Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program to Assess the

Impact of Public Access to ICTs

Sample Research Topics and

Overview of Global Impact Study
Probes
Introduction............................................................................................. 1
Sample Research Topics........................................................................... 1
Global Impact Study - In-depth Research Priorities for Phase II..........1
1. Infomediaries .................................................................................. 1
2. Community Information Ecology: ....................................................... 1
3. Direct and Indirect impacts ............................................................... 1
4. Non-users ....................................................................................... 2
5. Mobile Telephony ............................................................................. 2
6. Willingness to Pay ............................................................................ 2
7. Policy and Regulation ....................................................................... 2
8. Collaborative Knowledge Sharing........................................................ 2
9. Value of Non-instrumental Uses.......................................................... 2
10. Public Access Venue Life Cycle ......................................................... 3
11. Institutional/Stakeholder Influence: ..................................................3
12. Rules ............................................................................................ 3
13. Role of Networks in Venue Ecosystem................................................ 3
14. Local Content................................................................................. 3
15. Venue architecture/design................................................................ 3
16. IT Skills/Training and Employment....................................................4
17. Cost-benefit................................................................................... 4
18. Info-ecology................................................................................... 4
Additional Priority Research Questions................................................. 4
19. Do users of public access to ICT venues network?...............................4
20. How can nations and public access to ICT programs overcome the dual
challenge of low-density personal networks and digital illiteracy? ...............6
21. How good are telecenters and other public access to ICT venues as
public service delivery channels?............................................................8
22. Does the use of services offered in public access venues increase trust? 9
Global impact study in-depth probes...................................................... 11
1. Infomediaries .................................................................................11
2. Mobile Phones................................................................................. 12
3. Venue Life Cycle ............................................................................. 13
4. Collaborative Knowledge Sharing....................................................13
5. Non-instrumental Uses....................................................................14
Notes...................................................................................................... 15
Bibliography........................................................................................... 16
 Introduction

The Amy Mahan Research Fellowship Program to Assess the Impact of Public
Access to ICTs will support original research addressing critical issues that will
help assessing the impact of public access to ICTs.

Twenty-two (22) research questions have been identified as deserving priority

consideration. The first 18 topics were identified during Global Impact Study’s
First Phase; and an additional four topics were identified in the process of
developing this Fellowship Program.

The list of research topics included here is intended as an aide to emerging

scholars who may wish to identify a suitable research topic. This list is not all
encompassing and should not be seen as a constraint on researcher
initiative in the choice of research topic.

There are other valuable sources of information on public access that may help in
the choice of research topic. One pertinent source is the telecenter community
forum at www.telecentre.org.

The choice of priority research questions is important. It should be fully

articulated and substantiated by applicants. Topic choice will be a key
determinant of Fellowship awards.

Sample Research Topics

Global Impact Study - In-depth Research Priorities for Phase II

1. Infomediaries

What are the roles and the impact of infomediaries in terms of what users learn,
do differently, and value from their services? What is the effect of staff skills and
training on impact of public access venues?

The Global Impact Study has selected this topic for in-depth probe. To avoid
duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

2. Community Information Ecology:

What are the details of the information ecology of the larger community within
which public access sites are located? What forces in the community promote the
use of public access ICTs? Does public access venue influence information ecology
of a community and vice versa? Note: Information ecology in this context is used
as a concept not a methodology, referring to the information ecosystem in
general.

3. Direct and Indirect impacts

Is there a multi-step flow of information from a public access site? How does this
contribute to our understanding of a realistic number for people affected by a
project? To what extent do the benefits of public access extend from users to
non-users? Do public access ICTs have an indirect impact on students’ academic

1
achievement?

4. Non-users

What are the barriers to access (especially for marginalized populations)? How
are public access points viewed by nonusers? What are the key sources of
information for non-users? Do they include public access ICT users?

5. Mobile Telephony

How do mobile users interact with Internet public access sites? What is the use of
Internet public access among mobile phone users? What is usage of public access
ICTs by heavy mobile phone users? To what extent are there uses of computers in
public access venues that have something to do with mobile phones?

The Global Impact Study has selected this topic for in-depth probe. To avoid
duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

6. Willingness to Pay

How do users make choices when there are fees? How much are individuals
willing to pay for different public access ICT products and services? What is the
relationship between users’ perceived value of communication and information
services and the actual benefits derived from them?

7. Policy and Regulation

What are the mechanisms that enable research and policy making to work
together in the field of public access?

8. Collaborative Knowledge Sharing

Do shared use practices emerge when users access ICTs simultaneously with
others in public access venues? What are the consequences for users?

The Global Impact Study has selected this topic for in-depth probe. To avoid
duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

9. Value of Non-instrumental Uses

Do non-instrumental uses of ICT (e.g., games, chat, entertainment activities)

have impacts on the 7 development domains (employment/income, education,
civic engagement, democracy, cultural preservation, and health)?

The Global Impact Study has selected this topic for in-depth probe. To avoid
duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

2
 10. Public Access Venue Life Cycle

What are lifecycle models of public access ICTs? Are public access venues best
understood as transitional entities? Are some failures actually transitions? What is
the impact of failure on the community? When do impacts of public access use
become visible at individual and community level? What would be impact of
multiple public access venues in a community (competition)? Do public access
venues started under different programs (private entrepreneurial, government)
function differently?

This probe is presently under review. To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global
Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program applicants whose topic covers similar
grounds should check for updates of this probe in the following site:
http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/.

11. Institutional/Stakeholder Influence:

What are the main institutional changes that are shaping, or shaped, by
development of public access to ICT (national level)? What is the relationship
between state structure and the organizational form of public access venues (are
certain types of centers associated with certain types of state structure)? What
change agents are facilitating the development of public access to ICT (local
level)? What role do stakeholders play in public access venues with high impact?
What effect does community involvement in the design and operation of a public
access venue have on the social and economic impacts of the venue?

12. Rules

How do restrictions on the use of computers, the Internet and venue space
generally in public access venues impact usage?

13. Role of Networks in Venue Ecosystem

What is the relation between public access venues and government, NGOs and
other public access venues at the local level (are there programmatic ties)? Do
public access venues that are a part of a larger network have more or less impact
on their users and communities? Does access using a pre-existing network work
better than developing a new establishment?

14. Local Content

What is the importance of local content to a public access site having impact in its
community? What is the geographical scale at which information must be
gathered and disseminated to ensure that public access to ICTs is beneficial?

15. Venue architecture/design

How does the nature of physical space (including availability of space for ancillary
activities (e.g., computer placement, meeting rooms, computer repair work,
childcare) at public access venues affect usage?

3
 16. IT Skills/Training and Employment

What is the value of basic IT training and services provided at public access
venues, does it lead to people getting jobs, or provide skills that better their life?
Does public access to ICT change the levels of computer and information
search/use skills of their users; does it improve their job prospects? What are the
differences in the ICT skills developed by users of different types of public access
ICT venues?

17. Cost-benefit

What is the relationship between costs and benefits of providing public access to
ICT? Note: Dost-benefit is a cross cutting issue that should be taken into
consideration wherever appropriate. It is included here as a separate item to
provide room for people who may be interested in carrying out a focused cost-
benefit analysis of some particular project or activity.

18. Info-ecology

What do the four attributes of information ecology look like in a given setting? 1.
Integration of diverse types of information; 2. Capturing the dynamics of
evolution and change; 3. Describing (mapping) out information sources and
processes, and 4. Focusing on people and their information and communication
behaviour (Davenport, 1009). For item 1 we will focus on health, education,
employment as information content areas. For item 2 we will address a time
frame of relevance to each context to capture important changes in the recent
past and possible future scenarios. For item 3 we will focus on a combination of
local, meso and macro levels, with possible emphasis on the meso. For item 4 we
will narrow the focus to a cross section of individuals who experience the
information ecology first hand.

Additional Priority Research Questions

19. Do users of public access to ICT venues network?

Email has clear advantages (“social affordances”, following Wellman 1999,

Wellman et al, 2003, Hampton and Wellman 2003, Mok, Wellman and Carrasco
2008) for expanding a person’s network. The asynchronous nature of email
enables communications without people having to be available at the same time.
E-mail presents no barriers across continents; it is flexible, easy to forward, copy,
and share and amend, fostering easy gossip and knowledge sharing with multiple
members in a network. Email etiquette is informal and tolerant of grammatical
errors and modes of expression. Readers of this document, all frequent users of
email, are familiar with the gradual process through which online strangers get to
know one another and build up mutual trust through repeat interaction.

In India, the main applications used by urban Internet users are: email (51%),
information gathering (20%), entertainment (13%), chatting (11%) and e-
Commerce (IAMAI 2007).

4
In the US, where most Internet users also have access to wire line and mobile
phones:

“Asynchronous email exchanges still top the charts of daily internet

activities. We’ll say that again: Sending and reading email is still the most
frequently reported internet activity by the average internet user, despite
the growth in real-time communications like IM, text, and social network
site messaging. Fully 53% of adult internet users sent or read email on a
typical day in December 2005 – a figure virtually unchanged since 2000
when 52% of online adults emailed on a typical day. That’s more than
instant messaging, blogging and online shopping—combined.

Even the omnipotent search engine can’t compete with email; only 38% of
online adults use search on the average day.”
(Madden and Fox 2006)

Boase et all 2006 differentiate between core and significant ties. The former are
“the people with whom Americans turn to discuss important matters, with whom
they are in frequent contact, or from whom they seek help”, Significant ties are
“the people outside that ring of ‘core ties’ in Americans’ social networks, who are
somewhat closely connected”. Significant ties “are weaker than core ties”, but
“they are more than acquaintances and they can become important players as
people access their networks to get help or advice”. This distinction is analogous
to Granovetter’s (2005) differentiation between “strong ties” and “strong weak
ties”.

According to Boase et al 2006:

All communication mediums (face-to-face interaction, landlines, mobile

phones, email, chatting) are used interchangeably; but telephone
communications appears to be particularly useful in strengthening strong
ties; email in building up larger networks of weaker but not
inconsequential ties.

The number of core ties does not vary between Internet users and non-
users. Further, face-to-face contacts with core or significant ties are not
lower for Internet users. Instead, people who use the Internet simply
communicate more often, now using email and to lesser extent also
chatting.

Internet users have more significant ties than non-users. These larger
social networks are made easier by email. Both parties to a face-to-face
contact or phone conversation need to coincide in time.

E-mail’s asynchronous character imparts greater flexibility to inter-

personal exchanges. As the size of a person’s network increases (either of
core ties or of significant ties), the frequency with which these ties are
contacted decreases. The same is true for phone contacts and chatting;
but not for email. People contact their core ties with the same frequency,
regardless of whether their network is small (1-10 core ties), medium (10-
22 ties) or large (more than 22 ties). A similar pattern is observed with
respect to networks of significant ties.

Internet users resort to their contacts and to information available on web

pages whenever they face major decisions or need help or information to
solve specific problems. This includes: getting additional training to
enhance a career; helping a person with a medical ailment; choosing a

5
 college for a child; finding a new place to live; and buying a car.

For email to be an effective networking tool users need to first get their hands on
a computer connected to the Internet, learn how to use it and have or be in a
position to develop a network of family and friends who can also communicate
using the technology. When these conditions are met, computer mediated
communication thrives.

Among Chile’s (mostly rural) telecenter users interpersonal

communications is the most popular service. Email was used by over 90
percent of telecenter users surveyed; chatting by over 60%. The other
popular applications are browsing the net to read the news (over 50%),
and to consult educational content (over 40%). (Subtel 2005, page 73.).

