BRIDGING THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE WITH ...

BRIDGING THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE WITH PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION SOULEYMANE CAMARA JOSÉ L. ABDELNOUR NOCERA Institute for Information Technology, Thames Valley University, U.K. ROSE LUCKIN London Knowledge Lab, University of London , U.K TIM WAEMA School of Computing and Informatics, University of Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract. The authors present participatory customisation as a way forward to implement information and communication technologies (ICT) in the developing world. This is achieved by describing an ongoing project of universities in the UK and Kenya aimed at supporting rural farmers as well as presenting experiences from previous ICT implementations for social development. A participatory design approach sensitive to cultural differences and socio-technical aspects of stakeholders and user communities is explained as part of this project. The paper concludes by highlighting the value of participatory customisation and some of the challenges faced in designing to bridge the global digital divide.

Résumé. Les auteurs présentent la personnalisation participative comme une approche mieux indiquée pour l’implémentation des technologies d’information et de communication dans les pays en voie de développement. Ceci est accompli par la description d’un projet conjoint en cours dans quelques universités en Grande Bretagne et au Kenya pour supporter les fermiers ruraux aussi bien que par la présentation des expériences d'autres implémentations de technologies d'information et de communication pour le développement social. Une approche participative sensible aux différences culturelles et socio-techniques des partenaires et des communautés impliqués est aussi expliquée comme faisant partie du projet. Le rapport conclut en montrer la valeur de la personnalisation participative et en soulignant quelques défis rencontrés en essayant de combler le fossé numérique mondial.

1. Introduction This paper reviews the challenges faced by the design of information and communication technologies (ICT) in bridging the technological divide for the developing world. This is done in the context of ongoing experiences of the project

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 2 ‘Village eScience for Life’ (VESEL1), which is part of a wider network of projects coordinated from the UK, Bridging the Global Digital Divide (BGDD2). Factors such as culture, existing technological infrastructure, ethics and user participation are critical for the success or failure of ICT projects in the developing world. The same situation has applied to VESEL, in particular when engaging communities who have different cultural expectations of technology from those living in countries with easy and frequent access to ICT. The objective of the VESEL project is to design mobile ICT for rural farmers in Kenya in order to promote the transfer and exchange of agricultural knowledge. The main objective is to provide local communities with access to information so that they can improve their profitability and quality of life. The project started in September 2006 and in the following November a team of technologists (UK experts in telecommunications, renewable energy sources, sensor technology, education and user interface design from five UK universities and local experts at Nairobi University) visited four communities of rural farmers in Kenya to establish the feasibility of collaborating with them. Since then, there have been three additional field visits in 2007 to conduct contextual enquiries focusing on the villagers’ requirements. The information obtained has been used to develop the first prototypes. In the next sections of this paper we review some of the literature about experiences of ICT design and implementation in the developing world that has informed the work of VESEL. This is followed by a report on our approach to design as a multidisciplinary team in consideration of the farmers’ context and culture. The paper concludes by highlighting lessons learnt at this stage of the project and further challenges faced by the VESEL team.

2. ICT Projects for Social Development 2.1. LOCALISING ICT Bridging the technological divide by providing ICT to rural farmers needs to be matched with the local realities of targeted users. It is not merely about bringing in new technology or providing information. It is also about addressing local needs. In this sense, Seshagiri, Sagar, & Joshi ( 2007) argue that efforts should be put into creating systems that help solve socio-economic problems. Solely increasing the level of education does not guarantee the adoption of ICT, but instead, an increase in income will effectively trigger this. There is no question that cultural differences affect the way we interact with mobile technology. Choi et al (2005) demonstrate this in a qualitative cross-national study of cultural influences on mobile data service design by identifying 52 cultural attributes in three different countries. The authors explain how localised ICT such as 1 2

See http://www.veselproject.net See http://www.bgdd.org

3 mobile data services are more adaptable to a culture, region or other specific area as than to the Internet, which tends to be more global. Recent research by Kolko, Rose, & Johson ( 2007) reinforces this view by showing that ICT solutions that simulate as closely as possible traditional local networks are guaranteed a greater success in developing regions. These findings signal a need for a type of ICT localisation that aims to integrate the old with the new, traditional knowledge and tools with new ones, instead of trying to replace them (Van der Velden, 2006).

2.2. LOOKING AT CULTURE IN ICT FOR DEVELOPMENT When ICT projects are reviewed, studied or referred to in developing countries, the benefits and implications for the targeted users tend to be the focus. By contrast, Western studies usually emphasise design issues, usability and efficiency of the system and processes. Many researchers in the field have directly or indirectly identified this phenomenon and thus have called for more cultural differentiation in local contexts, (De Angeli, Athavankar, Joshi, Coventry, & Johson, 2004; Dray, Siegel, & Kotzé, 2003; Ford & Glederblom, 2003; Jones, Ghandi, Whittaker, Chivakula, & Terveen, 2004), or some localisation/internationalisation to retain ethical standards vis-à-vis the end users (Byrne, 2003; Kam, Ramachandra, Devanathan, Tewari, & Canny, 2007; Stratakis, Miliarakis, Asimakopoulou, & Spitadakis, 2006) . Others have also identified the need for a more culture oriented human-computer interaction research (HCI) that emphasises culture in its own right, (Kampuri M., Bednarik R., & Tukiainen M., 2006). The above authors do not suggest radically new systems for each cultural group. There is no need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in developing countries. ICT systems as they already exist in Western culture can be adapted or localised in developing countries. (Kapange, 2006). It is only necessary to aim for more flexible and customisable systems that foster indigenous rural innovation (James, 2005). What we can learn from local improvisations is key to bridge the global digital divide (Suchman, 2002). There may be some past implementations of ICT that could be highly relevant to new solutions currently being implemented. It is therefore crucial to learn from those who have already been on the ground (Mbarika, 2004 ). The most important issue here is solving a developmental problem, providing a solution defined in the terms of user communities and not from the sole perspective of ICT producers. In other words, success of ICT will depend on our consideration of users not as human information processing entities, but as members of communities with distinct cultures. More importantly, one should also acknowledge that users influence technology as much as technology influences users, their culture and societies, (Bijker, 1995; Oostveen & van den Besselaar, 2004) We should therefore aim towards frameworks that include the voices of end users. These voices should not be seen as noise or barriers to the development of ICT projects but as opportunities for success.

2.3. SEEKING USER PARTICIPATION VS ETHICS ICT designers usually have a specific research interest, a budget limitation and an orientation (Luke et al., 2004). Therefore, they tend to lead and influence development

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 4 processes throughout a project. But this begs the crucial question of how user participation can be effective if the designer already has in mind a particular set of interests, conditions, goals. What level of participation can the user provide for the overall design process? Irestig et al (2004) compare participatory design to user-centred design and propose that we not merely see users as providers of information (informants). Instead, we should design in tandem with them, with their opinions and feedback on what to design. Only a genuine involvement of users can provide a ‘pragmatic fit into current social structure and practice.’ (Irestig, Eriksson, & Timpka, 2004). Remaining ethically correct is all about ‘how we view potential users of our systems, and what counts as a successful use of a community information system.’ (Merkel C. B., Xio L., Farooq U., & Ganoe C. H., 2004) Others argue that designers should go beyond their skills to encourage and stimulate conditions for collaborative processes and continuous reflection (Balka, 2006). Emphasis should be placed on the users’ acceptance, learnability of the final product and their autonomy in managing and sustaining the system (Merkel C. B. et al., 2007). As such, the goal of the participation must be very clear from the outset (Elovaara, Igira Faraja, & Mortberg, 2006).

2.4. THE EXTENT OF USER PARTICIPATION Can user participation work in all contexts and if so, to what extent? How much user participation is really necessary? If users participate throughout all levels and stages of development we may very well end up with delivery delays and unsatisfactory compromises. In seeking participation, we might need to categorise the level of involvement not only in the design processes but also in the usage of the end product. Some systems are designed for a community but used only by some experts within the community. Therefore, should we take into account the users’ views from what to design all the way through to how to use it? Or just concentrate on targeted groups of participants at different stages of the design process (i.e. requirements, prototyping, interfaces, etc.)? The logistics of communicating with users in developing countries are challenging so that comprehensive user participation may not be possible at all stages of development however desirable this is. We might include participation at the requirement gathering stage, and then allow the experts to find a possible solution that takes into account the requirements and the level of usage of the end product. The negative effect of the absence of users can be ameliorated with different techniques, such as ‘personas’3, that keep the design team focused on the perspective and needs of those who will use technology. It has been argued that, the focus of design teams should be on creating awareness of ICT literacy, supporting the customisation of existing ICT and fostering local improvisations in those regions. In other words, we should aim for a process of ‘participatory customisation’ (Kimaro & Titlestad, 2005) . A ‘persona’ is a narrative description of a user’s characteristics, motivation and attitude towards technology. A ‘persona’ contains the typical and most frequent characteristics of a user group. 3

