This is a cross-post by Duncan Edwards from the Institute of Development Studies. Duncan and I collaborated on some sessions for the Open Development stream at September’s Open Knowledge Conference, and we are working on a few posts to sum up what we discussed there and highlight some lingering thoughts on open development and open data. This post was originally published on the Open Knowledge Foundation blog on October 21, 2013
by Duncan Edwards
I’ve had a lingering feeling of unease that things were not quite right in the world of open development and ICT4D (Information and communication technology for development), so at September’s Open Knowledge Conference in Geneva I took advantage of the presence of some of the world’s top practitioners in these two areas to explore the question: How does “openness” really effect change within development?
Inspiration for the session came from a number of conversations I’ve had over the last few years. My co-conspirator/co-organiser of the OKCon side event “Reality check: Ethics and Risk in Open Development,” Linda Raftree, had also been feeling uncomfortable with the framing of many open development projects, assumptions being made about how “openness + ICTs = development outcomes,” and a concern that risks and privacy were not being adequately considered. We had been wondering whether the claims made by Open Development enthusiasts were substantiated by any demonstrable impact. For some reason, as soon as you introduce the words “open data” and “ICT,” good practice in development gets thrown out the window in the excitement to reach “the solution”.
A common narrative in many “open” development projects goes along the lines of “provide access to data/information –> some magic occurs –> we see positive change.” In essence, because of the newness of this field, we only know what we THINK happens, we don’t know what REALLY happens because there is a paucity of documentation and evidence.
It’s problematic that we often use the terms data, information, and knowledge interchangeably, because:
Data is NOT knowledge.
Data is NOT information.
Information is NOT knowledge.
Knowledge IS what you know. It’s the result of information you’ve consumed, your education, your culture, beliefs, religion, experience – it’s intertwined with the society within which you live.
Understanding and thinking through how we get from the “openness” of data, to how this affects how and what people think, and consequently how they MIGHT act, is critical in whether “open” actually has any additional impact.
At Wednesday’s session, panellist Matthew Smith from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) talked about the commonalities across various open initiatives. Matthew argued that a larger Theory of Change (ToC) around how ‘open’ leads to change on a number of levels could allow practitioners to draw out common points. The basic theory we see in open initiatives is “put information out, get a feedback loop going, see change happen.” But open development can be sliced in many ways, and we tend to work in silos when talking about openness. We have open educational resources, open data, open government, open science, etc. We apply ideas and theories of openness in a number of domains but we are not learning across these domains.
We explored the theories of change underpinning two active programmes that incorporate a certain amount of “openness” in their logic. Simon Colmer from the Knowledge Services department at the Institute of Development Studies outlined his department’s theory of change of how research evidence can help support decision-making in development policy-making and practice. Erik Nijland from HIVOS presented elements of the theory of change that underpins the Making All Voices Count programme, which looks to increase the links between citizens and governments to improve public services and deepen democracy. Both of these ToCs assume that because data/information is accessible, people will use it within their decision-making processes.
They also both assume that intermediaries play a critical role in analysis, translation, interpretation, and contextualisation of data and information to ensure that decision makers (whether citizens, policy actors, or development practitioners) are able to make use of it. Although access is theoretically open, in practice even mediated access is not equal – so how might this play out in respect to marginalised communities and individuals?
What neither ToC really does is unpack who these intermediaries are. What are their politics? What are their drivers for mediating data and information? What is the effect of this? A common assumption is that intermediaries are somehow neutral and unbiased – does this assumption really hold true?
What many open data initiatives do not consider is what happens after people are able to access and internalise open data and information. How do people act once they know something? As Vanessa Herringshaw from the Transparency and Accountability Initiative said in the “Raising the Bar for ambition and quality in OGP” session, “We know what transparency should look like but things are a lot less clear on the accountability end of things”.
There are a lot of unanswered questions. Do citizens have the agency to take action? Who holds power? What kind of action is appropriate or desirable? Who is listening? And if they are listening, do they care?
Linda finished up the panel by raising some questions around the assumptions that people make decisions based on information rather than on emotion, and that there is a homogeneous “public” or “community” that is waiting for data/information upon which to base their opinions and actions.
So as a final thought, here’s my (perhaps clumsy) 2013 update on Gil Scott Heron’s 1970 song “The Revolution will not be televised”:
“The revolution will NOT be in Open data,
It will NOT be in hackathons, data dives, and mobile apps,
It will NOT be broadcast on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube,
It will NOT be live-streamed, podcast, and available on catch-up
The revolution will not be televised”
Heron’s point, which holds true today, was that “the revolution” or change, starts in the head. We need to think carefully about how we get far beyond access to data.
Look out for a second post coming soon on Theories of Change in Open, and a third post on ethics and risk in open data and open development.
And if you’re interested in joining the conversation, \sign up to our Open Development mailing list.
Linda we need to articulate a critical theory-practice of ICT4D and (open) development. As Duncan suggests a theory of change needs to start from the reality that it is people that who are necessarily the agents of social change and not the technology (although unlike Duncan I would not discount the possibility of people choosing to utilize social media in their process or to live-stream their actions).
It seems to me that what is essential in assessing (open) development is to ask critical questions including “open to whom?”, “open to what ends?”, “whose interests are being served” and “how might the interests of those currently excluded and exploited be best served?”.
As Paulo Friere pointed out, “information has no inherent value”. It is how it is applied, and in whose interests, that is decisive. Each stage of the process of translating data into information; information into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom depends on human action. It follows that translating data into development is an irreducibly human and political activity. Claims that ‘Info is Aid’ (or that ‘knowledge is power’) do not stand up to scrutiny.
Historically all social development has employed available technologies, and if there is a revolution we can be confident that some part of it will be televised, tweeted and texted. The point however is that technology cannot cause social change; development is caused by the action of humans acting collectively in pursuit of their interests.
The challenge of elaborating a critical approach to ICT4D then, is to enable the agency those currently deprived and exploited, to determine the development means and ends that they have reason to value, and then to support them by ensuring their access to, and capabilities to employ, whatever tools and techniques they find fit for the purpose of realising their own development.
Hi Tony – i’m not discounting social media as part of a process by any means. Social media tools might help to gain the knowledge that other people feel the same as you (in a scale perhaps not previously possible), and also as a tool by which people can mobilise and report on their actions and the actions of others. But what remains the same is that the decision to take action is one that is made internally.
THANK YOU.
I am a big proponent of Open Data but data (content, numbers, whatever) does not make change in and of itself. It is an important element in how development gets done.
Siobhan is right that it is not data that acts. As Dunkatoon says the decision to act is made internally; it is a function of our sense of personal or collective agency and so a theory of change for (open) ICT4D needs to be firmly rooted in peoples agency.
I have gone out on a limb in response to Duncan’s post and had a first hack at the theory of change for (open) ICT4D. Hopefully you can improve on it for me. >> http://www.appropriatingtechnology.org/?q=node/129
Duncan I have had a second hack at a people-centred ICT4D theory of change here > http://www.appropriatingtechnology.org/?q=node/131
[…] analyzes the adverse effects of making the terms data, information, and knowledge interchangeable. Tony Roberts offers the next […]