Abstract
AbstractDrawing from Feminist Science and Technology Studies, this paper explores how we might revisit and recuperate past academic research projects, theories, and relationships to design futures that matter for social good. As context, I begin by outlining a decade of research in Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICTD), which linked the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to innovations in telecommunications and computing. I then introduce the ‘theory of design-reality gaps’ that was proposed by Heeks to study ’wicked problems’ in this domain (2002). I revisit two strands of research that I carried out in relation to the ‘design-reality gap’. The first involved an ethnographic study of a participatory mobile phone based learning intervention for Kenyan health workers. I argued that instead of a singular ‘gap’ explained by geographic, sociocultural, or economic ‘divides’, there was a messy entanglement, constituted by sociomaterial practices that enacted a multiplicity (Mol in The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice, Duke University Press, 2002) of desired futures. In the second strand, I attempted to care for the practices that were abandoned by the learning intervention when one kind of justice was prioritized over others. This explored how the research could be more ‘speculative’ and how this ‘speculative commitment’ could generate new ethical questions and logics for living with technology (Puig de la Bellacasa in Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106, 2011 and Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds, University of Minnesota Press, 2017). I argue that approaching the design-reality ‘gap’ as a multiplicity instead of a void can support Tuck’s call for educational interventions that turn away from damage oriented theories of change to ones based ondesire– approaching difference not as a lack, but as an ever-growing assemblage (2009). Tinkering with the original Heeks model, I conclude that in the postdigital era, the design-reality gap is now better-understood as a fluid space of multiplicities, and what is arguably most pressing is to study the differences in competing objectives and values, rather than disparities in information and technology.
Funder
Economic and Social Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Education
Reference135 articles.
1. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker W. &. Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10009703718/.
2. Anokwa, Y., Smyth, T. N., Ramachandran, D., Sherwani, J., Schwartzman, Y., Luk, R., Ho, M., Moraveji, N., & DeRenzi, B. (2009). Stories from the field: Reflections on HCI4D experiences. Information Technologies & International Development, 5(4), 101–115.
3. Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity, 24(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276.
4. Avgerou, C. (2008). Information systems in developing countries: A critical research review. Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136.
5. Avgerou, C. (2010). Discourses on ICT and Development. Information Technologies & International Development, 6(3), 1–18.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献