Has the Global South become a playground for Western scholars in information and communication technologies for development? Evidence from a three-journal analysis

Abstract

This study analyzes the role of the Global South countries and the representation of scholars from the Global South in three top-level journals in the area of information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). All the peer-reviewed articles published from 2015 to 2017 in the journals were examined for (a) the country and regional affiliations of the authors, (b) the distribution of countries which were studied, (c) the role of Global South scholars played in the studies, and (d) the research methods adopted in the studies. Besides using the conventional bibliometric indicators, this study also explored several important but often-ignored dimensions such as a country-by-country quantification of the severity of underrepresentation of scholars from the Global South in the publications and the relationship between the role of the scholars from the Global South and the research methods used in the published studies. The analysis shows a complicated picture of the status of low- and middle-income countries and scholars from the Global South in the ICT4D scholarship. Although some indicators suggest that scholars from the Global South play an important role, in general, they are underrepresented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Note: Underrepresentation = actual number of authors–expected number of authors. A negative number indicates that the country is underrepresented

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this study, the Global North, the North, the West, Western countries and developed countries refer to the high-income countries. The Global South, the South and less-developed countries refer to low- and middle-income countries. This study uses the World Bank classification of countries by income.

  2. 2.

    In this study, unless specified otherwise, developed countries and high-income countries are used interchangeably, and developing countries refer to the low- and middle-income countries.

  3. 3.

    The \({\text{HHI index }} = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{N} {{\text{share}}\;{\text{of}}\;{\text{authors}}\;{\text{from}}\;{\text{each}}\;{\text{country}}}\) is a widely used indicator of market concentration. In general, an HHI index below 1500 is considered a sign to show that the market is not concentrated (The U.S. Department of Justice 2015). In this study, the academic ICT4D publication can be treated as a market where scholars from all around the globe can enter. Thus, a high HHI index (> 1500) means a few players, in this context, scholars from a small number of countries, have dominated the market, or the ICT4D academic publication sphere. See more detailed discussion on the meaning and application of HHI index in Hirschmann (1964). The paternity of an index. American Economic Review, 54 (5), 761.

  4. 4.

    Expected number of authors for country \(i = \frac{{\# \;{\text{of}}\;{\text{article focused on country }}i}}{\text{Total number of articles}} \times {\text{Total number of}}\;{\text{authors}}\).

References

  1. Baffoe, M., Asimeng-Boahene, L., & Ogbuagu, B. C. (2014). Their way or no way: “Whiteness” as agent for marginalizing and silencing minority voices in academic research and publication. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2014.v3n1p13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Botes, L., & Rensburg, D. (2000). Community participation in development: Nine plagues and twelve commandments. Community Development Journal, 35(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Confraria, H., & Godinho, M. (2015). The impact of African science: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1241–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing. Scientometrics, 56(3), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dearden, A. (2013). See no evil? Ethics in an interventionist ICTD. Information Technologies & International Development, 9(2), 1–9.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dearden, A., & Haider Rizvi, S. M. (2015). ICT4D and participatory design. In P. H. Ang & R. Mansell (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of digital communication and society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs131. Accessed 28 Dec 2017.

  7. Demeter, M. (2018). Nobody notices it? Qualitative inequalities of leading publications in communication and media research. International Journal of Communication, 12(2008), 1001–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Diptee, A. (2015). The Global South as intellectual playground. Available at https://politicsofmemory.com/2014/12/25/the-global-south-as-intellectual-playground/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.

  9. Dodson, L., Sterling, R. S., & Bennett, J. K. (2012). Considering failure: Eight years of ITID research. Information Technologies & International Development, 9(2), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Commission. (2003). Third European report on science and technology indicators. In European Commission Directorate-General for Research. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/indicators/third_report.htm. Accessed 5 Jan 2018. 

  11. Gitau, S., Plantinga, P., & Diga, K. (2010). ICTD research by Africans: Origins, interests, and impact. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on information and communication technologies and development ICTD, London, UK.

  12. Gomez, R. (2013). The Changing field of ICTD: Growth and maturation of the field, 2000–2010. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 58(1), 1–21.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heek, R. (2010). ICT4D journal ranking table. Retrieved from https://ict4dblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/ict4d-journal-ranking-table/. Accessed 20 Dec 2017.

  14. Heeks, R. (2009). The ICT4D 2.0 manifesto: Where next for ICTs and international development? Development Informatics Group; Institute for Development Policy and Management. Retrieve from https://www.oecd.org/ict/4d/43602651.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018.

  15. Hirschmann, A. (1964). The paternity of an index. American Economic Review, 54(5), 761.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Inikori, J. E. (1996). Inequalities in the production of historical knowledge. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 16(1), 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. International Telecommunications Union. (2002). ICTs in support of human rights, democracy and good governance. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/osg/spu/wsisthemes/humanrights/ICTs%20and%20HR.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2017.

  18. King, D. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lam, C. (2014). Where did we come from and where are we going? Examining authorship characteristics in technical communication research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(4), 266–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mama, A. (2007). Is it ethical to study Africa? Preliminary thoughts on scholarship and freedom. African Studies Review, 50(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meadows, A. J. (1980). Access to the results of scientific research: Developments in Victorian Britain. In A. J. Meadows (Ed.), Development of science publishing in Europe 1980. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Megnigbeto, E. (2013). International collaboration in scientific publishing: The case of West Africa (2001–2010). Scientometrics, 96(3), 761–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre–periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialised countries? The case of South Africa and Germany. Scientometrics, 83(1), 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thapa, D., & Sæbø, O. (2016). Participation in ICT development interventions: Who and how. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 75(3), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. The United States Department of Justice. (2015). Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.

  26. Wallerstein, M. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction (pp. 23–24). Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Walsham, G. (2017). ICT4D research: Reflections on history and future agenda. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 18–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. (2006). Research on information systems in developing countries: Current landscape and future prospects. Information Technology for Development, 12(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Williams, K., Lenstra, N., Ahmed, S., & Liu, Q. (2013). Research note: Measuring the globalization of knowledge: The case of community informatics. First Monday, 18(8), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zewge, A., & Dittrich, Y. (2017). Systematic mapping study of information technology for development in agriculture (The case of developing countries). Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 82(2), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yang Bai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bai, Y. Has the Global South become a playground for Western scholars in information and communication technologies for development? Evidence from a three-journal analysis. Scientometrics 116, 2139–2153 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2839-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • ICT4D
  • Global South
  • Leading publications
  • Bibliometrics
  • Intellectual playground