24
Oct 17

Pingback: Have you #HeForShe’d yet?

Eraptis, October 24.

Tonight, Studentafton hosted an event with the head of #HeForShe, Elizabeth Nyamayaro, at Lund University, Sweden.

 

Here are some of the things being tweeted by #HeForShe during the event!

Elizabeth Nyamayaro emphasizes the need for all (both men and women) to engage in order to create lasting change:

To this day, there’s yet a country that has achieved gender equality. Thus, it’s not only a “Global South” problem – change needs to happen everywhere:

The need to act when required, to not be passive in the face of inequality and injustice:

But what about data?

DIAL* asked the same question – is all data created equal?

* DIAL (Digital Impact Alliance) is a “partnership amongst some of the world’s most active digital development champions” including: UN Foundation; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency); and USAID 

Ping: Have you #HeForShe’d yet? Data for women’s empowerment?

 


23
Oct 17

Event: WEF India Summit 2017. Tracing the ICT4D discourse

Eraptis, October 23.

I’d like to use my concluding blog post to zoom out a bit and take a bird’s eye view of our vibrant discussions about the interconnectedness of social media, data, and development and place it into a wider discussion about development discourse. The question I’d like to ask is really, how much space does the ICT4D discourse occupy in mainstream development narratives? To do so I have chosen to focus on a single session coupled with a number of tweets from the recent World Economic Forum India Summit 2017 taking place in New Delhi on 4-6 October 2017.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an independent not-for-profit foundation based in Geneva, Switzerland. It was established in 1971 with the mission to “improv(e) the state of the world” through public-private cooperation, and as such engages the “foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”. Since 1985, WEF annually organizes the “Indian Economic Summit” event specifically aimed at shaping the political, economic and industrial agendas of India in partnership with multiple stakeholders as outlined above. The topic of this year’s event was perhaps specifically indicative of this aim: Creating Indian Narratives on Global Challenges.

Apart from broadcasting and recording the live sessions of these events WEF also shares additional content through blogs and reports, which are distributed through their website, and shared and communicated on various social media channels such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Participation in the events is however restricted to specific stakeholders.

The session I chose to cover directly addressed the overall topic of the event, “Creating Indian Narratives”, and took the form of a panel discussion comprising of the following participants representing government, private, and non-governmental stakeholders.

ict4d discourse

From top left: Ajay S. Banga, President and CEO of Mastercard; Dipali Goenka, CEO of Welspun India Ltd; Piyush Goyal, Minister of Railways and Coal; Malvika Iyer, Member of the UN Inter-Agency Network on Youth Development’s Working Group on Youth and Gender Equality; Karan Johar, Head of Dharma Productions; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman of Bharti Enterprises

[youtube]“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbMkQr6XP5A”[/youtube]

My first impression of the session was that several of the participants did indeed mention various ICT solutions as being part of a new Indian narrative numerous times. This was not wholly unexpected judging both by the composition of the panel and the mission of the WEF. In fact, Murphy & Carmody even go as far as characterizing organizations like the WEF and international financial institutions as forms of social movements of their own (albeit top-down), with the aim of advancing corporate globalization and the neoliberal agenda. In this sense, it seems that the ICT4D discourse occupies a significant amount of space in the realm of mainstream development discourse, at least in the more traditional branches focusing on economic growth and structural transformation as drivers of development. But in what way does ICT play a role in this kind of development? In order to unpack some of the statements made by the panellists, I found the following conceptualization provided by Murphy & Carmody to be very useful. By distinguishing the forms of ICT integration into “thin” and “thick” categories, the importance and strength of ICT integration can be meaningfully discussed. Thin, or imminent, forms of ICT integration often lead to cumulative gains in productivity and efficiency at the level of the individual or firm. Whereas thick, or imminent, ICT integration is more transformative in its character, often leading to new forms of industrial organization and practices at the industry and market level. Or what Schumpeter would call “creative destruction”. So, with this in mind, what kind of ICT integration did the panellists advocate for?

One of the most interesting exchanges from this perspective occurred in the first round of addresses where Ajay S. Banga, CEO and President of Mastercard, began speaking about India’s “productivity challenge” as a barrier to growth, resulting in a large part due to a large portion of the Indian labor force being employed by the informal sector. For him, transforming the economy to provide formal job opportunities must be part of the new Indian narrative. However, one of the challenges facing this transition is a relatively low skilled labour force, which furthermore is not incentivized to gain new skills in an informal environment, coupled with a low incentive for firms to invest in such an environment. Dipali Goenka continued Ajay’s line of reasoning from the perspective of her own industry (textiles) experience arguing on the one hand that India is still an agricultural economy, with these sectors employing maximum workforces (mainly women). And that digitization could be a way of educating women to increase their skills and productivity in that sector. Dipali also argued for smartphone usage for cotton farmers to increase their agricultural productivity through better access to information on weather and crop conditions.