An analysis of use patterns of 793 users of Colombia’s telecenters (small

towns), the most frequent use was to communicate and strengthen and
extend personal relationships (35%), followed by information gathering
(24%), doing homework (15%), Research (12%), Recreation (12%) and
work (2%). When users were asked what they perceived as the benefit
from using the center they ranked access to information highest (54%)
followed by strengthening of relationships (32%). Other perceived benefits
were cited less often: work opportunities (7%), educational opportunities
(5%), support to local organizations (1%), communications at lower cost
(3%), no benefit (5%). (CEDE 2007, pages 49-59)

Among 721 cybercafé users in Bengalore, Internet browsing (92%) was

found to be the most frequently used service, followed by email (72%),
phone calling (52%), games (50%), and chatting (49%) (Haseloff’s
(2005).

Many rural kiosks in India, including 70% of those of n-logue and Drishtee
(Toyama et al, 2005), rely on the operator or “infomediary” to deal with the
computer. Customers seldom use the computer on their own (Fillip and Foote,
2007). These kiosk users do not benefit from the single most powerful
Internet application there is, email!

 An expansion in personal social and commercial networks is one of the

most important impacts of using the Internet. To what extent does
networking also benefit telecenter users (who probably use the Net less
frequently)? Are there differences in the importance of networking
between rural and urban telecenters? What are the differences between
countries? What accounts for these differences? What are impact
implications of these differences? What are the implications for
telecenter program design?

20. How can nations and public access to ICT programs overcome the dual
challenge of low-density personal networks and digital illiteracy?

Governments at the forefront of ICT for development try to overcome the dual
constraint of digital illiteracy and weak (computer-based) communications
networks through mass digital literacy campaigns. These campaigns are usually
closely linked to public access to ICT initiatives:

In Korea, Government carried out mass media informatization campaigns

(Park 2001) and established Education Information Centers in schools and
post offices, to provided free or low cost information and education to 10

6
 million people, mainly students, government staff, soldiers and housewives
(Lee 2002).

Chile’s national digital literacy campaign (Gobierno de Chile 2004) training

over 500,000 people in basic PC skills in 2003-2005.

The Akshaya pilot program in Malappuram District in Kerala, sought to

create the first district in India in which every one of its 600,000 families
had at least one e-literate member. The program is being expanded to
cover the entire state of Kerala.

The Gates Foundation sponsored Biblioredes project (www.biblioredes.cl) was a

leading partner in Chile’s digital literacy campaign. Biblioredes equipped 365
libraries with additional computers and connetivity (de la Maza and Abbagliati
2004,) In all, the program trained about 30% of the country’s digital literacy
target.

E-Literacy training was the focus of the Akshaya program for 6 months starting
May 2003. All eCenters were to have been connected by January 2004, but there
was an 11-month delay during which time the centers focused on e-literacy
training to generate income (Kiran 2007).

The 15-hour long e-literacy Akshaya program in Malappuram, Kerala, India,

focused on increasing awareness using a course on a CD, as opposed to giving
users hands on experience with computers and the Internet. Awareness did
increase among the population, but very few of the trainees became learned to
use or became regular users of the technology. Training took place in 635
Ahskaya e-centers, including 160 cybercafes recruited into the program. After
first phase subsidies were discontinued, many of the newly created e-centers had
to shut down (Pal et al 2006, Pal 2007). By end 2005 only 415 eCenters were still
operating (Kiran 2007).

Notable differences between these two programs are:

Chile’s program is much more expensive (see table below). Biblioredes is

entirely funded by Government. Akshaya opted instead for a public-private
partnership and relied on the equivalent of cybercafés, supported with
some stimulus from the state government including the creation of a
wireless network to serve the program at low cost and the channeling of
service contracts to specific (e.g. women run) cybercafés to bolster their
sustainability.

Mallapuram District in Akshaya is nominally rural, but in reality it is a

densely populated quasi-urban area. Chile’s program is implemented in
libraries distributed throughout the country, the majority situated in small
towns.

Biblioredes provides a venue and the opportunity, free of charge, for each
trainee to work with a computer, and to practice on their own at the library
after class. Akshaya Malappuram trainees barely touched the computer,
except perhaps to turn it on or off. The cost of any follow-up practice or
training in Akshaya must be born by the trainee.

Most of Biblioredes trainees are satisfied with the training they received
and many have become regular users of computers and the libraries
(Román and Guerrero 2005, Salas, et al 2005). In Akshaya, in the week
preceding Joyojeet Pal’s survey, only 2.3% of Akshaya trainees had been

7
 back to an e-center for some service.

Two Approaches to e-Literacy Training

Akshaya - Malappuram,
Biblioredes, Chile
Kerala, India
Income per capita (a) US$ 5,870 US$ 390
Adult Literacy rate 96% 87%
Implementation period 2002-2004 April 2002-March 2004
Investment – million US$ US$ 19.8 million (e) US$ 6.6 million (f)
Type of course 10 hours hands on 15 hour CD-Training (No
training in basic computer Internet). Cost of practice
& Internet skills, with born by trainee.
opportunity for free after
class practice
Training Sites
Municipal libraries 384
Pre-existing eCenters (cybercafés) 160
New eCenters 475
Computers per center 2-7 5-6
Connectivity costs per center (b) US$ 208 (average) US$ 20
e-Literacy Training (c ): 600,000 / 152,361
Target 114,595 600,000
Achieved 121,262 (+21,029 in 152,361 (d )
advanced skills)
Sources:
Ashkaya: Pal 2007, Pal et al 2006, Pal and Kiran 2005; IIIT 2005;
Gurumurthy, Singh and Kasinathan 2005, Mubarak Mishra et al 2005
Biblioredes: de la Maza and Abbagliati 2004, Román and Guerrero 2005, Salas et al 2005
(a): For Chile, World Development Report; for Malappuram, Pal et al. 2007
(b): In Chile, these are costs paid by Municipal Governments. Actual cost varies depending
on viability of technological options.
In Kerala, costs are paid by eCenter operators to Tulip, the wireless provider.
(c): Kerala training was e-awareness. In Chile, computer/Internet literacy proper.
(d): Pal 2007 found that only 29.7% of households participated in the program. Of
participating households 14.5% only attended the first hour of the course. The 152,361
figure is 29.7% of 600,000 (178,200) minus 14.5 percent of that amount.
(e): Includes US$ 10 million donation from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
(f): Approximate estimate based on figures given by IIIT 2005. Includes US$ 1.4 million for
eLiteracy campaign from local government; US$ 1.4 million from State Government to
establish connectivity and develop content; and US$ 3.75 million from entrepreneurs
to set up kiosks.

 How effective are ongoing digital literacy programs? How is an

effective digital literacy program best organized? What is the
contribution that telecenters can make to such programs? What are the
critical elements of success? What are the costs? What is the cost-
effectiveness of various options?

21. How good are telecenters and other public access to ICT venues as
public service delivery channels?

Some countries, mainly India, have tried to use telecenters as mediators in the
delivery of public services. Successes tend to be temporary, and closely linked to
enthusiastic public leadership at the time a program is launched. Changes in
leadership are often followed by a waning of official commitment and the demise
of the program. The best known example is that of Drishtee, a program that has

8
been reorganized to de-emphasize public services. Other programs, e.g. land
administration in Kerala, have telecenters specifically dedicated to provide land
information, and these appear to have been more successful.

To the extent that cybercafé customers download government information, forms

and transact with government, these urban telecenters are also helping expand
public service outreach. Galpaya, Saramajiva and Shamistra 2007 have
nevertheless argued that mobile phones are likely to be a more effective way to
provide public services.

How effective are telecenters as public service delivery channels? How

have programs relying on telecenters to expand public service outreach
fared? What are the public services that have been implemented most
successfully, relying at least in part on telecenters to reach
communities? How do telecenters compare with mobiles with respect to
public service delivery?

22. Does the use of services offered in public access venues increase
trust?

Trust is key to economic growth and social development (Fukuyama 1996; Knack
and Keefer 1997; Raiser 1999; Zak and Knack 2001). Trust is the cognitive glue
that binds social networks and facilitates the build up of social capital.

Raiser (1999) makes a useful distinction between “ascribed trust”, i.e. the
obligation felt by members of a family or kinship group to support each other;
process-based trust which develops as people interact or transact repeatedly and
appreciate the advantages of cooperating with each other; and generalized trust.
The latter is a feature of advanced modern economies where people cooperate
and transact with each other with limited prior knowledge regarding
trustworthiness and little expectation of repeat interaction. 1

Family, one’s own clan and close friends are trusted first, in part because of a
genetic predisposition, but also because informal norms for enforcing cooperation
(gossip, moral suasion) are more effective among people who see each other
frequently and have lasting bonds; i.e. because the process-based trust
mechanisms work more effectively.

Ascribed trust and process-based trust dominate interpersonal relationships in

small rural communities. Informal arrangements to cooperate on tasks, trade,
labor exchange and enforcement of mostly verbal contracts are common. There is
no need for formal means of recording land rights because community members
know who has rights over an asset and what she may or may not do with it
(Libecap 1999). Rural money lending is character based, which is feasible
between people who know one another. Exchange labor is common in agriculture
because it makes work easier for everyone involved. Farmers starting to grow a
new crop learn from their experienced neighbors as they adopt new practices
(Conley and Udry 2005).

Interpersonal networks also play a major role in labor markets, traditional and
modern, by facilitating information and reducing the costs of searching for
suitable qualities from both the perspective of the employer and that of the
employee (Granovetter 2005).

To facilitate transactions between people who do not know one another or who
are far removed in distance or frequency of interaction, modern societies develop

9
detailed contracts, rights recording and credit rating agencies, specialized
monitoring arrangements and litigation, to discourage misrepresentation,
corruption and fraud. These institutions are costly and difficult to establish in low
trust settings. Where people do not trust one another, business and
organizational transactions take longer and are costlier to complete (Fukuyama
1996, Covey 2006).

Neighbors and friends provide a valuable network on which rural dwellers depend
often, but these networks of strong ties can also constrain opportunities and
may not provide a way out of poverty. Communications and resources are limited
within these networks particularly in highly unequal societies where the general
level of trust is low (Adato, Carter and May 2006) and where elites use their
position of privilege to keep benefits within an exclusive closely knit club of peers
(Deresiewicz 2008).

Extended networks help amplify information and provide assistance in unfamiliar

settings, which is often unavailable from within a tightly knit network of family
and close friends. They provide what Granovetter (2005) calls the strength of
weak ties.

Knack and Zak (2002) have identified a number of policies that could increase
generalized trust in a society. Some are difficult to implement, as is the case
with increasing “freedoms” or reducing inequality. Others are more practical, such
as increasing education and increasing communications by expanding landline
and mobile phones.2

The Internet affects trust as it mediates communications between individuals with

other people, and with web content set up by strangers and entrepreneurs, some
of whom we know little, and with Government agencies each with different track
records of service and reliability.

Dutton and Shepherd 2003 have found that trust in the Internet and in the
information one finds in the Internet increases as people become more familiar
with its use; i.e. the process-based trust of users increases. British Internet
users see themselves as less shy, more outgoing, more in charge of their own
lives and are more prone to attend meetings of clubs or associations than non
users or ex users (Dutton and Helsper 2007). Evidence collected by Zak and his
colleagues suggest that telecenter use also increases generalized trust (Raven
2004).

