the
most important benefit of the community ICT centers. In congruence to the expectation,
computer literacy and skill was the most often cited benefit of the centers. However, the
community ICT centers had registered low benefit on distance education.
During the coding process, 178 subcategories emerged. After multiple coding
were done manually by employing QDA Miner 3.2 and by automated coding system of
Word Stat 6.1, no new codes became apparent. Finally, the codes were grouped following
the research design into thematic groups. Figure 56 displays the researchers construction
of the benefits of the community ICT centers.

161

Economic Social
General
Income
Agricultural
income
Employment
Distance
Learning
Computer basic
skills
Education
Health
Health
facilities
Health
Improvement
Foreign
languages
Knowledge
and Skill
General
Knowledge
Scholarship
Schooling
Support Saving
Job
Promotion Secretarial
Services
communication
Access
General
Benefits

Figure 56. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings.

Summary of Thematic Groups
Educational Benefit
As noted earlier, research participants recognized educational benefit as one of the
highest benefits of the community ICT centers. Educational benefits included computer
skill, school education improvement, distance education, general knowledge, and
scholarship.
Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest recognized educational
benefits of the ICT centers. Similar to the finding of this research, other researchers have
demonstrated that public access to ICT use has led to increase in IT knowledge and
aspirations (Bailey, 2009; Best et al., 2007; Fedotova, 2008; Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer,

162

2006). However, researcher unexpected the benefits of the community ICT centers in
terms of the link they had with schools. The support given to school education appeared
as the second highest commonly perceived educational benefit of the ICT centers.
Another interesting finding was the fact that users got an opportunity of scholarship by
using the services of the centers. Thus, effective community ICT centers provided
educational services that benefited the users and the community in the vicinity of the
General Benefit
Similar to educational benefit, general benefit was the other highest benefit of the
community ICT centers recognized by research participants. The three general benefits
were access, communication and secretarial services. Effective community ICT centers
provide general services to the community around the community ICT centers.
While ICT access was the highest general benefit of the center, communication
was the second highest general benefit of the center. As explained by Whyte (2000)
telecenters are looked at as fast and cost effective ways to provide marginalized
communities with access to telecommunications and information resources. Another
interesting finding the researcher did not expect was the impact of the secretarial services
provided at the centers. Users recognized that the community ICT centers had made a
difference by providing secretarial services.
Economic Benefit
Economic benefits were noted as important benefit obtained from the community
ICT centers. The five economic benefits of the centers were saving, employment, agri

163

income, job promotion and general income. Affordability of the services and the resulting
saving obtained appeared as the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers.
Employment emerged as the second most recognized economic benefit of the centers.
General income, job promotion and agri income also appeared as economic benefits of
the community ICT centers. Similar to this research, Fedotova (2008) found that
participants believed that the IT skills they had acquired would help in their job search,
and some felt it would help them to gain a promotion. Moreover, Best et al. (2007)
reported that eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of the skills they gained at the
computer center.
Health Benefit
The three identified health benefits of the centers were health improvement,
knowledge and skill, and health facility. Getting knowledge and skill about health was
the most recognized health benefit of the community ICT centers. Related to this finding,
Ashraf et al. (2008) indicated that in a telecenter project in Bangladesh community
members gained knowledge on basic hygiene practices.
While health facility was the other health benefit obtained by using the centers,
health improvement fell far behind the recognized health benefits. Overall, the least
valued benefits of the community ICT centers were found to be their impact on health
benefits.
Research Question 2
While computer training provided at the community ICT centers got the highest
valued service, secretarial service was recognized as the second highest valued service of

164

the community ICT centers. On the other hand, Internet services provided at the
community ICT centers was found as the least important valued service. However, the
respondents expressed that it was not the value of the internet service but the availability
of the service and other capacity of usage of the internet that turned it to be low valued.
Binding & scanning services provided were also on the low valued list of services.
In terms of the importance of ICT equipments/technologies available at the
community ICT centers, computer as an IT technological devise got the highest valued IT
technology. In contrast, fax as an IT technological devise at the community ICT centers
got the lowest valued IT technology.
Research Question 3
The third research question addressed the difference between individuals
perception on the use and benefits of community ICT center in addressing poverty.
Uncommon Benefits
While the two economic benefits that got low recognition by research participants
were agri income and job promotion, acquiring general knowledge at the services of the
centers was noted as low rated educational benefit. Conducting distance education was
the other low rated educational benefit of the community ICT centers. The other low
rated benefit from the community ICT center was health improvement for health benefits.
Causes for the Diverse Perceptions on the Benefits of Community ICT Centers
Major factors observed during the study that influenced the various perceptions of
research participants were: location of the center, demography of users (work status, age,
education), and computer skill.

165

Location of the community ICT center. The centers were located in different
regions of the country which has a great impact of their influence on the users and
community around the centers. Three centers were found to be the only places for ICT
access. The users of these centers have benefited better than the other centers where there
was an access alternatives. One center that was located around cotton producer
pastoralists was used for searching market information to export cotton. Hence, the
difference of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers.
Demography of users. The participants of the research had a great diversity in
work status, age, and education. Some of the participants were unemployed and some
employed. While, employees were using the center for acquiring information related to
their work and office obligations, unemployed used the system essentially in search of
job vacancy. Some elders were using the center to reach distant family members and
relatives in the country and abroad, whereas youth were using the center to download
music and videos for entertainment. However, students were using the center to get
reference materials for their studies and in search of scholarships and distance education.
Therefore, demography of users influenced the purpose and use of the center and resulted
divergent view on the benefits of community ICT center.
Computer skill. Computer skill was another major factor in the use of the center.
Those research participants who had relatively better computer skill were using the
centers service in particular the internet to help their purpose. But some, who did not
have the skill to browse the internet, could not benefit much from the center. Hence, a
difference in perception also emanated from users difference in computer skill.

166

Conclusions
Maximum diversity strategy was implemented in this research and as a result, ICT
centers and research participants represent diversity. Consequently, perceptions of
research participants were expected to vary. Major factors observed during the study that
influenced the various perceptions observed were: location of the center, demography of
users (work status, age, education), and computer skill.
The five community ICT centers who were the subject of this research used
various forms of ICT technology to provide services aimed at supporting the users and
communities around the centers in their quest for information and services that influenced
their daily life. Although the centers are located on varied environment, similar ICTs and
services are provided in all centers. ITU (2009) has identified lack of connectivity and the
cost of access as obstacles to access to information for the developing world. Furthermore
other studies have shown that access to information through telecommunications can
facilitate many development activities including agriculture, commerce, education, and
health care (Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Sebusang & Masupe, 2003). The finding of this study
also adds to the declared view as the availability of the ICT access and services at the
community ICT centers has demonstrated positive developmental influence.
Pott (2003) argued that in order to contribute to development, the creation of
telecenters had to be connected to the existing community organizations and initiatives.
In line with this thought, all the community ICT centers were linked to community
association which was one of the reasons for the community members to use ICT.

