Advertisement

Enablers of Egalitarian Participation: Case Studies in Underserved Communities in South Africa. Processes of Creativity “Not for the Sake of it”

  • Maria Rosa LoriniEmail author
  • Wallace Chigona
  • Malcolm Garbutt
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 933)

Abstract

Although ICT4D impacts peoples’ lives, drivers for change are often from a self-serving perspective, and not sustainable, due to lack of buy-in in the affected communities. To overcome this, ICT4D must move from laboratory approaches and collaboration to grassroots innovation, with communities designing their use of ICT. This study presents three cases of ICT4D projects in underserved communities in Cape Town, South Africa, with the aim of determining enablers of egalitarian participation to support grassroots innovations. Egalitarian participation encourages acquiring self-confidence and empowerment, while remaining motivated to be part of the process. In the processes analysed, an emergent approach, characterised by openness, relaxed rules and flexibility, allowed participants to work on their skills to increase confidence in their capabilities, and to evaluate new opportunities. The primary outcome of an approach based on relationships, and not on design rules, promoted inclusive participation. Collectives engaged in processes, and developed self-determined behaviours and cohesion in supporting their communities. The social goal of the activities, where creativity developed ‘not for the sake of it’ backed the main aim of the egalitarian approach, involved the community and created ownership. Analysis of the cases highlighted methodological patterns that could potentially be replicated, and which are presented as enablers for egalitarian participation in underserved communities. In contrast to the approach of purely supplying solutions, a reflexive approach, permeated by the principles of mutual learning and solidarity, was observed, which evolved into grassroots innovations.

Keywords

Co-design Community participation Co-creation Inclusive participation Grassroots 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A sincere thank you to the community groups – Mamas, Youth and Community Radio, and the external professionals – the RLabs, the web designer and the journalists.

References

  1. 1.
    Walsham, G.: ICT4D research: reflections on history and future agenda. Inf. Technol. Dev. 23(1), 18–41 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heeks, R.: The ICT4D 2.0 Manifesto. University of Manchester. Institute for development policy and management. Development informatics group, Manchester, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heeks, R.: Do information and communication technologies (ICTs) contribute to development? J. Int. Dev. 22(5), 625–640 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rey-Moreno, C., Sabiescu, A.G., Siya, M.J., Tucker, M.D.: Local ownership, exercise of ownership and moving from passive to active entitlement: a practice-led inquiry on a rural community network. J. Commun. Inform. 11(2), 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D.: Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants’ and researchers’ world from a critical standpoint. Int. J. Qual. Methods 11(2), 64–81 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapuire, G.K., Blake, E.: An attempt to merge local and technological paradigms in the digital representation of indigenous knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Indigenous Knowledge Technology Conference, pp. 28–72. IKTC, Windhoek, Namibia (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Bidwell, N.J., Blake, E.: Community consensus: design beyond participation. Des. Issues 28(3), 89–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manzini, E., Rizzo, F.: Small projects/large changes: participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign 7(3–4), 199–215 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finlay, L.: Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qual. Res. 2(2), 209–230 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healy, K.: Participatory action research and social work: a critical appraisal. Int. Soc. Work 44(1), 93–105 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guillemin, M., Gillam, L.: Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qual. Inq. 10(2), 261–280 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blevins, D., Farmer, M.S., Edlund, C., Sullivan, G., Kirchner, J.E.: Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation. Implementation Sci. 5(76), 1–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yost, M.R., Chmielewski, J.F.: Blurring the line between researcher and researched in interview studies: a feminist practice? Psychol. Women Q. 37(2), 242–250 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arnstein, S.R.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Planners 35(4), 216–224 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jokela, T., Iivari, N., Matero, J., Karukka, M.: The standard of user-centred design and the standard definition of usability: analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241-11. In: Proceedings of the Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 53–60. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maunder, A., Marsden, G., Tucker, W.D.: Evaluating the relevance of the “Real Access” criteria as a framework for rural HCI research. In: van Greunen, D. (ed.) 5th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Southern Africa. ACM, Cape Town (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eason, K.D.: User-centred design: for users or by users? Ergonomics 38(8), 1667–1673 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nygaard, K., Terje Bergo, O.: The trade unions-new users of research. Pers. Rev. 4(2), 5–10 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonsen, J., Robertson, T.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledgse, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenbaum, J., Hillsdale, N.J., Kying, M.: Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders, E.B.N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1), 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E.: Meta-design: a framework for the future of end-user development. In: Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Wulf,V. (eds.) End User Development. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol. 9. Springer, Dordrecht (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_19
  24. 24.
    Schumacher, J., Feurstein, K.: Living Labs-the user as co-creator. In: Proceedings 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2007). The Free Press, Sophia-Antipolis (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J.: RED paper 02: Transformation Design. Design Council, London (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Transformative services and transformation design. Int. J. Des. 5(2), 29–40 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., Pessach, L.: Power relations in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 19(2), 279–289 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussain, M.: Grassroots innovation: a systematic review of two decades of research. J. Cleaner Prod. 137, 973–981 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Surender, R., Noble, M., Wright, G., Ntshongwana, P.: Social assistance and dependency in South Africa: an analysis of attitudes to paid work and social grants. J. Soc. Policy 39(2), 203–221 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bank, L.: Living together, moving apart: home-made agendas, identity politics and urban-rural linkages in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 19(1), 129–147 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roth, J.: Informal micro-finance schemes: the case of funeral insurance in South Africa. International Labour Office Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robins, S.L.: From Revolution to Rights in South Africa: Social Movements NGOs & Popular Politics after Apartheid. Boydell & Brewer, Suffolk (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quarterly labour force survey: Quarter. http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P02111stQuarter2016.pdfst. Accessed 16 June 2016
  35. 35.
    Dearden, A.: See no evil?: ethics in an interventionist ICTD. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, pp. 46–55. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morgan, D.: The Focus Group Guidebook, vol. 1. Sage publications, London (1997)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: An array of qualitative data analysis tools: a call for data analysis triangulation. Sch. Psychol. Q. 22(4), 557 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lennie, J., Tacchi, J.: Evaluating Communication for Development: A Framework for Social Change. Routledge, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lorini, M.R., van Zyl, I., Chigona, W.: ICTs for inclusive communities: a critical discourse analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Development Informatics Association Conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, pp. 78–94 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lorini, M.R., Sabiescu, A., Memarovic, N.: Collective digital storytelling in community-based co-design projects an emergent approach. J. Commun. Inform. 13(1), 109–136 (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tritter, J.Q., McCallum, A.: The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 76(2), 56–168 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Minkler, M.: Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Educ. Behav. 31(6), 684–697 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dearden, A., Haider Rizvi, S.M.: ICT4D and participatory design. In: The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, pp. 395–403. Wiley, Chichester (2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dell, N., Vaidyanathan, V., Medhi, I., Cutrell, E., Thies, W.: Yours is better!: participant response bias in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1321–1330. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sanders, L., Stappers, P.J.: From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: three slices in time. Interactions 21(6), 24–33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alexiou, K.: Coordination and emergence in design. CoDesign 6(2), 75–97 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fischer, G.: Meta-design: beyond user-centered and participatory design. In: Proceedings of HCI International, pp. 99–92. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cornwall, A.: Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Commun. Develop. J. 43(3), 269–283 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations