Promises and Perils of Open Source Technologies for Development: Can the “Subaltern” Research and Innovate?
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.
KeywordsOpen Data Open Science Open Hardware Openness Paradigm Open Source Technology
- Adas, M. (1989). Machines as the measure of man (pp. 292–318). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Alberts, B., et al. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5773. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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. http://cooperation.epfl.ch/2014Tech4Dev. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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. http://cooperation.epfl.ch/2014Tech4Dev. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198286943.001.0001/acprof-9780198286943-chapter-3. Accessed 30 Nov 2014.
- BBSRC Media (n.d.). E. coli 0104:H4 outbreak genome: fighting disease outbreaks with “the tweenome”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMnQIE-P-s&feature=youtu.be. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192–197Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Edmunds, S., et al. (2014). GigaScience: Open publishing for the big data era. In Abstracts of 2014 EPFL-UNESCO Conference on Technologies for Development. http://cooperation.epfl.ch/2014Tech4Dev. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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
- 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
- Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers Co., ISBN 0-7178-0397-X.Google Scholar
- Guédon, J.-C. (2008). Open access and the divide between “mainstream” and “peripheral” science. http://eprints.rclis.org/10778/1/Brazil-final.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- Kera, D. (2012). Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: Connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols. Journal of Peer Production. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/diybio-in-asia/. Accessed 30 Nov 2014.
- 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. http://cooperation.epfl.ch/2014Tech4Dev. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- Li, Z., et al. (2014). The 3,000 rice genomes project. GigaScience, 3(7). doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-3-7.
- 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.
- McDevitt, V. L. (2014). More than money: the exponential impact of academic technology transfer. Technology and Innovation, 16, 75–84. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982414X13971392823479
- O’Brien, S. J. (2012). Genome empowerment for the Puerto Rican parrot—Amazona vittata. GigaScience, 1(13). doi: 10.1186/2047-217X-1-13.
- OSHW_a (n.d.). Definition (English). http://www.oshwa.org/definition/. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- OSHW_b (n.d.). Bio-fertilizers deriving from UGM research. http://www.gamaagri.com/. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- Rata, E. (2011). A Critical Inquiry into indigenous knowledge claims. Presentation to the Department of Education, University of Cambridge. https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/academicgroups/equality/Rata2-4.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- Said, E. (1978). Orientalism (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
- Sambuli, N., et al. (2013). Viability, verification, validity: 3Vs of crowdsourcing. iHub Research. http://www.ihub.co.ke/ihubresearch/jb_VsReportpdf2013-8-29-07-38-56.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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. http://cooperation.epfl.ch/2014Tech4Dev. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- SciDev.Net (2014a). Are robotic snakes “essential” for development? http://www.scidev.net/global/technology/scidev-net-at-large/are-robotic-snakes-essential-for-development.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- SciDev.Net (2014b). Hackers aim to reboot development with DIY mentality. http://www.scidev.net/global/innovation/news/hackers-aim-to-reboot-development-with-diy-mentality.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.
- 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
- Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Young, J. R. (2001). Does ‘digital divide’ rhetoric do more harm than good? Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Digital-Divide-/3058. Accessed 29 Nov 2014.