True Value of Telecentre Contribution to Bario Community Development

  • Ghazala Tabassum
  • Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer
  • Roger Harris
  • Alvin W. Yeo
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 504)

Abstract

Telecentres have been widely deployed worldwide particularly in the area of ICTD to bridge the gap between urban and rural development. This paper explores the value and impact of a telecentre on the community living in Bario, a small village in the highlands of Malaysia. The focus is mainly on the less studied tangible and intangible impacts of the telecentre on users and non-users. This topic is discussed based on stories collected through “Most Significant Change Technique (MSC)” providing facts from the insights of the local community. In nutshell, Bario community has greatly benefited from the use of the telecentre, whether directly or indirectly, particularly in the areas of connectedness, psychological empowerment, and financial improvement. Greater awareness and use of the telecentre shall continue to benefit this small rural community in their social and economic wellbeing.

Keywords

ICTD Telecentre ICTs Users Non-users Intangible impact Tangible impact Socio-economic impact 

References

  1. 1.
    Aji, Z.M., et al.: A conceptual model for psychological empowerment of telecentre users. Science 3(3), 71–79 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M.F., Holland, J.: Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to Implementation. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A.: Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press, NY (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron, L.F., Gomez, R.: Relationships and connectedness: weak ties that help social inclusion through public access computing. Inform. Technol. Dev. 19(4), 271–295 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chamberlin, J.: A working definition of empowerment. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 20(4), 43–46 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies, R., Dart, J.: The ‘Most Significant Change’(MSC) Technique. A guide to its use (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas, H.: Building an analysis of new venture startup with Leximancer. In: Gurd, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (ANZAM 2010), Adelaide, Australia, 8–10 December 2010, pp. 1–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomez, R.: The quest for intangibles: Understanding ICTs for digital inclusion beyond socio-economic impact. Paper presented at the Prato CIRN 2008 Community Informatics Conference: ICTs for Social Inclusion: What is the Reality (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomez, R., Pather, S.: ICT Evaluation: Are we asking the right questions? Electron. J. Inform. Syst. Developing Countries 50(5), 1–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomez, R., Reed, P., Chae, H.Y.: Assessment of community wellness outcomes to measure ICT impact. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Notes, vol. 2 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grunfeld, H.: Framework for evaluating contributions of ICT to capabilities, empowerment and sustainability in disadvantaged communities. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Paper presented at the CPRSouth2 (Communication Policy Research) Conference, ‘Empowering rural communities through ICT policy and research, 15–17 December, Madras, Chennai (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamel, J.-Y.: ICT4D and the Human Development and Capabilities Approach. Technical report #37 (2010). http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_37.pdf
  13. 13.
    Heck, D., Sweeney, T.: Using most significant change stories to document the impact of the teaching teachers for the future project: An Australian teacher education story. Aust. Educ. Comput. 27(3), 36–47 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keriger, R.: MSC Guide: Based on the Experience of ADRA Laos. A guide to implementing the Most Significant Changes (MSC) monitoring system in ADRA country offices (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kozma, R.B.: Monitoring and evaluation of ICT for education impact: a review. In: Wagner, D.A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R.B., Miller, J., Unwin, T. (eds.) Monitoring and Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects. A Handbook for Developing Countries, pp. 11–18. infoDev/World Bank, Washington, DC (2005). http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.9.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2012
  16. 16.
    Rosenberg, M.: Society and the Adolescent Self-Image (rev. ed.), vol. xxxii. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative analysis and interpretation. Qual. Res. Eval. Methods 3, 431–539 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sen, A.: Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sey, A., Bar, F., Coward, C., Koepke, L., Rothschild, C., Sciadas, G.: There when you need it: the multiple dimensions of public access ICT uses and impacts. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 11(1), 71 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sey, A., Coward, C., Bar, F., Sciadas, G., Rothschild, C., Koepke, L.: Connecting people for development: Why public access ICTs matter (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, A.E., Humphreys, M.S.: Evaluation of unsupervsied semantic mapping of natural language with leximancer concept mapping. Behav. Res. Methods 38(2), 262–279 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ssozi-Mugarura, F., Rivett, U., Blake, E.: Using activity theory to understand technology use and perception among rural users in uganda. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, p. 13. ACM, June 2016Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tabassum, G., Yeo, A.W.: Measurement of tangible and intangible impacts of Telecentres on rural communities. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, p. 61. ACM, May 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tarawe, J., Harris, R.W.: Stories from e-Bario. Living Inform. Soc. Asia 365, 109 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Zaitseva, E.: How to make sense of the Leximancer analysis. Liverpool John Moores University Academic Enhancement Unit, 5th Floor, Kingsway House, Hatton Garden, Liverpool, L3 2AJ (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghazala Tabassum
    • 1
  • Narayanan Kulathuramaiyer
    • 1
  • Roger Harris
    • 1
  • Alvin W. Yeo
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovations (ISITI)Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)Kota SamarahanMalaysia
  2. 2.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations