IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2016 - 42

financially and then how to support them from afar, e.g.,
providing a cloud-based umbrella support organization.

Alternative Models Possible
Many engineers, designers and researchers are motivated by a genuine desire to make the world a better
place. Seeing vast inequalities in power, wealth, and
freedom across the world, they are keen to apply their
skills and knowledge to improve people's lives and livelihoods. It is certainly the case that some technical
innovations with ICTs can be highly beneficial in a wide
range of settings. However, simplistic media stories of
technical solutions delivering transformational change
lead to serious misunderstandings of the relationship
between technical innovation and meaningful sustainable development.
Toyama [18] provides a detailed critique of the limitations of such "shrink wrapped" interventions as a
strategy for fostering development. As Sahay et al. [19]
observe, the major challenges for ICTD research are not
in achieving huge technical leaps. Change lies in the
capacity of individuals and organizations to understand
and articulate their challenges, and to explore, devise,
evaluate, and select appropriate technological responses. For marginalized communities to have a voice, they

The shift from bungee jumping to
a semi-permanent presence has
provided numerous benefits regarding
ethnographic understanding, training
for researchers, data collection,
and capacity building.

need opportunities to develop an appreciation of technologies, just as researchers and designers must develop a deeper appreciation of the communities and
organizations they hope to assist.
We have argued elsewhere [20], [21] for approaches
that involve people working in two distinct but complementary roles. One group, spends extended periods in a
specific setting to lead local changes of organization
and practice, i.e., being "situation focused, but technology aware." They are supported by a secondary team
(which may be based elsewhere) that is "technology
focused but situationally aware" [20]. At some points,
software and hardware developers might make one or

more bungee visits to the site, but this happens in a
context where (at least) one member of the team is
already embedded in long-term relationships.
Taking a broader view of development arising when
people increase their own agency and capabilities, we
argue that alternative models of ICTD are possible. To
achieve such changes, the model that has evolved in
SignSupport and Zenzeleni involves long-term partnerships maintained over years rather than days, weeks, or
months. Occasional "bungee" visits can be used to
address specific short-term objectives, but the visits are
framed by a critical set of relationship practices that
alter the dynamic of these interactions. Specifically:
■ the research team maintains a parallel consistent
presence and relationship with the community who
are active participants in the research;
■ research agendas are negotiated with and guided by
the priorities of the community;
■ mentorship is made available to help novice
researchers develop their social awareness in the
new setting, and experienced managers avoid sending researchers to field sites before their social skills
have reached an appropriate level;
■ the visitation plans form part of a gradual, planned,
and open transfer of responsibilities and project
ownership towards other actors including local community members or other researchers (e.g., senior
students); and
■ occasional visits are made by senior research leaders to demonstrate the ongoing commitment of
partners to the work and to maintain long-term strategic relationships.

Bungee Jumping Can be Worse than
No Research at All
ICTD research will remain a geographically distributed
activity that is likely to include occasions where privileged researchers make short-term visits to very different cultural settings to work with people who are
marginalized from dominant structures in global social
arrangements. We contend that the primary use of bungee jumping for ICTD research is ineffective and unethical. More detailed discussion on this can be found in
[22]. Such an approach is unlikely to generate results
that are meaningful for development, and carries risks
to vulnerable stakeholders that external researchers
are often ill equipped to recognize. Placing bungee
jumping at the heart of a project will typically be worse
than no research at all.
There is an urgent need for a culture change in ICTD
research, and this should be reflected on ethics committees and institutional review boards (IRBs), and in the
content of relevant courses [20]. The topic of bungee
jumping and participatory research approaches should

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

∕

september 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2016