167

A noticeable difference observed between the community ICT centers was the
diversity of the areas of operation, kind of owners and the purpose and use of the services
provided at the centers. Furthermore, when viewed as a continuum across location from
remote to capital city, the remote centers showed a greater benefit for the users. However,
each community ICT center in this multiple case study has demonstrated benefits of
using the center which have an influence in the daily life of the users. This finding is
inconformity to the research conducted by Soriano (2007), which indicated positive
implications of telecenters on economic, social, and human aspects of rural poverty.
In addition, Benjamins (2000) causal chain of telecenters impact on development
was also demonstrated by this research:
telecenters access to ICTs provide services assist development (Benjamin)
telecenters access to ICTs Computer training Employment & or job
promotion (Current research)
telecenters access to ICTs Internet Scholarship/export (Current research)
Overall, individual centers benefits were influenced by factors unique to each of
the centers. That is to say, factors that were related to location, demography of users,
computer skill, communication diffusion, and local contents in each center had their
imprints on the outcome and impact of community ICT centers.
In conclusion, the findings of the research revealed that ICT has an impact on
poverty and specifically on economic, educational, and health status of individuals. The
study supported and complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided
the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda (Harris,

168

2002; Heeks, 2002). In effect, this research upholds the combined view of the middle-
ground view that declares that if ICTs are applied appropriately, it can play a role in the
development of a nation (Soeftestad & Sein, 2003) and Heekss (2002) position B, which
views the types of impacts associated with technological change as both good and bad,
and which sees society rather than technological factors as primary determinants of
outcomes.
Implications of the Research Findings
The following implications are recommendations for maximizing the benefits of
community ICT centers:
1. Effective community ICT centers provide services that have great demand by
the community around them. The community ICT centers must deliver services
by identifying the gap on ICT services demand by community which lies
within the scope of the centers service provision.
2. Effective community ICT centers serve multiple functions for the community.
3. Effective community ICT centers are located at the heart of their user
community. The centers should be easily accessible to provide an ICT access.
4. Effectiveness of community ICT centers are demonstrated in various forms. The
most notable forms of effectiveness are illustrated by economic, educational,
health, and general benefits.
5. Effective community ICT centers are instruments of poverty alleviation by
providing services that influence the economic status of the community.
Affordability & saving, employment, job promotion, general income and agri

169

income are forms of economic benefits of the community ICT centers.
6. Effective community ICT centers demonstrate educational benefits to the
community living around the centers. Educational benefits can be in the form
of computer literacy and skill, scholarship, distance education, foreign
language, and school education support.
7. Effective community ICT centers can bring health benefits to the community.
Health knowledge and skill, health facility, and health improvement are health
benefits of the community ICT centers.
8. Effective community ICT centers provide access and secretarial services to the
community.
9. The effectiveness of the community ICT centers are influenced by geographic
location. The centers in remote and small town settings demonstrate higher
impact of ICT on poverty.
10. The effectiveness of community ICT centers on poverty is the result of
multiple factors.
11. Effective community ICT centers are integrated with development agenda to
influence poverty.
Recommendations for Further Study
Based on the findings of this qualitative multiple case study, the following areas
for further study are recommended:
1. Future research should focus on understanding the percentage of beneficiary as
opposed to users of the center and community nearby.

170

2. Other stakeholders might be interviewed with the same interview instrument to
determine if the benefits recognized are similar from other users point of view.
3. Since possible reasons for diverse perception of ICT benefits emerged in the
research, an interesting study could be designed to examine the level of
influence of the reasons in the role of ICT on poverty.
4. Future research should include more community ICT centers in different
environmental settings. One such study might be to look at the benefits of ICT
in community ICT centers serving farmers. Would there be similar benefits to
the findings of this research? Would the findings be different had the research
been conducted in private ICT centers?
5. As remote community ICT centers demonstrate higher impact on poverty,
researches that give special emphasis for rural community ICT centers must be
encouraged and given high priority.
6. Finally, results of the present study imply that some benefits of the community
ICT centers were more important than others. A quantitative method can be
used to conduct a survey to rank the level of importance of the community ICT
center benefits. In addition, analysis could be conducted to determine whether
there is correlation between ICT and poverty alleviation intervention.
Reflections of the Researcher
As an instrument of data collection in this multiple case study the researcher was
also a participant in the research process. From this perspective it was necessary for the
researcher to isolate personal feelings, biases, and interpretations during data collection

171

and analysis. A researchers observation note was maintained for this purpose. By virtue
of the researchers managerial postion, the researcher had a keen curiosity in the theory of
ICT for development and particularly as it relates to poverty allevation. This interest
stems from at least five years of working in high managerial positions of ICT
departments.
In addition, the researcher brought the following assumptions to the study (a) that
data collection will be confined to the individuals and community ICT centers identified
in the study; and (b) the respondents might not provide the correct information which
would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings.
These assumptions remained important through the duration of the study as the
researcher made every effort to ensure the benfits of the cmmunity ICT centers was
adequatedly captured. Furthermore, the hope of the researcher is that the assumptions
possible effect was mitigated through the process of triangulating multiple sources of data
(Creswell, 1998; Yin, 2003).
During the course of this study, the researcher arrived at the realization that the
benefits of ICT are much more dependent on various factors. The analysis of the data for
these five cases made this abundantly clear to the researcher. In view of geographic
positions, community ICT centers located in remote areas had greately affected the life of
users. In addition, the community ICT centers success in benefiting the community is not
entirely dependent on the quality of service provided by the centers but it also depends on
computer skill, demography, and status of employment.

172

In a nut shell, the research results of this study support the findings of other
scholars such as Heeks (2002) and Benbunan-Fich et al. (2005), who wrote that ICTs
impact is influenced by other environmental and institutional factors. Moreover, when
viewed through the lens of Heekss ICT model, although the centers exhibited varied
effect, this research showed that the analysis of benefit perceptions of all five centers
demonstrated that ICT can have a role on poverty.
In conclusion, the results of this study will help other researchers study the effects
of ICT on poverty as demonstrated by five community ICT centers. Those who undertake
community ICT centers development program need to know how the centers could turn
to a great resource that have an impact on attacking poverty.

