Promises and Perils of Open Source Technologies for Development: Can the “Subaltern” Research and Innovate?

  • Sachiko Hirosue
  • Denisa KeraEmail author
  • Hermes Huang
Conference paper


The paper summarizes the current state of the “Openness Paradigm” for development, with a focus on open source hardware and the related issues of open science, open data, and open access. It focuses on how such efforts support more equal collaborations between North and South on open science and citizen projects. It also discusses these efforts as an example of an inclusive Research and Development (R&D) agenda different from the traditional practice of technology transfer, which enforces the hierarchical notion of “development.” We apply the present postcolonial studies discourse along with contemporary discussions in the west on public participation in science, as a framework to discuss Technology for Development (Tech4Dev). Thus, bringing attention to nontraditional formats and institutions, and new institution–community relations, as examples of a more democratic and inclusive Tech4Dev agenda.


Open Data Open Science Open Hardware Openness Paradigm Open Source Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adas, M. (1989). Machines as the measure of man (pp. 292–318). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, B., et al. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  3. Arofatullah N. A., et al. (2014a). Open hardware webcam microscope and its impact on citizen science Jogja River Project. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  4. Arofatullah, N. A., Widianto, D., & Prijambada, I. D. (2014b). Intersection of DIY (do it yourself) and DIWO (do it with others). Approaches in sharing microbiology know-how to benefit communities. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  5. Banuri, T. (1990). Modernization and its discontents: A cultural perspective on theories of development. In F. Apffel Marglin, & S. A. Marglin (Eds.), Dominating knowledge: Development, culture, and resistance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed 30 Nov 2014.
  6. BBSRC Media (n.d.). E. coli 0104:H4 outbreak genome: fighting disease outbreaks with “the tweenome”. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  7. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byerlee, D., & Fischer, K. (2002). Accessing modern science: policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Development, 30(6), 931–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192–197Google Scholar
  10. Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1–4), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, C. B. (2012). Links and distinctions among citizenship, science, and citizen science. A response to the future of citizen science. Democracy and Education, 20(2), Article 13.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., & Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems.” Ecology and Society, 12(2).Google Scholar
  13. Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., & Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 41, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edmunds, S., et al. (2014). GigaScience: Open publishing for the big data era. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  15. Ettinger, K. M. (2015). Open issues and a proposal for open-source data monitoring to assure quality, reliability, and safety in health care devices targeting low- and middle-income countries. In S. Hostettler, E. Hazboun & J.-C. Bolay (Eds.), Technologies for development: What is essential? Paris, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Forero-Pineda, C. (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy, 35(6), 808–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behavior. In Dosi et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 38–66). London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  18. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers Co., ISBN 0-7178-0397-X.Google Scholar
  19. Guédon, J.-C. (2008). Open access and the divide between “mainstream” and “peripheral” science. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  20. Holmgren, M., & Schnitzer, S. A. (2004). Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biology, 2(1), e1. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kera, D. (2012). Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: Connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols. Journal of Peer Production. Accessed 30 Nov 2014.
  22. Kera, D. (2014). Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces. Technology in Society, 37, 28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine, G. (2014). Open source hardware biomimetic snake robot as a toolkit for monitoring and exploring marine environments. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  24. Li, Z., et al. (2014). The 3,000 rice genomes project. GigaScience, 3(7). doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-3-7.
  25. MacLean, D. et al. (2013). Crowdsourcing genomic analyses of ash and ash dieback power to the people. GigaScience, 2(2). doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-2-2.
  26. McDevitt, V. L. (2014). More than money: the exponential impact of academic technology transfer. Technology and Innovation, 16, 75–84. doi:
  27. O’Brien, S. J. (2012). Genome empowerment for the Puerto Rican parrot—Amazona vittata. GigaScience, 1(13). doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-13.
  28. OSHW_a (n.d.). Definition (English). Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  29. OSHW_b (n.d.). Bio-fertilizers deriving from UGM research. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  30. Rata, E. (2011). A Critical Inquiry into indigenous knowledge claims. Presentation to the Department of Education, University of Cambridge. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  31. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Sambuli, N., et al. (2013). Viability, verification, validity: 3Vs of crowdsourcing. iHub Research. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  33. Sambuli, N., et al. (2014). Crowdsourcing citizen-generated data for open science: A case study from the 2013 Kenya general elections. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  34. SciDev.Net (2014a). Are robotic snakes “essential” for development? Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  35. SciDev.Net (2014b). Hackers aim to reboot development with DIY mentality. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
  36. Singh, R., Gupta, V., & Mondal, A. (2012). Jugaad—from “making do” and “quick fix” to an innovative, sustainable and low-cost survival strategy at the bottom of the pyramid. International Journal of Rural Management, 8(1–2), 87–105. doi: 10.1177/0973005212461995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  38. Strover, S. (2003). Remapping the digital divide. The Information Society: An International Journal, 19(4), 275–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Young, J. R. (2001). Does ‘digital divide’ rhetoric do more harm than good? Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Bioengineering, School of Life SciencesEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Communications and New MediaNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.International Development Studies Program, Faculty of Political ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations