Category — developing countries

I was just informed about Pangea Day, which is an effort to bring together films from around the world in order to “strengthen tolerance and compassion…to build a better future.” The idea comes from TED’s 2006 winner, Jehane Noujaim, who produced the call-for-participation video. The video itself is rather moving and the effort is attractive unique. The real power I find in this idea is its simplicity. As much as I read about global problems and work to create unique solutions I can’t help to be drawn to the simple ideas. Often we try to create complex solutions to complex problem but often that masks the underlying source. Is it possible that tolerance and compassion for other cultures can be achieved through films? Probably not. But the goal of this competition is to showcase videos that might serve as catalysts for future action. I will be intrigued not just to see what is produced by May 10, 2008 (the day of the worldwide broadcast of video submissions).

However, after watching Jehane Noujaim’s speech on Pangea Day’s homepage, I can’t help but feel like this effort is a bit misguided. From what I understand, the underlying motivation for showcasing videos from across the world is to bring a voice to the people. I will not argue that governments and media have long-quited the voice of the masses but I don’t know why there is this assumption that videos submitted by people will be any less-biased or agenda-driven. This viewpoint assumes that there is this global moral standard and that pervades the common person. Unfortunately, from a lot of these videos many people will be disgusted and offended by what they see. How will this facilitate tolerance? Simply opening the floodgates won’t ensure that viewers will react well. Additionally, this perspective also assumes that videos will be more or less unbiased and all-encompassing. The media and government aren’t the only ones who will purport to know the truth. In fact, my guess is that the Pangea Day committee themselves will probably have to censor some of the videos.

But, all in all, I find this to be a valuable endeavor. It was put together well and, if it gets enough press, should promise to bring a lot of interesting videos to the global fore. What happens as a result still remains to be seen…

For my graduate capstone I am researching the role and appropriation of interaction design in rural areas of developing countries. As I research a lot of information and communication technology (ICT) projects or UNESCO-sponsored initiatives, I come across a lot of implications for what to do in the future. Most of these projects are failures but even the successes often cite this one implication: “The technology utilized should be affordable.” What the hell does that mean? Why would anyone consciously develop a technology that is unaffordable–especially in the cases of poverty-stricken rural areas. This doesn’t make any sense. To think that these ICT projects might fail because the creators did not consider cost, or that the major insights are to simply make the technology affordable in the future, is ridiculous. Why isn’t that common knowledge? Apple wouldn’t make an iPod that costs $2,000 aimed at college students so why would a developer implement a technology that costs thousands a year in maintenance in a village that has an average income of a few hundred dollars a year? I mean, Sony wouldn’t sell a Playstation 3 for…..okay, wait, that might not be the best example

So what I really wonder here is what is at the core of this ‘design implication’? In this setting I think what is really at play is that developers do not design the system/artifact in a way that makes the user capable of maintaining or improving upon it in the future. If the system relies on outside support it is doomed to fail because researchers and developer can only linger so long to ensure a project’s success. I read all too frequently that projects might be a raving success while the developers are still around, only to find that years later it becomes a dismal failure. The failure is actually amplified by the fact that when users become accustomed to a system/artifact, they change their activities to center around it. As a result, when it leaves, they are left in a worse condition than before. So my thoughts on this idea of “unaffordable technology” are that designs in these settings must be participatory and adaptive. Developers and support cannot be around forever so it is important that the designs can not only be learned by the users but mastered in such a way that the user then becomes the designer (see Acting with Technology by Nardi and Kaptelinin for more on this). This way, Users can take ownership and innovate for their own uses. From a participatory standpoint, designs can most likely become adaptive. In this sense, the design is possibly modular or it is malleable so that it can be modified and reappropriated in the future. If implementations have adaptive capacity then their usage will be more sustainable.