173

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2007). Mobile phones and economic development: Evidence from the
fishing industry in India. Information Technologies & International Development,
4(1), 517.
Aichholzer, G. (2004). Scenarios of e-Government in 2010 and implications for strategy
design. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(1), 110. Retrieved from
http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idIssue=4
Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information
society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 2(3), 4
22. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=196
Ashraf, M., Swatman, P., & Hanisch, J. (2008, June). An extended framework to
investigate ICT impact on development at the micro (community) level. Paper
presented at 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland.
Badshah, A., Khan, S., & Garrido, M. (Eds.). (2005). Connected for development:
Information kiosks and sustainability (ICT Task Force Series 4). New York, NY:
Secretariat of the United Nations ICT Task Force.
Bailey, A. (2009). Issues affecting the social sustainability of telecentres in developing
contexts: A field study of sixteen telecentres in Jamaica. The Electronic Journal
of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 36(4), 118.
Bailur, S. (2007). Using stakeholder theory to analyze telecenter projects. Information
Technologies & International Development, 3(3), 6180.
Batchelor, S., Scott, N., & Woolnough, D. (2005). Good practice paper on ICTs for
economic growth and poverty reduction. Journal of Development Assistance
Committee, 6(3), 2795.
Beardon, H. (with Munyampeta, F., Rout, S., & Williams, G. M.). (2005). ICT for
development: Empowerment or exploitation? London, England: Action Aid.
Retrieved from http://www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/ICTpo.pdf
Bedi, A. S. (1999). The role of information and communication technologies in economic
development (ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 7). Retrieved
from http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/zef_dp/zef_dp7-99.pdf

174

Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning
model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz
& R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous
learning networks (pp. 1937). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benjamin, P. (2000). Telecentre 2000 report: Literature review. Johannesburg, South
Africa: University of Witswatersrand.
Best, M., Kolko, B., Thakur, D., & Aitieva, M. (2007). Assessment of economic growth
impacts of the eCenters Project in Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved from
http://mikeb.inta.gatech.edu/uploads/papers/Kyrgyzstan.eCenters.pdf
Best, M., & Kumar, R. (2008). Sustainability failures of rural telecenters: Challenges
from Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) Project. Information Technologies
and International Development, 4(4), 3145.
Best, M., & Maclay, C. (2002). Community Internet access in rural areas: Solving the
economic sustainability puzzle. In The Global Information Technology Report
2001-2002: Readiness for the networked world. Cambridge, MA: Centre for
International Development, Harvard University.
Best, M., & Maier, S. (2007). Gender and ICT use in rural South India. Gender
Technology and Development, 11(2), 137155.
Bjrhov, M. (2006). Mobile against poverty. Telecommunications [International Ed.],
40(11), 3436.
Colle, R. D. (2005). Memo to telecentre planners. Electronic Journal of Information
Systems in Developing Countries, 21(1), 113.
Colle, R. D., & Roman, R. (2001). Telecenters for rural development: Critical
perspectives and visions for the future. Journal of Development Communications,
12(2).
Colle, R. D., & Roman, R. (2002). Handbook for telecenter staffs. Retrieved from
http://ip.cals.cornell.edu/commdev/handbook.cfm
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Information and communication
technologies in development: The role of ICTs in EC development policy
(Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/
com2001_0770en01_en.pdf
Conradie, D. P., & Jacobs, S. J. (2003, February). Challenges encountered when using
ICTs in support of development in rural African communities. Engineering
Management, 3033.

175

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Department for International Development (DFID). (2001). Sustainable livelihood
guidance sheets. London, England: Author.
Department for International Development (DFID). (2002). The significance of
information and communication technologies for reducing poverty. Retrieved
from http://www.digitale-chancen.de/transfer/downloads/MD369.pdf
Dhingra, A., & Misra, D. C. (2005). Information needs assessment model (INAM) for
identifying the information needs of rural communities. Information Technologies
and International Development, 2(2), 77-78.
Donner, J. (2007). The use of mobile phones by microentrepreneurs in Kigali, Rwanda:
Changes to social and business networks. Information Technologies &
International Development, 3(2), 319.
Doshi, K., & Gollakota, K. (n.d.). Diffusion of technological innovation in rural areas.
Retrieved from http://worldbenefit.case.edu/global-forum/file/Doshi/Doshi%20
Gollakota.pdf
Duncombe, R. A. (2001). Information, technology, and small, medium and micro
enterprise development in Botswana. Doctoral dissertation, Institute for
Development Policy and Management, Botswana, Malawi.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. England: Oxford
University Press.
Engels, P. (1997). The social organization of innovation: A focus on stakeholder
interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute.

176

Ernberg, J., & International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (1998, October).
Integrated rural development and universal accessTowards a framework for
evaluation of multipurpose community telecentre pilot projects implemented by
ITU and its partners. Paper presented at Partnerships and Participation in
Telecommunications for Rural Development: Exploring What Works and Why
Conference, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Ethiopian Information and Communication Technology Development Agency (EICTDA)
(2009). Community ICT centers in Ethiopia: ICT assisted development project
management unit (PMU). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.
Etta, F. E., & Parvyn-Wamahiu, S. (2003). The experience with community telecentres
(Information and Communication Technologies for Development in Africa, Vol.
2). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2008). Summary and statistical report of the
2007 population and housing census. New York, NY: United Nations Population
Fund.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2009). National information and
communication technology policy and strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.
Fedotova, E. (2008). Eskills: Catalyst to opportunity. Baltic IT&T Review, 3. Retrieved
from http://www.ebaltics.com/00705601
Fillip, B., & Dennis, F. (2007). Making the connection: Scaling telecenters for
development. Retrieved from http://connection.aed.org/index.htm
Franklin, M. (2006). Suggested best practice for pursuing development and poverty
reduction through national ICT strategies. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies,
31(4), 85104.
Fuchs, R. (1997). If you have a lemon, make lemonade: A guide to the start-up of the
African multipurpose community telecentre pilot projects. Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/15772/10848007181If_you_have_a_lemon_ma
ke_a_lemonade.pdf/If%2Byou%2Bhave%2Ba%2Blemon%2Bmake%2Ba%2Ble
monade.pdf
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gomez, R., & Hunt, P. (1999). Telecentre evaluation: A global perspective. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

177

Gomez, R., Hunt, P., & Lamoureux, E. (1999). Focus on telecentres: How can they
contribute to social development? Latin American Review of Communication, 1,
18.
Gomez, R., & Martinez, J. (2001). The Internet . . .Why? And what for? Thoughts on
information and communication technologies for development in Latin America
and the Caribbean. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development
Research Centre & Fundacion Accesso.
Gomez, R., & Reilly, K. (2002). Comparing approaches: Telecentre evaluation
experiences in Asia and Latin America. International Information and Library
Review, 34(1), 5778.
Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital
divide. First Monday, 8(12).
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods (Qualitative Research
Methods Series, Vol. 32). London, England: Sage.
Harris, R. W. (2002). A framework for poverty alleviation with ICTs. Retrieved from
http://www.communities.org.ru/ci-text/harris.doc
Harris, R. W. (2004). Information and communication technologies for poverty
alleviation. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP)Asian-Pacific Development Information Program (APDIP).
Hartono, E., Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., & Zhuang, Y. (2003). Key predictors of the
implementation of strategic information systems plans. Special Interest Group of
the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) on Management Information
Systems (SIGMIS) Database, 34(3), 4153.
Haseloff, A. M. (2005). Cybercafs and their potential as community development tools
in India. The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(3), 5364.
Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Heeks, R. (1999). Information and communication technologies, poverty and
development (Development Informatics Working Paper Series No. 5). Retrieved
from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/
UNPAN015539.pdf
Heeks, R. (2002). i-development not e-development: Special issue on ICTs and
development. Journal of International Development, 14(1), 111.

178

Heeks, R. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be
reduced? (iGovernment Working Paper Series No. 14). Retrieved from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN01548
8.pdf
Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international
development. Computer, 41(6), 2633.
Heeks, R., & Bhatnagar, S. C. (1999). Understanding success and failure in information
age reform. In R. Heeks (Ed.), Reinventing government in the Information Age:
International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform (pp. 4974). London,
England: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~subhash/pdfs/
ReinventingGovInInfoAge.pdf
Hudson, H. (2001). Telecentre evaluation: Issues and strategies. In C. Latchem & D.
Walker (Eds.), Telecentres: Case studies and key issues. Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.col.
org/telecentres
International Development Research Centre (IDRC). (1999). Internet for all: The promise
of telecentres in Africa (IDRC Briefing 3). Retrieved from http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/
dspace/bitstream/10625/30940/1/114393.pdf
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (1998). World telecommunication
development report. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2009). Telecentres. Retrieved from
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/telecentre/index.html
Jacobs, S. J., & Herselman, M. E. (2006). Information access for development: A case
study at a rural community centre in South Africa. Issues in Informing Science
and Information Technology, 3, 295306.Retrieved from http://informingscience.
org/proceedings/InSITE2006/IISITJaco113.pdf
James, J. (2005). Information technology and development. London, England: Routledge.
Jensen, M., & Esterhuysen, A. (2001). The community telecentre cookbook for Africa:
Recipes for self-sustainability: How to establish a multipurpose community
telecentre in Africa (Report No. CI-2001/W/S/2). Paris, France: United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Kanfi, S., & Tulus, F. (1998). Telecentres. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International
Development Research Centre.
Kelles-Viitanen, A. (2003). The role of ICT in poverty reduction. Retrieved from
http://www.etla.fi/files/895_FES_03_1_role_of_ict.pdf

179

Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1990). The social construction of technology. In D. MacKenzie &
J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp.113115). Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus group interviews: A practical guide for applied research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups (Focus Group Kit 3).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kumar, R. (2004). eChoupals: A study on the financial sustainability of village Internet
centers in rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies and International
Development, 1(3), 4573.
Kumar, R., & Best, M. (2006). Social impact and diffusion of telecenter use: A study
from the sustainable access in rural India project. The Journal of Community
Informatics, 2(3, Special Iss.). Available from http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/
en/Publication.3544.html
Kuriyan, R., Ray, I., & Toyama, K. (2008). Information and communication technologies
for development: The bottom of the pyramid model in practice. The Information
Society, 24(2), 93104.
Kuriyan, R., & Toyama, K. (2007). Review of research on rural PC kiosks. Retrieved
from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/ruralkiosks/
Kiosks%20Research.doc
Kuriyan, R., Toyama, K., & Ray, I. (2005). Integrating social development and financial
sustainability: The social and political challenges of kiosks. Available at
http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Publication.3541.html
Labelle, R. (2005). ICT policy formulation and e-strategy development: A comprehensive
guidebook (UNDP-APDIP ICT4D Series). New Delhi, India: Elsevier.
Latchem, C., & Walker, D. (2001). Perspectives on distance education: Telecentres:
Case studies and key issues. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:
Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/
PublicationDocuments/pub_PS_Telecentres_complete.pdf
Lengyel, G., Eranusz, E., Fleki, D., Lrincz, L., & Sikls, V. (2006). The Csernfa
experiment: On the attempt to deploy computers and Internet in a small
Hungarian village. The Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3, Special Iss.).
Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2008). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step
guide. London, England: Sage.

180

Madon, S. (2005). Governance lessons from the experience of telecenters in Kerala.
European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 401416.
Mahan, A., & Misnikov, Y. (2004). Introduction: Basic principles from lessons learned.
In A. Mahan (Ed.), How to build open information societies: A collection of best
practices and know-how. Bratislava, Slovak Republic: United Nations
Development Programme & Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent
States.
Malloy, T. K. (2005). Cybercafes from Cyberia to the Phlegmatic Dog. World and I,
20(1).
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th
ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marshall, S., Taylor, W., & Yu, X. (2003). Closing the digital divide: Transforming
regional economies and communities with information technology. London,
England: Praeger.
McNamara, K. S. (2000, March/April). Why be wired? The importance of access to
ICTs. TechKnowLogia. Retrieved from http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_
Articles/PDF/87.pdf
McNamara, K. S. (2003). Information and communication technologies, poverty and
development: Learning from experience. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/
en/Document.17.PDF
Mercer, C. (2006). Telecentres and transformations: Modernizing Tanzania through the
Internet. African Affairs,105(419), 243264.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, D. (2006). The unpredictable mobile phone. BT Technology Journal, 24(3), 41
48.
Mncube, S. S. (2003). The role of information in development. Midrand, South Africa:
Development Bank of Southern Africa.

