EJISDC (2002), 9, L1, 1-4

Letter to the Editor

Sumit K. Lodhia
Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate
School of Business and Information Management
Faculty of Economics and Commerce
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
Australia
Sumit.Lodhia@anu.edu.au
http://ecocomm.anu.edu.au/bim/staff/lodhia/lodhia.html

A recent article in this journal (Olutimayin, 2002) provides useful insights

into the adoption of information technology (IT) in the South Pacific context. Such
an effort is indeed appreciated and the paper does make a valuable contribution
to the limited literature on IT in Fiji. Having said this, we suggest that while
Olutimayin (2002) makes an initial attempt to document the status quo of IT
adoption in the South Pacific, the paper has some fundamental flaws that need to
be highlighted and discussed. Accordingly, the present paper attempts to critique
Olutimayin (2002). It cautions potential researchers who are interested in
studying IT adoption in a developing country and posits that a clear
understanding of the research context is essential in order to undertake research
in a largely unexplored area.
The critique emphasises two major issues. Firstly, this paper argues that
interchanging the South Pacific context with an individual component of the
South Pacific (Fiji) is problematic. Furthermore, the paper postulates that when
studying the impact of culture on IT adoption in Fiji, one must obtain an in-depth
understanding of the two major cultures in Fiji : the indigenous Fijians and the
Indo-Fijians. While other issues such as the use of valid and reliable methods
towards the research process could also be raised, we focus primarily on the
specifics identified earlier. This is because issues such as use of appropriate
methods in a particular research context are debatable and are often based on

The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,

http://www.ejisdc.org
EJISDC (2002), 9, L1, 1-4 2

the perspective of the individual researcher. Thus, it is the content rather than the
methodology that is the focus of this critique

Fiji and the South Pacific

Probably the most significant issue suggested by Olutimayin (2002) is the
attempt to document the interplay between culture and IT adoption in the South
Pacific. While acknowledging that this contribution is indeed welcome, it should
also be highlighted that generalizing an individual nation in the South Pacific to
the entire South Pacific region is highly problematic. In effect, the paper only
addresses the situation in Fiji as evident from the research findings. Thus, the
research findings are only applicable to the Fiji islands. One cannot assume that
Fiji is representative of the South Pacific; even though Fiji is a major nation in the
South Pacific, it would be wrong to represent the South Pacific exclusively
through Fiji.
Consequently, we suggest that cultures in the South Pacific, while sharing
a number of interrelated characteristics, also differ in a number of aspects. Many
factors could explain these differences: the influence of western powers on a
nation, the level of development in the country, the impact of other non-Pacific
cultures on Pacific cultures, the level of political stability and governance in a
country and even individual attitudes are some common examples. For instance,
while many nations have been subject to a variety of colonial influences, French
influence predominates in Tahiti, New Caledonia and Vanuatu while British
influence is more discernable in countries like Fiji and Tonga. Some nations in
the South Pacific may also be more developed than others. Political instability is
also high in certain South Pacific nations. In Fiji, the indigenous race has been in
contact with the main immigrant race for more than a century, and thus, its
culture would be different from, say, that of Papua New Guinea. It is this specific
issue that forms the basis of the next argument.

The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,

http://www.ejisdc.org
EJISDC (2002), 9, L1, 1-4 3

Two Major Cultures in Fiji

One of the most disappointing aspects in Olutimayin (2002) is an apparent
disregard of Fiji’s second most numerous race, the Indo-Fijians who amount to
about 40% of Fiji’s population. Indians were brought to work on the sugar cane
plantations in Fiji from 1879 onwards under what was known as the indenture
system. The system ended in 1916 and laborers were given the option of either
having a free passage back to India or remaining in Fiji. Many chose the latter
and have since been key players in Fiji’s economy and governance (see for
instance, Derrick, 1950). Thus, Indo-Fijians as they are commonly known as
now, have developed a culture of their own (see for instance, Lal, 2001) and it
would be erroneous to assume that culture in Fiji consists exclusively of elements
from the indigenous race. This perhaps is the major deficiency in Olutimayin
(2002).
It would be possible to apply Hofstede’s model of national cultures to Fiji in
order to delineate the differences between the two main cultures (cf. Lynch et al.,
2002). The authors of this paper do acknowledge the two major cultures in Fiji
and apply Hofstede’s model in order to distinguish the fundamental differences
between them. Thus, indigenous Fijians are suggested to be characterized by
higher scores for collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and
feminism. On the contrary, ethnic Indians (Indo-Fijians) tend to be individualistic,
lower in power distance, weaker in uncertainty avoidance and more masculine.
Howsoever a study of the relationship between culture and IT adoption in
Fiji is conducted, it must recognize the duality of culture in Fiji. Both the races in
Fiji have distinct cultures (see for instance, Lodhia, 2001) which would affect their
adoption of technologies. Further, while Olutimayin (2002) argues that IT has an
impact on culture, it should also be noted that culture affects IT adoption as well.
We suggest that there is a dialectical relationship between culture and IT
adoption.
In conclusion, it is suggested that while exploratory studies such as
Olutimayin (2002) do provide a valuable understanding of the context in which IT
is adopted in a developing country (Fiji), the uniqueness of culture in each Pacific

The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,

http://www.ejisdc.org
EJISDC (2002), 9, L1, 1-4 4

nation needs to be acknowledged. Generalization of a specific context to the

entire South Pacific region and neglect of other factors contributing towards
cultural attitudes (such as cultural differences among groups) are grievous errors
that should be avoided at all times. This paper benefits researchers and
practitioners by identifying the complexity of culture in a specific context and has
implications for the education and training of IT students in a particular country.
We suggest that education and training of IT in such nations should incorporate
the intricacies of cultural beliefs and norms.

References
Derrick, R.A. (1950) A History of Fiji (volume one), The Government Press, Suva.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-
related values, Sage, Beverley Hills, California.
Lal, B.V. (2001) The Indo-Fijian, Fiji Sun, October 4th.
Lodhia, S. (2001) The Fiji Coups of 1987 and 2000: A personal perspective and
analysis, Proceedings of the Rethinking Humanitarian Conference, University
of Queensland, St. Lucia Campus, Brisbane, Australia, 24th – 26th September,
112 –117.
Lynch, T; Szorenyi, N. and Lodhia, S. (2002) Adoption of Information
Technologies in Fiji: Issues in the Study of Cultural Influences on Information
Technology Acceptance, Paper to be presented at the ITIRA conference,
Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, September.
Olutimayin, J. (2002) Adopting modern information technology in the South
Pacific: A Process of Development, Preservation, or Underdevelopment of the
Culture?, The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing
Countries, 9, 3, 1-12

The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,

http://www.ejisdc.org