Another draft related to my thesis. This one follows the previously posted drafts and discusses the theoretical foundations of the concepts of “knowledge” and “learning” in a globalized knowledge-based economy with special emphasis on ICTs. Links to the previous chapters are at the top of the left navigation column on the front page of the blog under the heading “The Millennium Declaration analysis series: drafts & excerpts from my thesis.”
———————————–
The European Commission (DG Enterprise and Industry, I suppose) has made available a comprehensive report on the significance of free/libre and open source (FLOSS) applications for economic and innovation development. The report is titled “Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector in the EU” and the principle author is Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, founder of the online journal, FirstMonday, and a prolific researcher on FLOSS.
The report is HUGE, nearly 300 pages, and, as I mentioned, quite comprehensive. I actually wonder whether it would have made sense to divvy it up but a case can also be made for presenting it in one piece.
What’s most interesting to me is Ghosh’s focus on FLOSS communities as learning communities and their significance for development. He’s done a lot of work in this area in the past. See especially pg. 171, in the conclusions to chapter 8.5, Modeling the economic impact of FLOSS on innovation and growth. There the authors say (take a deep breath, looong sentence),
“Our results are suggestive of the overriding importance of human capital formation in this set-up, and especially the way in which FLOSS can directly and positively influence the speed at which contributors to FLOSS communities can pick-up new knowledge and put that to good learning use, for themselves but also for the more down to earth users of FLOSS software, certainly if the latter would be geared at the design of free access ICT-based learning environments.”
Same thing I was trying to get across here, where I do indeed refer to Ghosh’s past work. Not as sophisticated as in this new report, but we’re thinking along the same lines.
The OECD has an interesting peer review programme for assessing member states development policies and activities. This unique programme will be the subject of an ASEAN/OECD meeting later this month.
Under the peer review programme each country is reviewed every four years, resulting in 5-6 reviews each year. The latest review is of the United States, published shortly before last Christmas. Given the perceived leadership role of the US in international affairs and the global economy, it’s quite a revealing report. Briefly, the conclusions reveal that:
– Development aid as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) is among the lowest in OECD countries (nevertheless, since the US has the largest GNI in the world, the total amount of their contribution is higher than that of any other country)
– The bulk of recent assistance has been for debt cancellation in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. cleaning up their own mess!
– There is a lack of coherence in policy
– Policy is not oriented toward poverty reduction, i.e. the Millennium Development Goals
– Policy tends to reflect specific US policy priorities, i.e. development assistance seems oriented toward benefiting the US, not necessarily developing countries
– There is no coherent tracking system, i.e. vague ideas about what is being achieved, therefore little to build on
All of this is very reminiscent of Niall Ferguson’s portrayal of the US in Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, as a global force with imperialistic tendencies, although always in denial, but a lack of the committment required to make some actual good come out of it. The US report is in stark contrast to the UK report and the Netherlands report (one of very few countries that actually exceeds the United Nations ODA/GNI target of 0.7%), also from last year. There we see evidence of a concerted effort to make development aid work to the benefit of the recipients of aid. And this from two countries that were in the past blatantly imperialistic.
Apple finally announced its long awaited “iPhone” today. To tell the truth it’s a pretty snazzy gadget. Although many have attempted to accomplish similar technological convergence, Apple, as so often before, seem to have anticipated users’ needs and wishes to create something that is new, usable and desirable, and in so doing they may be once again leading a pardigm shift in how we use technology. This last point is what I think is most significant about the iPhone. It reminds us that we have not, nor should we assume to have, come up with the ultimate design for technology and the way we use it. Yet, there’s always a persistent group that considers divergence from current computing paradigms, such as Microsoft’s Office suite, a valid criticism against new technology. As delivery of the OLPC’s (One Laptop Per Child) “$100 laptop” nears, the project has received a lot of criticism on exactly this point, ex. “It doesn’t look like anything that’s being used in the business or computing world today, therefore it’s misleading, and at worst, useless.” I have a few responses to such criticisms and Apple’s bold new venture proves my point(s) in so many ways:
1. Given that the OLPC laptop is intended for young children, how do these critics know what computer use in computing and business is going to look like when the laptop users enter these fields? I’ve been using computers for over 25 years and have not witnessed the kind of consistency that these critics seem to expect from computers in the future.
2. The OLPC laptop is to be delivered to young people in many areas where computing is relatively new. Is it unreasonable that these new users, coming from a very different background, will be able to point out to more complacent longtime computer users different and better ways to accomplish tasks? Remember, it was Heddy Lamarr (actress) and George Antheil (musician) who came up with the idea of “frequency hopping”, on which modern mobile telephone technology is based. They didn’t hook up with experienced engineers until they started going through the patenting process.
3. Why do these critics think that OLPC laptop users will want to use the technology to do what they themselves have done with it for the past half century? Computers are not collections of software, even though that’s how most of us use them today. Computers are essentially workbenches for creating tools to do whatever a creative mind can come up with and young people tend to have very creative minds.
The story about Microsoft’s translation of its software into Mapuzugun, a language spoken by about 400,000 indiginous Mapuche Indians in Chile, has been raising a lot of attention on the net. The Mapuche Indians want to take Microsoft to court for using their language without having consulted them to get their permission. The big question being raised concerns ownership of a language, i.e. can Mapuzugun be considered the intellectual property of the Mapuche Indians, and this is what the Mapuche Indians would like the courts to decide.
I suspect that the Microsoft translation project is related to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s plan to increase accessibility to ICTs in several developing countries, Chile being among them, by supplying public libraries with free computers and Internet connections. Of course, for such a project to be successful, they can hardly set up a bunch of computers with interfaces in English or other common languages, that are not commonly spoken by the anticipated beneficiaries of the project. But, and here is the other issue in this and the more serious one in my opinion, that computer software would be translated and localised without consulting the people concerned borders on the outrageous. It’s like if Microsoft would suddenly tell francophones that the French word for a computer will henceforth be “le computer”. Imagine the ruckus that that would cause!
The problem here is that the IT lingo, which I assume was lacking in the Mapuzugun language, is not being allowed to emerge from the cultural consciousness of the Mapuche, but is rather being imposed on them. This becomes a question of equity, meaning that if the language comes from the outside it is reflecting the knowledge and understanding of a foreign culture, and thereby, limiting the sense of ownership in the concept(s) being promoted, in this case of the Mapuche Indians and ICTs. Hence, ICTs are presented as a concept of outside origin to which the Mapuche Indians have to adapt rather than as a tool which the Mapuche Indians can adapt to their own needs. This simply goes against everything that ICTs are intended to promote in the context of development for a globalised knowledge-based economy.
People over at the UNDP’s Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) have caught on to the brilliance of Wikis. They’ve released a bunch of their “e-Primers” under a GFDL license onto Wikibooks. What this means is that they are free to be edited by YOU, me and everyone else.
Somewhere I read that 1 ICT year is roughly equal to 3 real years. So, if an e-Primer was published 3 years ago, that means it’s at least 9 years outdated! But, now we can all go and update them to our hearts’ content with examples of good/bad practice, new developments, etc., and, of course, I expect us all to do exactly that. Obviously, you’ll most likely find me hangin’ out around the ICTs in Education primer, although I’m sure I can find some other topics of interest in the vast amount of material available.
It would be great to see some other organisations do this.