 How does telecenter use affect users’ trust of other people? Do

telecenter users feel more trust for others than non-users? Is there a
difference in trust building for different types of applications? Is there a
difference in trust building for different uses of the personal
communication tools (e.g. email, chatting, browsing, mobile phone)? If
telecenters indeed have an effect on user trust, how does this effect
change over time and experience using a telecenter? How can this trust
effect be nurtured and harnessed to improve telecenter program
performance? Do mobile users feel more trust for others than non-users?
Is there a difference between trust induced by using the Internet or by
using a mobile?)

10
 Global impact study in-depth probes

The Global Impact Study has selected five topics for in-depth investigation during
its second phase (www.globalimpactstudy.org/researchdesign/methodologies/).
An overview of each of these probes is given here, based on and to a large extent
reproducing the documentation prepared by Global Impact Study researchers.
The information given for each probe includes the title of the research
investigation to be undertaken, the country coverage planned and the research
questions to be addressed in each case and the source of this information.

Some overlap between the Global impact study in-depth probes and the
investigations selected for an Amy Mahan Fellowship is likely, even desirable.
Some studies supported by the Program will fruitfully complement Global impact
study in-depth probes.

Duplication of efforts is for the most part improbable because in-depth probes
target a limited number of countries and focus on particular hypotheses and
approaches. Nevertheless, proposals that are very likely to duplicate efforts with
Global impact study in-depth probes will be disallowed. When choosing a topic,
applicants are urged to review the description of in-depth probes and their up to
date status at: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/.

1. Infomediaries

Title of study: Infomediaries: brokers of public access

Countries covered: Chile, Bangladesh and Brazil

Research questions to be addressed:

1. What are the practices, skills and attitudes exhibited by infomediaries across
different types of PAVs (libraries, telecentres, cybercafes) and job descriptions
(formal Vs informal)?

2. What outcomes do patrons provide as evidence of a positive experience from

using a PAV (across sectors like health, education, finance, job, democratic
engagement)?

3. To what extent do users point at infomediaries’ practices, roles, skills,

attitudes as contributors to their positive or negative experiences, outcomes
and motivation to use PAVs (and how do they vary across sectors)?”

4. Under what conditions are infomediaries most able to contribute to positive

impact in terms of ‘effective use’ (Gurstein, 2003) and improved info-ecologies?

To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

11
2. Mobile Phones

Title of study: Mobile Nexus with Public Access Research Probe

Countries covered: Bangladesh, Chile, Lithuania, Philippines.

Research questions to be addressed:

1. What are the services (communication, information and transaction) are

available through various media, platform and venues?

2. What services are available through more than one media, platform and
venues (overlap)?

3. What categories of users use mobile facilities to access services?

4. What categories of users use public access facilities to the services?

5. What are the socio-economic characteristics of users, who access same

services through multiple media, platform and venues?

6. What are the socio-economic characteristics of users, who access services

only through public access venues?

7. What are the factors behind choice of single or more than one media,
platform and venues?

8. What services are unique to public access venues, which are not feasible
both to users and service providers through mobile phone?

9. What services are unique to mobile phone/device, which are not feasible
both to users and service providers through public access venues?

10. Can we identify information, communication, or other related emerging

needs (or desires) that mobile use does not fulfill and could be fulfilled by
public access?

11. Are there synergies between mobile use and public access that can be
better exploited in a development context?

12. To what extent is the use of mobile devices users’ first contact with new
ICT?

13. What actors disseminate information about services that could be accessed
through mobile devices? ... on the internet? How the information reaches those
who are at “the bottom of the pyramid”?

14. Is PA a substitute and/or an interim stage for private access?

The list of research questions presented here has been taken from: “Revision of
Mobile Phones Probe” by Ananya Raihan.

This probe is presently under review. To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global
Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program applicants whose topic covers similar
grounds should check for updates of this probe in the following site:
http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

12
3. Venue Life Cycle

Title of study: Analysis of the life cycle of Public Access to Internet (PAI) venues
located in libraries (Biblioredes)

Countries covered: Lithuania, Bangladesh and Chile.

Research questions to be addressed:

1. How does the role and relevance of PAI (Public access to ICTs) venues for
users change over time?

2. Are the changes in the different dimensions related to each other?

3. Are the changes in the different dimensions related to changes in external

factors?

4. Do similar PAI venues share the same pattern of change?

This probe is presently under review. To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global
Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program applicants whose topic covers similar
grounds should check for updates of this probe in the following site:
http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

4. Collaborative Knowledge Sharing

Title of study: Collaborative Knowledge Sharing

Countries covered: The focus is on low-income countries, with Ghana, India or

Bangladesh as possibilities.

Research questions to be addressed:

1. Do Public Access facilities afford opportunities for sharing of experience, space,

expertise, and technologies so as to enhance outcomes/impacts in ways that
could not have been as effectively realized outside of a public access space?

2. Are there characteristics to the activity undertaken or people engaged that

enhance the benefits of sharing; similarly are their cases where sharing hinders
outcomes?

To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship
Program applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for
updates of this probe in the following site:
http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/

13
5. Non-instrumental Uses

Title of study: Non instrumental use of ICTs as a Component of General ICT Skill
Acquisition

Countries covered: Ghana

Research questions to be addressed:

1. Do people gain any ICT skills (ie, keyboarding skills, knowledge of OS and file
structures, etc.) through non instrumental uses of ICTs?

2. Are any skills gained through non instrumental uses transferable to other
(instrumental) uses of ICTs (like searching strategies, information evaluation,
synthesis and summary)?

3. Do non instrumental uses constitute an important motivation for non-users to

start using computers? If so, does that non-instrumental 'first touch' then lead to
instrumental use.

4. How do the characteristics and consumption patterns of non instrumental use

differ between public and private access points? (i.e. what are the types of
activities users perform with what frequency and where?)

5. How do user’s understandings of and attitudes towards ICTs differ between

public access sites where the emphasis is on consumption of information versus
the creation of content/multimedia

6. How do the characteristics of users [gender and age, socio-economic level]

affect skill level and activity choice in public access sites (captured by survey)

To avoid duplicating efforts with the Global Study, Amy Mahan Fellowship Program
applicants whose topic covers similar grounds should check for updates of this
probe in the following site: http://www.globalimpactstudy.org/project-updates/.

14
 Notes

1. Glasser et al 1999 define trust as “the commitment of resources to an activity

[by an individual] where the outcome depends upon the cooperative behaviour of
others” and trustworthiness as “the behaviour that increases the returns to
people who trust you”. Zak (2007) defines “generalized trust” as “the probability
that two randomly chosen people will trust each other in a one-time interaction”.
Guerra et al 2003 and Dutton and Shepherd 2003 use Bacharach and Gambetta’s
(2001) definition of primary trust: “a person trusts someone to do X if she acts
on the expectation that he will do X when both know that two conditions obtain: if
he fails to do X she would have done better to act otherwise, and her acting in
the way she does gives him a selfish reason not to do X”

Generalized trust is affected by social norms and values as well as by biological

factors. Uslaner 2005 considers generalized trust to be fairly stable because it is
linked to deeply ingrained values people are taught in their formative years by
their parents. Zak however finds that generalized trust is mediated by the
neurological emission of the neuroactive peptide, oxytocin. We trust strangers in
a one-time interaction because of a biological predisposition to do so (Zak 2007,
2008).

Survey measures of trust (as used by the World Values Survey) may change
significantly over relatively short periods of time, suggesting that a society’s gains
in trust can rapidly vanish in times of adversity. Survey measures are also of
limited value as compared to observed behavior, either experimentally (Glasser et
al 1999) or in business practices (Raiser, Rousso and Steves 2003).

According to Ferlander 2003 and Ferlander and Timmons 2007, social capital is
made up of three components: social networks, social support and trust. Social
networks and social support are interrelated; social networks customarily involve
norms of conduct spanning a broad range of mutual support obligations:
informational, emotional, financial, resource sharing, transactional. Trust is the
cognitive element in social capital. It is the way individuals feel as a result of
participating in networks and receiving social support from networks. Trust also
has a moral value: trusting people have an optimistic view of the world. They
believe things will get better because they have trust in other people.

There is a positive correlation between feeling happy and trusting others.

”It literally feels good when someone trusts you, and that good feeling
causes ost of us to be trustworthy”. Zak 2007

See Also Zak and Fakhar 2006.

2. Knack and Zak’s (2002) study suggested that expenditures in additional phone
service could not be justified purely in terms of the trust dividend that they
provided. As noted in Zak (2007), these early estimates ignored other benefits,
beyond trust, provided by phone service. They also did not foresee the dramatic
fall in phone service cost that has occurred since 2001, nor the impact on trust
resulting from a fourfold increase in the total number of telephone subscribers
that (according to ITU data) has occurred since then, or the concomitant increase
in value of the parallel expansion in interpersonal communications networks.

15
 Bibliography

Adato, Michelle, Carter, Michael R., and Julian May, “Exploring Poverty Traps and
Social Exclusion in South Africa Using Qualitative and Quantitative Data”,
Journal of Development Studies”, Vol. 42, No. 2, February 2006.
(www.informaworld.com/smpp/765117955-
64668542/content~content=a741607996~db=all~order=page)

Boase, Jeffrey, John B. Horrrigan, Barry Wellman, and Lee Rainie, The Strength of
Internet Ties: The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social
networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions,
January 25, 2006.
(www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_display.asp)

Centro de Estudios sobre Desarrollo Económico (CEDE), Resumen de la

Evaluación del Impacto y Análisis de Viabilidad de los Programas
Compartel-Internet Social, Universidad de los Andes, 27 de marzo de
2007.
(www.telecentros.org.co/index.shtml?apc=h1-1--&x=605)

Conley, Timothy G., and Udry, Christopher R., “Learning about a New Technology:
Pineapple in Ghana”, 2005.
(www.econ.yale.edu/~cru2/pdf/july2005a.pdf)

Covey, Stephen M. R., The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes
Everything, Free Press, 2006.

de la Maza, María Luisa, and Abbagliati, Enzo, “BiblioRedes: Abre tu Mundo, su

modelo de alfabetización digital”, Paper presented at World Library and
Information Congress: 70th IFLA General Conference and Council, June
2005.
(www.ifla.org/IV/ifla70/papers/012s-Maza_Abbagliati.pdf)

Deresiewicz, William, “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education”, The American

Scholar, Summer 2008. (www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-
deresiewicz.html)

de Silva, Harsha, and Tuladhar, Radna Kakji, “Smart Subsidies: Getting the
Conditions Right – the experience of expanding Rural Telecoms in Nepal”,
World Dialogue on Regulation for Network Economies, Discussion Paper
WDR 0606, January 2006.
(www.lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/de%20Silva%20Tuladhar
%202006%20Nepal%20final.pdf)

Diálogo Regional sobre Sociedad de la Información, DIRSI, Mobile Opportunities:

Poverty and Telephony Access in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2007.
(www.dirsi.net/english/)

Deresiewicz, William, “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education”, The American

Scholar, Summer 2008. (www.theamericanscholar.org/su08/elite-
deresiewicz.html)

Dutton, William H., and Shepherd, Adrian, “Trust in the Internet: The Social
Dynamics of an Experience Technology”, Oxford Internet Institute Research
Report No. 3, October 2003.
(www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/publications/RR3.pdf)

16
Dutton, William H., and Helsper, Ellen J., The Internet in Britain: 2007, Oxford
Internet Institute, 2007.
(www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/oxis/OxIS2007_Report.pdf)

Ernberg, Johan, “Universal Access for Rural Development: From Action to

Strategies”, Paper presented at the First International Conference on Rural
Telecommunications, Washington, DC, November 30-December 2, 1998.
(www.itu.int/ITU-D/univ_access/seminar/buda/papers/final/f_ernberg.pdf)

Ferlander, Sara, “The Internet, Social Capital and Local Community”, Ph.D. Thesis
submitted at the University of Stirling, January 2003.
(www.crdlt.stir.ac.uk/Docs/SaraFerlanderPhD.pdf)

Fillip, Barbara and Foote, Dennis, “Making the Connection: Scaling Telecenters for
Development, Academy for Educational Development, Microsoft and
Telecentre.org, March 2007. (http://connection.aed.org/)

Fukuyama, Francis, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New
York: Free Press 1996.

Galpaya, Helani, Samarajiva, Rohan, and Shamistra Soysa, “Taking e-Government

to the Bottom of the Pyramid: Dial-a-Gov?”, LIRNEasia, December 2007.
(http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?
id=1328057.1328105&coll=&dl=GUIDE&type=series&idx=SERIES10
714&part=series&WantType=Proceedings&title=AICPS)

Gobierno de Chile, “Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización Digital”, 2004

(www.alfabetizaciondigital.cl).

Granovetter, Mark, “The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes”,

Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1, Winter 2005.
(www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/people/mgranovetter/documents/granimpacte
conoutcomes_000.pdf)

Gurumurthy, Anita, Parminder Jeet Singh and Gurumurthy Kasinathan, The

Akshaya Experience: Community Driven Local Entrepreneurs in ICT
Service”, Case Study No. 5 in Community Based Networks and Innovative
Technologies by Seán Ó Siochrú and Bruce Girard, UNDP, 2005.
(www.propoor-ict.net/content/view/26/48/1/2/)

Hampton, Keith, and Barry Wellman, “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet
Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb”, City and
Community, December 2003.
(www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/hamptonwellmanCC.pdf)

Haseloff, Anikar M., “Cybercafes and their Potential as Community Development

Tools in India”, The Journal of Community Informatics, Vol. 1, Issue 3,
2005. (http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/226/182)

17
International Institute of Information Technology, IIIT, “Information and
Communication Technologies for Development: A Comparative Analysis of
Impacts and Costs from India”, A report prepared for the Department of
Information Technology of the Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology and Infosys Technologies, July 2005.
(www.iiitb.ac.in/research_egovernance.htm)

Internet and Mobile Association of India, IAMAI, “Internet in India”, Summary

Report, 2007. (www.iamai.in/Upload/Research/I-Cube-2007-Summary-
Report-final.pdf)

Jensen, Mike, “Nanasala Review”, Consultancy report prepared for the World Bank,
30 November 2007.

Kiran, Gopakumar Rajalekshmi, “E-Governance Services Through Telecenters:

The Role of Human Intermediary and Issues of Trust”, Information
Technology for International Development, Volume 4, Number 1, Fall 2007,
(www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/itid.2007.4.1.19)

Knack, Stephen and Keefer, Phillip, “Does Social Capital Have an Economic
Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Volume 112, No. 4, 1997.

Knack, Stephen and Zak, Paul, “Building Trust: Public Policy, Interpersonal Trust,
and Economic Development”, Supreme Court Economic Review, 2002.
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=304640#PaperDownload)

Kuriyan, Renee, and Toyama, Kentaro, “Review of Research on Rural PC Kiosks”, 14

April 2007.
(http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem/kiosks/Kiosks
%20Research.doc)

Lakshman, Nandini, A Crackdown on India’s Cybercafés, NewsWeek, 15 July

2008.
(www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/gb20080715.htm)

Lee, Nae-Chan, “Broadband Internet Service: Korea’s Experience”, February

2002.
(www.mic.go.kr/eng/res/res_pub_db/res_pub_sep_brd/Broadband_Intern
et_in_Korea_2002.pdf)

Libecap, Gary D., “Contracting for Property Rights” 15 November 1999.

(http://econ.arizona.edu/downloads/working_papers/anderson3s.pdf)

Madden, Mary and Fox, Susannah, Riding the Waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a
buzzword, but still not easily defined, Pew Internet Project, Backgrounder,
5 October 2006. (www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=189)

Mok, Diana, Barry Wellman and Juan Antonio Carrasco, “Does Distance Matter in
the Age of the Internet”, Presented to the International Sunbelt Social
Netork Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, January 2008.
(www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/cgi-bin/counter.php?
url=http://chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/has_distance_d
ied/Has_Distance_Died_Online.pdf&f=Has_Distance_Died_Onlinea&
mode=1)

18
Mubarak Mishra, Shridar, John Hwang, Dick Filippini, Reza Moazzami,
Lakshminarayanan Subramanian and Tom Du, “Economic Analysis of
Networking Technologies for Rural Developing Regions”, 2005.
(www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~smm/WINE_paper.pdf)

Pal, Joyojeet, and Kiran, G. R. “e-Literacy and Connectivity for Development in

India, the Akshaya Approach” Community Technology Review, Spring-
Summer 2005.
(www.comtechreview.org/spring-summer-2005/000321.html)

Pal, Joyojeet, Sergio Nedevschi, Rabin K. PATRA, and Eric A. Brewer, “A Multi-
Disciplinary Approach to Shared Access Village Computing Initiatives: The
Case of Akshaya”, E-Learning, Volume 3 Number 3 2006.
(www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=elea&aid=2875)

Pal, Joyojeet, “Examining e-literacy Using Telecenters as Public Spending: The

Case of Akshaya”, Paper presented at 2nd IEEE/ACM International
Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and
Development, 15-16 December 2007, Bangalore, India.
(http://research.microsoft.com/workshops/ictd2007/ICTD2007_Proceeding
s_CD.pdf)

Park, Han Woo, “The Korea Information Society and Mass Media”, 2001.