181

Moodley, S. (2005). The promise of e-development? A critical assessment of the state
ICT for poverty reduction discourse in South Africa. Perspectives on Global
Development & Technology, 4(1), 126.
Mukerji, M. (2008). Telecentres in rural India: Emergence and a typology. Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 35, 113.
Munyua, H. (2000). Information and communication technologies for rural development
and food security: Lessons from field experiences in developing countries. CAB
International, Africa Regional Centre.
Ngwenyama, O., Andoh-Baidoo, F. K., Bollou, F., & Morawczynski, O. (2006). Is there
a relationship between ICT, health, education and development? An empirical
analysis of five West African countries from 1997-2003. The Electronic Journal
of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 23, 111.
Nulens, G. (2000). Information technology in Africa: The policy of the World Bank. In
C. Avgerou & G. Walsham (Eds.), Information technology in context: Studies
from the perspective of developing countries (pp. 61, 451471). Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
OFarrell, C., Norrish, P., & Scott, A. (n.d.). Information and communication
technologies for sustainable livelihoods: Preliminary study, AprilNov 1999.
Retrieved from http://www.reading.ac.uk/idc/researchfiles/ICTBreifingDoc%20
Mar00.PDF
Opiyo, R. O., & KAkumu, O. A. (2006). ICT application in the informal sector: The
case of the Kariokor market MSE cluster in Nairobi. Urban Forum, 17(3), 241
261.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1998). The OECD
definition of the ICT sector. Paris, France: Author.
Pade, C., Mallinson, B., & Lannon, J. (2005). The use of information and communication
technologies for rural development and poverty alleviation in developing
countries: An investigation of gender specific agricultural development. The
Southern African Journal of Information and Communication, 6, 421.
Panos. (2002). Panos mini-briefings on ICTs-enabled communication strategies for
social change. London, England: Author.
Parkinson, S., & Lauzon, A. C. (2008). The impact of the Internet on local social equity:
A study of a telecenter in Aguablanca, Colombia. Information Technologies &
International Development, 4(3), 2138.

182

Parkinson, S., & Ramirez, R. (2006). Using a sustainable livelihoods approach to
assessing the impact of ICTs in development. The Journal of Community
Informatics, 2(3), 116127.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London,
England: Sage.
Pedrelli, M. (2001). Developing countries and the ICT revolution: Final study. Retrieved
from http://www.euresearch.ch/media/IST_STOA_Dev_Countries_en_2000.pdf
Pott, A. (2003). Rural development and the flow of information: Do ICTs have a role?
Masters thesis, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, England.
Proenza, F. J. (n.d.). Telecentre sustainabilityMyths and opportunities. Retrieved from
http://www.e-forall.org/pdf/TelecenterSustainability.pdf
Proenza, F. J., Bastidas-Buch, R., & Montero, G. (2001). Telecenters for socioeconomic
and rural development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC:
Inter-American Development Bank.
Rajalekshmi, K. G. (2007). E-governance services through telecenters: The role of human
intermediary and issues of trust. Information Technologies & International
Development, 4(1), 1935.
Ramirez, R., & Richardson, D. (2005). Measuring the impact of telecommunication
services on rural and remote communities. Telecommunications Policy, 29(4),
297319.
Rangaswamy, N., & Toyama, K. (2005, July). Sociology of ICT: The myth of the
hibernating village. Presentation at the 11th Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction, Las Vegas, NV.
Rao, S. S. (2008). Social development in Indian rural communities: Adoption of
telecentres. International Journal of Information Management, 28(6), 474482.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, H. (2007, July). Telecenter evaluation in the Malaysian context. Presentation at
the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology in Asia, Kuching,
Sarawak, Malaysia.

183

Roman, R. (2003). Diffusion of innovations as a theoretical framework for telecenters.
Information Technologies & International Development, 1(2), 5366.
Roman, R., & Blattman, C. (2001). Research for telecenter development: Obstacles and
opportunities. Journal of Development Communication, 12(2), 110123.
Rothenberg-Aalami, J., & Pal, J. (2005). Rural telecenter impact assessments and the
political economy of ICT for development (ICT4D) (BRIE Working Paper 164).
Retrieved from http://brie.berkeley.edu/publications/WP%20164revised.pdf
Rubin, H. B., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salvador, T., Sherry, J. W., & Urrutia, A. E. (2005). Less cyber, more caf: Enhancing
existing small businesses across the digital divide with ICTs. Information
Technology for Development, 11(1), 7795.
Sebusang, S. E. M., & Masupe, S. (2003). ICT development in Botswana: Connectivity
for rural communities. The Southern African Journal of Information and
Communication, 4, 4151.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. England: Oxford University Press.
Sey, A., & Fellows, M. (2009). Literature review on the impact of public access to ICTs
(CIS Working Paper No. 6). Retrieved from http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/
bitstream/10625/45566/1/132029.pdf
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Siochr, S. ., & Girard, B. (2005). Communitybased networks and innovative
technologies: New models to serve and empower the poor. Retrieved from
http://www.propoor-ict.net/content/pdfs/Community_Nets.pdf
Soeftestad, L. T., & Sein, M. K. (2003). ICT and development: East is east and west is
west and the twain may yet meet. In S. Krishna & S. Madon (Eds.), The digital
challenge: Information technology in the development context (pp. 6382).
Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Retrieved from http://www.supras.biz/pdf/supras_
048_ictanddev.pdf
Soriano, C. R. R. (2007). Exploring the ICT and rural poverty reduction link: Community
telecenters and rural livelihoods in Wuan, China. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries, 32, 115.

184

Stoll, K., Menou, M., Camacho, K., & Khelladi, Y. (2002). Draft: Learning about ICTs
role in development: A framework toward a participatory, transparent, and
continuous process. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development
Research Centre.
Talero, E., & Gaudette, P. (1996). Harnessing information for development: A proposal
for a World Bank Group strategy (World Bank Discussion Paper No. 313).
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2).
Torero, M., & von Braun, J. (2006). Information and communication technologies for
development and poverty reduction: The potential of telecommunications.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Toyama, K., Kiri, K., Menon, D., Pal, J., Sethi, S., & Srinivasan, J. (2005). PC kiosk
trends in rural India. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(3), 317324.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative validity. Retrieved from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2007). Information Economy
Report 2007-2008: Science and technology for development: The new paradigm
of ICT. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2001). Human development report
2001. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/completenew1.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2007). Telecenter 2.0: Beyond
piloting telecenters (Asian-Pacific Development Information Program [APDIP] e-
Note 14). Retrieved from http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/14.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (n.d.). Tracking the millennium
development goals. Retrieved from http://www.mdgmonitor.org/goal1.cfm
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) & Virtual
System Processing. (2006). The socio-economic impacts of ICTs in rural Iran.
Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001497/149778e.pdf
Van Belle, J. P., & Trusler, J. (2006). An interpretivist case study of a South African rural
multipurpose community centre. The Journal of Community Informatics,1(2),
140157.