Furthermore, Minister Goyal in the second round of addresses talked about the role of entrepreneurship and provided an example of ICT solutions as an enabling force empowering individuals along the railroad nodes to franchise ticket sales through mobile devices by small-scale entrepreneurs. Ajay then added that his own corporation (Mastercard) has played a significant role in providing financial services to a large number of people in the world through electronic and mobile payment solutions and digitization, which he argued has increased efficiency and safety in the overall payments systems. This kind of transformation in the way of doing things, Ajay argued, is part of changing the Indian narrative. Moreover, a large part of this kind of business and system development within Mastercard is developed in India, by Indian developers, and is then exported to the rest of world.

Applying Murphy & Carmody’s conceptual framework of imminent and immanent ICT integration to these arguments generates some interesting insights. Firstly, it could be argued that Ajay’s opening statement regarding the “productivity challenge” to some extent is a call for an imminent and deep transformation of both structure and organization of the productive formal sectors in order to absorb and employ labour from the unproductive informal sectors. Whereas Dipali’s following argument can be viewed more as an imminent form of ICT integration where efficiency and productivity gains could be achieved both in the textile industry by empowering and educating female workers through ICT solutions, as well as in the downstream (garment) and upstream (cotton farmers) sectors of the value chain. Likewise, Minister Goyal’s suggestion of franchising train ticket sales through a mobile application to small-scale local entrepreneurs instead of opening local sales offices is also an example of imminent ICT integration where increased efficiency may occur on the level of the individual or the firm. But what about Ajay’s last argument regarding Indian driven innovation within electronic and mobile payments system development? Surely this must be an example of thick, immanent, ICT integration fundamentally transforming industry practices? Yes, but not necessarily in India, as this depends on a multitude of things. On the one hand, and as Ajay expressed himself, new innovations are being developed “for the world”. Thus, the benefits from both uptake and development of these new technologies may occur elsewhere as a form of economic extraversion, and profits generated from these new ICT solutions may be accumulated where the company’s head office is situated (Murphy & Carmody). Whether these skills and capabilities developed eventually spills-over to local entrepreneurs and spur innovation at the national level, countering some of the dependency from multinational corporations, is not certain.

To answer my initial question “how much space does the ICT4D discourse occupy in mainstream development narratives?” – it seems, from this example, quite significantly both directly and indirectly. What is more interesting however is to try and unpack what kind of development, and how deep. Murphy & Carmody’s framework has been very helpful in thinking about ICT4D discourse from this critical perspective. What are your thoughts? And what are other potential threats and opportunities to digitization and ICT4D?

 


12
Oct 17

(Big) Data for women’s empowerment? – How does it work?

Eraptis, October 12

In my last post, I asked the question about how data could be used in order to measure the impact of the #HeForShe movement on women’s empowerment and argued that theory could guide us in the interpretation of such data. But through logical deduction data must first be generated before it can be analyzed, how does it work when data is generated in practice?

In accordance with Morten Jerven, a basic point of departure when we want to know something about a population is to first establish what the population is. Only after we have established this can we know something about other properties affecting that population. From a development perspective factors such as economic growth, agricultural production, education and health measurements are all predicated upon population data to be meaningful. Many times, however, the definite (real) population number is not actually known but estimated through a population counting process commonly referred to as a census. Jerven illustrates the possible implications of census-taking in a development context through a case study from Nigeria, saying that:

“Today, we can only guess at the size of the total Nigerian population. In particular, very little is known about the population growth rate. The history of census-taking in Nigeria is an instructive example of the measurement problems that can arise in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also a powerful lens through which the legitimacy of the Nigerian colonial and postcolonial state can be observed” – Morten Jerven

Without us getting into the particulars of the Nigerian census-taking case, Jerven points out an interesting aspect of this quote which he elaborates further elsewhere in his book: the involvement of the state in the production of data and official statistics. Thus, argues Jerven, if a particular state is interested in achieving development, we should expect that it also has an interest in measuring (that particular) development. If that’s the case, then the availability of state-generated data should reflect its statistical priorities, which is likely to mirror its political priorities. We, therefore, once again, arrive at the question asked in my first blog post – is all data created equal?