Proenza, Francisco J., “Argentina: Establecimiento y experiencia inicial de los

Centros Tecnológicos Comunitarios”, Working Paper, May 2003.
(www.e-paratodos.org/pdf/CTCsPrimerosAnos.pdf)

Proenza, Francisco J., and Dewapura, Reshan, e-Sri Lanka's Telecenter

Development Program: Strategic Choices and Challenges of a High Impact,
High Risk Investment, FAO Investment Centre Working Paper, August 2004.
(www.e-ForAll.org/pdf/VGKChoicesChallenges_6Sep2004.pdf)

Proenza, Francisco J., “Guatemala: Programa de Acceso Rural a Internet,

Documento de trabajo del Centro de Inversiones de FAO, 9 de mayo 2006.
(www.e-forall.org/pdf/GuatemalaAccesoRural_9mayo2006.pdf)

Proenza, Francisco J., “The Road to Broadband Development in Developing

Countries is though Competition Driven by Wireless and Internet Telephony”,
Journal of Information Technology for International Development, Volume 3,
No. 2, Winter 2007.
(www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/itid.2007.3.2.21?cookieSet=1).

Proenza, Francisco J., Philippines Country Report: Applications, FAO Investment

Centre Working Paper, June 2007a.

Proenza, Francisco J., “Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación y Desarrollo

Rural: Informe de la Ruta de Aprendizaje organizada por PROCASUR y el
Proyecto Sierra Sur”, FAO-IFAD Cooperative Program Working Paper, June
2008.

Raiser, Martin, “Trust in Transition”, EBRD Working Paper No. 39, 1999.
(www.ebrd.com/pubs/econo/wp0039.htm)

Raven, Francis, Trust and the Internet, 10 December 2004.

(www.digitaldivide.net/articles/view.php?ArticleID=59)

19
Román, Marcela, and Guerrero, Alexis, Impact Evaluation of the “Biblioredes Abre
tu Mundo” Project, September 2005.
(www.biblioredes.cl/NR/rdonlyres/EF066796-154B-4380-B52D-
687C080E6B2C/171194/ImpactEvaluationoftheBiblioredesAbretuMu
ndoProject.pdf)

Salas O., Victor, Yacometti Z., Ornella, and Bustos G., Atilio, “Informe Final de
Evaluación: Programa Red de Bibliotecas Públicas Biblioredes”, Evaluation
document prepared for Chile’s National Directorate of the Budget (DIPRES)
June 2005.
(http://geminis.dipres.cl/virlib/docs/Gestion/2005/doc21-228-
200797_EPF090502072005_IF.pdf)

Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones, Subtel, Sistematización de la información

del proceso de implementación de Telecentros Comunitarios en Chile,
2005a.
(http://infocentros.subtel.cl/coni/Descargables/Sistematizacion_Infocentro
s_Chile_2005.pdf)

Toyama, Kentaro, Karishma Kiri, Maithreyi Lakshmi Ratan, Anil Nileshwar, Rama
Vedashree and Rafael Fernandez MacGregor, Rural Kiosks in India, July
2004.
(http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?type=Technical
%20Report&id=881)

Toyama, Kentaro, Karishma Kiri, Deepak Menon, Joyojeet Pal, Suneet Sethi, and
Janaki Srinivasan, “PC Kiosk Trends in Rural India”, Seminar on Policy
Options and Models for Bridging Digital Divides, Tampere, Finland, March
13-14, 2005.
(http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem/kiosks/PC%20Kiosk
%20Trends%20in%20Rural%20India.doc)

Veeraraghavan, Rajesh, Yasodhar, Naga and Toyama, Kentaro, Warana Unwired:

Replacing PCs with Mobile Phones in a Rural Sugarcane Cooperative”,
Paper presented at IEEE/ACM International Conference on Information and
Communication Technologies and Development at Bengalore, India,
December 2007.
(http://research.microsoft.com/workshops/ictd2007/ICTD2007_Proceeding
s_CD.pdf)

Wellman, Barry, “Living Networked in a Wired World”, January 21, 1999.

(www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/cgi-bin/counter.php?
url=http://chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/livingnetworke
d/ieee1%5b1%5d.4b.PDF&f=ieee1%5b1%5d.4b&mode=1)

Wellman, Barry, Anabel Quan-Haase, Jeffrey Boase, Wenhong Chen, Keith

Hampton, Isabel Isla de Díaz, and Kakuko Miyata, Journal of Computer
Mediated Communications, Vol 8, No. 3, April 2003.
(www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/cgi-bin/counter.php?
url=http://chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/social_afforda
nces_of_the_internet_for_networked_individualism/social_affordan
ces_of_the_internet_for_networked_individualism.pdf&f=SA&mode
=1)

20
Zak, Paul, and Knack, Stephen, “Trust and Growth”, The Economic Journal, V.
111, Issue 470, April 2001.
(www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?
func=synergy&synergyAction=showTOC&journalCode=ecoj&volume
=111&issue=470&year=&part=null&cookieSet=1)

Zak, Paul J. and Fakhar, Ahlam, “Neuroactive hormones and interpersonal trust:
International evidence”, Economics and Human Biology, 2006.
(www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/Neuroactive%20hormones%20and
%20interpersonal%20trust-%20International%20Evidence.pdf)

Zak, Paul J., “The Neuroeconomics of Trust”, Ch. 2 in Renaissance in Behavioral

Economics, Roger Frantz, editor. Routledge, 2007.
(www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/Rennaissance.pdf)

Zak, Paul, “The Neurobiology of Trust”, Scientific American, June 2008.

(www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/Zak%20neurobiology%20of
%20trust.pdf

21