185

Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future
prospects. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems
and qualitative research (pp. 466480). London, England: Chapman & Hall.
Waverman, L., Meschi, M., & Fuss, M. (n.d.). The impact of telecoms on economic
growth in developing countries: The impact of mobile phones. Retrieved from
http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2005/450/L%20Waverman-
%20Telecoms%20Growth%20in%20Dev.%20Countries.pdf
Whyte, A. (2000). Assessing community telecenters: Guidelines for researchers. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Center.
Wims, P., & Lawler, M. (2007). Investing in ICTs in educational institutions in
developing countries: An evaluation of their impact in Kenya. International
Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication
Technology, 3(1), 522.
Wolfensohn, J., & Bourguignon, F. (2004). Development and poverty reduction: Looking
back, looking ahead. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/
Resources/84797-1104785060319/lookingbacklookingahead.pdf
World Bank. (1998). World Bank report. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2000a). Best practice review of telecentre operations. Washington, DC:
Author.
World Bank. (2000b). World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (2003). ICT and MDGs: A World Bank Group perspective. Retrieved from
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/
2004/09/15/000090341_20040915091312/Rendered/PDF/278770ICT010mdgs0C
omplete.pdf
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2004). Report of the Geneva phase
of the World Summit on the Information Society. Retrieved from
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-
0009!R1!PDF-E.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

186

Zongo, G. (2001). Information and communication technologies for development in
Africa: Trends and overview. Turin, Italy: United Nations System Staff College.

187

APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH
Community
ICT Center
TK
Community
ICT Center DH
Community
ICT Center
YY
Community
ICT Center
LA
Community
ICT Center
KY
Type of
Community
Youth Youth, Elders Youth Pastoralists Youth, Elders

Location
within
community
Center Center Center Very close Center

Hours
available to
public
Weekdays 8
AM- 6 PM +
Saturday 8
AM- 12:00
AM
Weekdays 8
AM- 7 PM +
Saturday 8
AM- 12:00 AM
Weekdays 8
AM- 6 PM +
Saturday 8
AM- 12:00
AM
Weekdays 8
AM- 6 PM +
Saturday 8
AM- 12:00
AM
Weekdays 8
AM- 6 PM +
Saturday 8
AM- 12:00
AM

Activity and
Service
Components
Computer
training
Services:
Internet,
email, &
secretarial
services
Computer
training
Services:
internet, email,
& secretarial
services
Computer
training
Services:
Internet,
email, &
secretarial
services
Computer
training
Services:
Internet,
email, &
secretarial
service
Computer
training
Services:
Internet,
email, &
secretarial
services

188

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

1. What is your experience of using the community ICT center services?
2. What is the most valuable service to the community from the services offered by the
community ICT center?
3. What is the most important ICT to the community from the ICTs available in the
community ICT center?
4. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic development of the
community?
5. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational development of the
community?
6. What effect has the community ICT center on the health development of the
community?

189

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
(AMHARIC VERSION)

190

APPENDIX D. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT
CENTER USER

Research topic: Effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on
poverty: Exploring the perception of users of community ICT centers in Ethiopia on the
effectiveness of the centers in addressing poverty alleviation: A qualitative study

Community ICT center:
Time of interview:
Date:
Place:
Research: The purpose of the study is to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
ICT intervention will be considered as applied to community ICT centers in view of
examining the consequence and impact on the user community. The findings of the study
will lay a foundation for future research that will show the relationship of ICT and
poverty alleviation. By understanding the factors that influence the use of ICT, models
could be developed that assist for improving the deployment and the benefit of ICT. In
addition, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive perspective on the role
of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.


191

Section 1: Individual characteristics
1. Residence:__________________________
2. Age: less than 10 years____ 10-20___21-30__31-40___41-50____51-60___over 60
years____
3. Gender: Masculine_____ Feminine____
4. No of family members_______
5. Functionally literate (can you read and write): Yes____ No___ A little___
6. Education level: None____ Pre-primary education___ Primary education____ Lower
secondary____ Upper secondary education_____ Post-secondary____ non-tertiary
education____ First stage of tertiary_____ Second stage of tertiary____
7. Languages: English____ Other(indicate mother tongue)__________
8. Labor force status: Paid employee____ Self-employed____ Unemployed_____

Section 2: Individual use of ICT at the center
1. Describe the facilities/services you used from the community ICT center?
2. What was the purpose of using facilities/services of the community ICT center?
3. In your experience, what benefits did you get from the community ICT center?
4. What would you have done if the community ICT center didnt exist?
5. Which facilities/services of the community ICT center have the least demand or
unwanted?
6. Before the establishment of the ICT community center, where were you going to get
service of the center?_________ Your means of transport_____ Time required one

192

way_______ Cost of transport (round trip)_____Average time spent away from home on
these trips______
7. How much did you save by using the community ICT center?

Section 3: User perception of Impact
1. In what way has your use of ICT community center changed your life (if at all)?
2. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic activity of the community?
3. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational activity of the
community?
4. What effect has the community ICT center on the health activity of the community?

Thank you for your participation.

193

APPENDIX E. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT CENTER
USER (AMHARIC VERSION)


194


195


196

197

APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER

Section 1: Individual characteristics
1. Residence:__________________________
2. Age: less than 10 years____ 10-20___21-30__31-40___41-50____51-60___over 60
years____
3. Gender: Masculine_____ Feminine____
4. No of family members_______
5. Functionally literate (can you read and write): Yes____ No___ A little___
6. Education level: None____ Pre-primary education___ Primary education____ Lower
secondary____ Upper secondary education_____ Post-secondary____ non-tertiary
education____ First stage of tertiary_____ Second stage of tertiary____
7. Languages: English____ Other(indicate mother tongue)__________
8. Labor force status: Paid employee____ Self-employed____ Unemployed_____

Section 2: Individual view of ICT
1. Have you ever used IT? Yes___ No___ If yes which ICTs were you exposed to?
Telephone Yes___ No___
Fax Yes___ No___
Computer Yes___ No___

198

Internet Yes___ No___
etc
2. What kind of information do you need?
3. What kind of information do you need most? (Could be a follow-up to question no. 2)
4. What kind of information would you like to give to other people?
5. Would you like to learn another language? Yes___ No___ Dont know___
6. For what purposes do you need ICTs?
7. Do you listen to radio? If yes what do you like most to listen to?
8. If you dont listen to radio? Why?
9. Do you watch TV? If yes what do you like most to watch?
10. If you dont why?
11. If you had access to computer what would you use it for?
12. What other sources of information do you use?
13. To which place outside your village do you go most often?
14. Average time spent away from home on these trips?
15. Why do you go there?
16. Would you travel less if you had access to ICTs in your community?