[youtube]href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?=2&v=YABFcA8yHZ0″[/youtube]

Directing that question to Data2x seems to yield the simple answer “No”, at least not yet. Data2x is a joint initiative of the UN Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the William & Flora Hewlett foundation dedicated to “improving the quality, availability, and use of gender data in order to make a practical difference in the lives of women and girls worldwide”. According to this report produced by Data2x, approximately eighty percent of countries produce sex-disaggregated data on education and training, labour force participation, and mortality. But only one third do the same on informal employment, unpaid work, and violence against women. Mapping the gender data gap across five development and women’s empowerment domains by using 28 indicators identified several types of gaps for each indicator as shown in this table:

big data womens empowerment

Source: Data2x

To close these gaps Data2x argues that existing data sources should be mined for sex-disaggregated data, and new data collection should be designed as a tool for social change that takes into account gender disaggregation already in the planning stages. But useful as they are, conventional data forms generated by household surveys, institutional records, and national economic accounts are not very well suited to capture a detailed account of the lives, experiences, and expressions of women and girls.

Can big data help close this gap? In this new report, Data2x shows it might by profiling a set of innovative approaches of harnessing big data to close the gender data gap even further. For example, have you ever wondered how data generated by 500 million daily tweets across 25,000 development keywords from 50 million Twitter users could be disaggregated by sex and location for analysis? I admit it, before reading the report; I cannot recall being struck by that thought. But, apparently, open data generated from social media platforms may not be sex-disaggregated from the outset. To solve this, the UN Global Pulse and the University of Leiden jointly collaborated together with Data2x to develop and test an algorithm inferring the sex of Twitter users. The tool takes into account a number of classifiers such as name and profile picture to determine the sex of the user producing a tweet and was developed so it could be applied on a global scale across a variety of languages. Comparing the gender classification results generated by the tool to that of a crowdsourced panel for which the correct results were assumed assessed the accuracy of the algorithm. In 74 % of the cases, the algorithm indicated the correct sex, a number that UN Global Pulse deems could be improved through further system development. The results of the project show great potential in generating new insights on development concerns disaggregated by both sex and location by using user-generated data from social media channels, as shown in this screenshot of the online dashboard (go and explore it for yourself!):

big data womens empowerment

Source: UN Global Pulse

Before ending this post I’d like to highlight three other relevant posts from our blog that takes up the relevant questions of bias in data generated from social media, the issue of privacy, as well as the geo-mapping and visualization of big data. Read, reflect, and tell us what you think in the comments field below!

 


02
Oct 17

Have you #HeForShe’d yet? – Data for women’s empowerment?

Eraptis, October 2

As the third anniversary of the global #HeForShe solidarity movement for gender equality just passed us by on September 20, I decided to renew my commitment to ”he for she” (apparently, I had already committed to the campaign two years ago). But now that I’ve committed (again), what do I do? As I browsed further on the website I discovered their action kit specifically targeting students, I felt compelled to act, the results so far? A tweet and a blog post (starting small…):

Since its inception, the #HeForShe campaign, which is organized by UN Women, has gathered an impressive 1.5 million commitments, of which 1.2 million are from men, sparked over 1.3 billion gender equality actions and generated 1.1 thousand offline events and counting. Using “online, offline, and mobile phone technology to identify and activate advocates in every city, community, and village around the world” surely this must generate a large amount of data, possibly even “big data”, for analysis of the contribution of the movement towards UN Women’s core strategic pillars. This is important because achieving gender equality everywhere is absolutely crucial, and perhaps not the least so in communities and villages in developing countries. However, with this is mind, the question from my previous blog post echoed loudly in my head when I saw the global distribution of commitments on the interactive map on the #HeForShe site. Is all data created equal?

Photo: heforshe.org (accessed September 28, 2017)

Although it looks like the question “Have you #HeForShe’d yet?” is mostly a phenomena asked among “Western” men, there are also some beacons shining brighter in Magenta (the color symbolizing the movement) than others. In Rwanda, over 200,000 commitments have been made, of which over 160,000 are from men. While its neighbor Uganda have less than 1,000 commitments. Why this difference? Perhaps part of the answer spells Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame. But does Kagame’s role as an IMPACT Champion for #HeForShe help to better position his country to empower women? It could, for a number of reasons – some which could be extrapolated from his quote:

Women and men are equal in in terms of ability and dignity, and they should be equal in terms of opportunity. As Rwandans, as a global community, we need every member of our society to use his or her talents to the fullest. – Paul Kagame

Kagame’s words can be elaborated further in terms of power by using Naila Kabeer’s distinction of positive and negative agency. The interpretation of the first sentence of the quote could be that of limiting men’s power over women (negative meaning of agency) by clearly making the statement of equality in both ability and dignity, coupled with a vision of equality in opportunity. Whereas the second sentence is more directed towards the positive meaning of agency aimed at nurturing the power to pursue ones own choices and goals in life. The latter aspect can be further traced to Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach and the notion of development as freedom. Although these elements are primarily aimed at altering the power balance of individual agency between men and women, there is also a structural aspect related to the issue of women’s empowerment. In this second dimension, Kagame’s position in Rwandan society offers the opportunity to greatly influence the structural and institutional barriers hindering such a development.

How could data generated by #HeForShe be used in order to measure the impact of the movement on women’s empowerment both in terms of agency and structure in Rwandan society? Here, we enter the domain of theory. A good starting point would be to depart from Dorothea Kleine’s depiction of the choice framework.

In her framework, the combination of individual resources (agency) and the structural dimensions of a particular society determine the degrees of empowerment of individuals in that society, and whether or not they can identify the various degrees of choice and use it to achieve a set of development outcomes, of which choice itself is the primary outcome. But choice is complex. In her paper, Kabeer points out the difficulties of qualifying choice itself referring to the conditions (access or absence of viable alternatives) and the consequences (the degree of importance) of choice. Furthermore, Kabeer has also demonstrated the conceptual difficulties of using indicators in order to measure empowerment due to a very complex and dynamic interrelation between choice and access to resources, achievements, and agency. However, combining the development outcomes suggested by Kleine with Kabeer’s insights from her “reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment” could provide a practical blueprint for how theory could be used in order to analyze the large amount of data generated by #HeForShe and determine its impact on women’s empowerment in Rwanda and elsewhere.

Thus, the point I try to make here is similar to that of my previous post that data is “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”, but to make sense of it all we need to view the data through a theoretical lens. Do you agree? Let me hear your thoughts in the comment field below and let’s engage in dialogue!

 


22
Sep 17

Thinking about #data (for development)?

Eraptis, September 22.

Thinking about data (for development) has really got me thinking. What is data, and what makes it “big”? How can it be used in the context of development, and which data really matters – is all data created equal? Blogging to reflect on these and other questions, sharing our thoughts with the (social media) world, might help in putting these things into perspective. It may even change how we view things. But then again, to who are we talking – who reads our blogs, and which blogs do we read ourselves?

Tobias Denskus and Andrea S. Papan have taken a closer look into the practices of blogging by development practitioners. In their paper, they interviewed a set of international development bloggers’ on their motivations for maintaining a blog. Although the motivations might be many, their research primarily points towards some individual reasons for maintaining a blog. Among the reasons stated were venting and reflecting on everyday occurrences in the professional life of the bloggers, putting them “out there” for others to engage with. The “Others” mainly comprising other development professionals sharing and consuming information as a way to stay in tune with the “hot topics” of the development sphere, and as a way to show one’s own expertise on the issues of the day. The networking aspect of it all, thus, seems to be an important motivation for blogging – leading to both virtual and real meetings. From an organizational perspective, these things certainly have the potential to create innovative ideas, and lead to improved processes – but there seems to be something missing. As the authors also point out, for blogging to be truly impactful, it needs to turn away from this inward tendency to also engage with local communities.

Why is this important? In my view, it potentially reflects a common practice of development discourse to view the means to an end as the end itself. ICT and data seem to be no different. In the opening chapter of his recent book, Tim Unwin argues exactly this point when writing:

All too often, ICT4D research and practice has been technologically driven, and has therefore tended to replicate existing social and economic structures, thereby failing sufficiently to explore, interpret, or change the very conditions that have given rise to them.” – Tim Unwin 

So – how to challenge this? Perhaps a good starting point is to look at the very definition of “data”, defined by the Oxford dictionaries as “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”. Data, thus, is by its very nature positivistic. It can, at best, tell us what ”is”. But can data be normative? Can data tell us what ”should be”? As Spratt and Baker writes, the answer is not straight forward. While some would argue that if the data sets were just big enough theory as we know it would cease to exist, others point to such statements as hubris – dangerously overestimating the potential of technology to advance development.

Although I would tend to join ranks with the latter, I simultaneously share Unwin’s optimistic mindset that done right ICTs can indeed be a powerful medium for advancing development. But before that can happen we all need to engage in self-reflection and be critical about the appropriate use of ICT4D in order to consider all aspects of an implementation of data-driven development initiatives. At the heart of all this, Unwin argues, lies adopting a critical theory mindset. Among many things, this means doing away with the rather naïve and problematic notion that ICT, in and by itself, is good. And instead see it for what it is, one of many potential means to an end where the central aspect must be to understand the needs of those people for whom these kinds of interventions are intended. In the context of big data, this means working with and empowering those peoples to both generate and analyze this kind of information for themselves.

Before ending this post I would like to leave you with a thought related to one of my initial questions – is all data created equal? Well, Spratt and Baker note that big data analysis, particularly in the context of social media, is heavily biased towards information in the English language. If data is “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis”, and most data analyzed is in English, then who’s voices are we really listening to?

Featured image: Eventfinda