199

APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER
(AMHARIC VERSION)


200


201

202

APPENDIX H. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS
AND USAGE CHARACTERISICS

Table 0-1. Objectives of the Five Community ICT Centers
No
.
Name of the
Center
Objectives of the Center
1 TK
Community
ICT center
Provision of ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged
Enhance Youths involvement on environmental protection
Provision of information on market, Job opportunities,
education, health and environment

2 DH
Community
ICT Center
Enhance access to information about HIV/AIDS and its
impact
Provision of secretarial services, computer training and
ICT services
Provision of reproductive health education and prevention
of the spread of HIV/AIDS

3 YY ICT
Center
Enabling the youth to fill the gap observed in terms of
leisure and entertainment
Enables women to develop their attitude towards the use of
ICT services
Enables the youth to minimize their information gap
thereby facilitate their daily activities

4 LA
Community
ICT Center
Promote agricultural potentials of the cotton plantation
project area
Provide ICT access to the community
Provide access to market information

5 KY Town
Youth
Association
ICT Center
Provide up-to-date information on job opportunity, market,
education and health
Enable the youth be creative and self employed,
Empowering women with the use of ICT
Provide computer training, secretarial and recreational
services

203

Table 0-2. Services Offered and Number of Users (July 2009-June 2010)

No.

Service
Community ICT Centers
DH KY LA Kebena YY
1 Computer
training

80 50 40 80 72
2 Internet

40 31 211
3 Email

43 34 18 43 211
4 Telephone

- 32
5 Photo copy

105 1114 2043 105 1100
6 Typing

55 - 869 55 265
7 Printing

15 484 1106 15 156
8 Binding

58 7 125
9 Scanning

10 212 11 10
10 Lamenting

385

Table 0-3. Demography of Users (July 2009-June 2010)
No. Community ICT Centers
DH KY Kebena YY
1 Gender
Male

146 1302 156 1279
Female

137 1075 142 861
2 Work status
Employed

84 866 90 979
Non-
employed

41 812 42 254
Students

158 699 166 848

Users at the community ICT centers of KY & YYare much higher in number than the
two others. The main reason is that they are the only ICT access in the towns while the

204

other two have other alternatives. LA is also the only unique center at the site but didnt
have a recorded data of users.

Table 0-4. No. of User and Non-User Research Participants
Community ICT
Centers
User
Participants
Non user
participants
TOTAL
LA

4 4 8
KY

4 4 8
DH

4 4 8
TK

4 4 8
YY

4 4 8
TOTAL

20 20 40

Table 0-5. Educational Background of Participants
VALUE FREQUENCY TOTAL PERCENT
Post-secondary

10 25.00%
First stage of tertiary

8 20.00%
Lower secondary

8 20.00%
Upper secondary

6 15.00%
None

4 10.00%
non-tertiary

2 5.00%
Pre-primary

1 2.50%
Primary

1 2.50%


205

None Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary
Post-secondary non-tertiary First stage of tertiary
ICT Center
LA KY DH TK YY
C
o
u
n
t
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 0-1. Educational background of participants.

206

APPENDIX I. EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTS

INTERVIEW OF ICT CENTER USER 1
Section 2: Individual use of ICT at the center
1. Describe the facilities/services you used from the community ICT center?
fax, copier, & secretariat service.
2. What was the purpose of using facilities/services of the community ICT center?
When we deal with sending information to very far places in our office we could
send it quick using these technologies. We do exchange information with people and
offices in Samara about work.
3. In your experience, what benefits did you get from the community ICT center?
Many problems have been solved since the establishment of the center here for
instance we used to travel long distance all the way up to Samara when we wanted to
get such services and exchange different sorts of information. But now we can simply
exchange information using the fax machine. We can also get writing services within
a short time interval. We can also copy as many papers as we need using photocopy
machine here. So many problems have been solved right now. We are using photo
copy, computer writing and other services
Fax better than sending a letter. Copier for duplicate papers.
This is the only place in the locality to get IT services. Unique access.

207

4. What would you have done if the community ICT center didnt exist?
You dont get any of the services anywhere else it is solving many problems now.
It is not helping us but other people from other districts or words are now using the
service. This worked for instance has got some ten kibbles and the center is providing
service to all the ten kebeles. Had it not been to the establishment of the center, there
would have been many problems in our locality. We used to wait for at least four
days to get transportation service and travel to the place we would like to deliver
information to. We had to travel up to 150 kms to the 3
rd
zonal offices to get similar
services. If we want to travel to Samara it about 217 kames from here. Prior to the
establishment of this center we used to travel to all these localities. There were no
such services here prior to the establishment of the center. We had to travel for three
four hours and its costs us sixty seventy birr for a single one way trip. You may also
stay there for two three days there until you finalize your work. It also costs us 35 birr
if we want to travel to Awash that is again for a single one round trip.
5. Which facilities/services of the community ICT center have the least demand or
unwanted?
6. Before the establishment of the ICT community center, where were you going to get
service of the center?
Awash/Samera_ Your means of transport bus Time required one way 3 hrs (150
km)__ Cost of transport (round trip)_70 birr_Average time spent away from home on
these trips_half day_
7. How much did you save by using the community ICT center?

208

-It saves money and energy .All the hardships that we were facing traveling all those
long distances are no more happening now and we are benefiting as a result of that
Section 3: User perception of Impact
1. In what way has your use of ICT community center changed your life (if at all)?
It created great impact in my life .For instance; I am no more facing the hardships
that comes as a result of traveling long distances to get access to the services. We are
simply getting them all. Be it for telephone service, postal service, photo copy and
others, we had to travel long distance. We are now getting the service simply and the
main thing here is the serviceit is providing us with a lot of services.
2. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic activity of the community?
It has many economic benefits .All the incidents /activities I was telling you were all
the expenses we used to spend. For instance it is about 117 from here to Semera. You
spend around 140 birr only for transportation. You can use that money for your family
now.
Informant:-Yes many institutions, NGOs, investors are getting different sorts of
information they are using the fax machine for their daily market needs. It is
creating an opportunity providing up-to-date information on the price of commodities
and other market related activities.
3. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational activity of the
community?
Well about 30 to 40 trainees are getting their certificate from the center at a time and
in this regard the youth are benefiting from the services that the center is providing.

209

Some people who failed to have a chance of getting training due to financial
constraints are now getting the training from the center. It is of great importance
especially to people with lower income. They have now acquired computer training
and adequately equipped with the skills.
4. What effect has the community ICT center on the health activity of the community?
I dont see any importance for health .I only see its educational importance to the
society.

210

APPENDIX J. EXCERPTS OF QDA MINER 3.2 CODING

Search in: [DOCUMENT]

Codes: [Agri Income;Job promotion]

Add variables: [ICTCENTER;GROUPMEM]

CASE: LA 1
CODE: Agri Income CODER: Admin DATE: 2010/10/5
ICTCENTER: LA
GROUPMEM: Focus Group

[We are benefiting a lot. For instance, our association cultivates cotton and we acquire
the information on the price and other status of the crop at the international market using
the technology of the center mainly the internet. We closely follow up and monitor the
global scenario of the crop and we may either delay the export of the product to get the
best price possible. We will only let the export be done when there is a good price at the
international market. Other investors also acquire the same service. I could therefore say
that the main use of the center is providing information regarding the status of the
international market. agri income].


211

CASE: LA 1
ICTCENTER: LA
[I remember once when the price of one kilo of cotton being around 16 Birr and we
delayed for some time and increased to 19.50 Birr. agri income].

CASE: LA 1
ICTCENTER: LA

[We do sell to the international market .We do export products .We do have close contact
with the exporters. agri income].

CASE: KY 15
CODE: Job promotion CODER: Admin DATE: 2010/10/5
ICTCENTER: KY
GROUPMEM: User Group

[Since I was introduced to technology, after competing with 20 for a position, I got
promotion. computer skill].

CASE: KY 15
ICTCENTER: KY
GROUPMEM: User Group

[Due to my promotion, I already got 12,000 birr. saving].


212

CASE: DH 23
ICTCENTER: DH
[I know some health practitioners who took the training here and get the{ promotion}
when they submit their training certificate. There is also a woman I know who works as a
manager in a certain institute and the training she took from this center is greatly assisting
her. So the training is very crucial in someone's life mainly in the efforts geared towards
promotion in your work.].

CASE: DH 23
ICTCENTER: DH

[For instance Genet is a computer professional and she got the promotion or scale up her
career after business process reengineering is introduced in her organization. computer
skill].

CASE: DH 23
ICTCENTER: DH

[In any case most people who get the training here have either get the promotion or are
hired in a new job.].


213

CASE: DH 30
ICTCENTER: DH
GROUPMEM: Non User Group

[I have a farm land and I gather agricultural information like how to use irrigations and
the likes from the radios and Television programs. They are my information sources of
agriculture. information about economy, agri income].

214

APPENDIX K. RESULT OF AUTO-CODING BY WORDSTAT 6.1

Table of Codes Developed by Employing Auto Coding Feature of WordStat
Category Code/Subcategory Number of sub- subcategories
Economy Agri Income

26
Employment

14
General Income

1
Promotion

6
Saving

9
Education Computer skill

7
Distance Education

3
Foreign language

2
Scholarship

5

36
Health Health facility

19
Health Improvement

14
Knowledge and Skill

18
Other
Benefit
Access

9
Communication

8
secretarial services

1

215

APPENDIX L. FREQUENCY COUNTS FOR SUBCATEGORIES
SUBCATEGORIES FREQUENCY NO. CASES % CASES
ACCESS

88 43 86.00%
SAVING

96 37 74.00%
COMMUNICATION

67 35 70.00%
COMPUTER SKILL

142 33 66.00%
EMPLOYMENT

55 31 62.00%
KNOWLEDGE_AND_SKILL

37 29 58.00%
SCHOOL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT

66 27 54.00%
SECRETARIAL_SERVICES

30 20 40.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_ECONOMY

41 17 34.00%
GENERAL INCOME

33 17 34.00%
SEEK_INFORMATION

24 17 34.00%
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

26 16 32.00%
FOREIGN LANGUAGE

16 16 32.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_EDUCATION

28 15 30.00%
AGRI INCOME

26 13 26.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_HEALTH

21 11 22.00%
INFORMATION_FROM_FRIENDS

11 11 22.00%
TRAVEL_TO_GETACCESS

17 10 20.00%
SCHOLARSHIP

17 9 18.00%
PRIVATE_CENTERS 11 7 14.00%

216

Appendix L Continued

SUBCATEGORIES FREQUENCY NO. CASES % CASES

HEALTH FACILITY

8 7 14.00%
PROMOTION

14 6 12.00%
HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

7 6 12.00%
DISTANCE EDUCATION

6 4 8.00%
MARKET_NEEDS

6 4 8.00%
SEEK_TREATMENT

2 2 4.00%

217

APPENDIX M. RESPONSE ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Agri Income Employment General Income Job promotion
Saving information about economy
ICT Center
LA KY DH TK YY
N
o

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

4
3
2
1
0

218

APPENDIX N. RESPONSE ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

Computer skill Distance Education General Knowledge
Scholarship School Education Improvement information about education
ICT Center
LA KY DH TK YY
N
o

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
4
3
2
1
0

219

APPENDIX O. RESPONSE ON HEALTH BENEFITS

Knowledge and Skill Health Improvement Health facility information about health
ICT Center
LA KY DH TK YY
N
o

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
4
3
2
1
0

220

APPENDIX P. RESPONSE ON GENERAL BENEFITS

travel to get access access communication secretarial services seek information
private centers
ICT Center
LA KY DH TK YY
N
o

o
f

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
4
3
2
1
0

221

APPENDIX Q. RESPONSE ON UNCOMMON BENEFITS

Table Q-1. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Economic Benefits

Table Q-2. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Educational
Benefits

Table Q-3. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Health Benefits

Uncommon Economic Benefits % of
Users
% of Non-users % of Focus
groups
AGRI INCOME

20.00% 25.00% 40.00%
JOB PROMOTION

15.00% 30.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_ECONOMY

10.00% 75.00%
MARKET_NEEDS

20.00%
Uncommon Educational Benefits % of
Users
% of Non-users % of Focus
groups
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

40.00% 25.00% 30.00%
DISTANCE EDUCATION

10.00% 20.00%
FOREIGN LANGUAGE

80.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_EDUCATION

70.00%
Uncommon Health Benefits % of Users % of Non-users % of Focus
groups
HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

20.00% 5.00% 10.00%
INFORMATION_ABOUT_HEALTH

5.00% 50.00%
SEEK_TREATMENT 10.00%

222

Table Q-4. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon General Benefits

Uncommon General Benefits % of Users % of Non-users % of Focus
groups
PRIVATE_CENTERS

35.00%
SEEK_INFORMATION

25.00% 60.00%
INFORMATION_FROM_FRIENDS

55.00%

Debretsion Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debretsion Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF USERS OF COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS

ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ICT ON POVERTY IN ETHIOPIA:

You might also like