5

3. VESEL Approach: Understanding Diversity from the Bottom Up Like many development projects, the VESEL project started by extensively engaging with its core mission of researching and providing a ‘novel’ or adapted ICT that could improve the life of rural farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and potentially embark them onto the world of ICT. Unlike many ICT projects, the VESEL project faces the ethical responsibility of considering the end users not only in terms of their requirements and participation but also in terms of their values, perceptions and expectation of Western funded projects. We need to tread a fine line between bringing ICT literacy to empower communities and being seen as ‘donors’, charity or an international aid organisation. In addition, as we are primarily a research project, our scientific quest and knowledge seeking motivation need to be explained to the communities in the hope that these will be understood to at least a minimum extent without any cultural discrepancies. Acknowledging the many attempts and experiences of ICT development projects in both developed and developing countries, we set out to maximise our chances of success by:  Firstly, trying to learn culturally about our target audience in terms of their own context, problems, level of “technology” and expectations;  Then, utilising our findings to prepare use cases and choose relevant HCI methods that could inform us of the requirements and level of participation to expect from our farmers and vice-versa. The diversity of the two targeted communities in addition to the socio-technical differences within the Vesel team – multi-disciplinary and geographically spread – also required fit for purpose methodologies. These involved a consideration of the different frames of interpretation and practice of users and members of the project team with respect to the technology being implemented. These frames are based on the concept of technological frames (TF) (Abdelnour-Nocera, Dunckley, & Sharp, 2007). A practical way of eliciting and enacting these frames has been through the development of sociotechnical scenarios (Hansen, 2006) and their evaluation through socio-technical matrices inspired in the work of Sommerville & Dewsbury (2007). The following sections give more detail on all of the above stages and our research approach.

3.1 CONTEXTUAL INQUIRIES In May 2007, a team of researchers visited the two targeted communities in Kenya – Kiangwachi and Kambu.

3.1.1 Community 1: Kiangwachi Kiangwachi is located at the lower end of Mount Kenya. The area enjoys a continuous flow of water from Mount Kenya. Most farms are only a couple of kilometres from the main rivers. The vegetation is constantly green with the majority of greenery being crops or fruit trees. According to farmers, there is abundant rainfall during the rainy season. The climate is also ideal for all sorts of agricultural activities. Kiangwachi appears quite populated for a standard African village. This probably explains the small

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 6 size of farms owned by each family (1 ½ to 2 acres on average). The landscape is therefore clearly based on boundaries between farms.

3.1.2 Community 2: Kambu Kambu is a town midway between Nairobi and Mombassa on the main road that links these two biggest cities of Kenya. Transport is quite frequent and big trucks regularly travel from the Mombassa port to Nairobi, other cities and neighbouring countries. Kambu therefore has become the transit point for many trips. Consequently, Mtito Andei, the town centre, is full of hostels, bed & breakfasts, bars and other amenities. The town offers plenty of commodities in its shops and stores. Accessing farmers requires a means of transport because as opposed to Kiangwachi, Kambu is a vast area. Farmers tend to have up to 20 acres per individual. The Kambu region used to be known as N’gwata (grab). This refers to the fact that the region offers so much land that people used to just appropriate (grab) a portion to become theirs. The enormity of land holdings explains the long distances between farms, sometimes a couple of kilometres from each other. Harsh conditions due to a lack of rainfall cause severe hunger for most families.

3.1.3 The Inquiries The field work was conducted by researchers from a UK university and from the University of Niarobi. All the team members were African but a number of the team had been acculturated by Western educational experiences. The primary mission was to engage with the communities in informal meetings, interviews and visits into villages and farms to observe their way of living, their society, existing ‘technology’, activities, etc. Some team members spent their entire time living with farmers in their traditional settings. By the second week, the team had identified areas and actors for the possible introduction of some ethnographic and other HCI knowledge production methodologies. We organised formal interviews with members of a self-help community group; field visits; surveys on the usage of existing technologies (e.g. mobile phones) and agricultural practices. In the course of these activities some villagers were introduced to information storage and retrieval devices such as media players loaded with graphics with recorded audio, printed photographs of their environment, cameras and audio recorders and solar powered battery chargers. The introduction of this technology acted as ‘cultural probes’ (Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999) As in Gaver’s original work, ‘probes were not designed to be analyzed, nor did we summarize what they revealed (...) as an explicit stage in the process.’ For instance, when we introduced the cameras to certain farmers we had identified as representative and potential resource persons, we trained them in the minimum skills required to manipulate a one-click digital camera. These cameras offer a preview of the target shot and display the shots instantly on sizable LCD displays after the shot. No particular theme of what they might take a picture of was mentioned. They were free to capture whatever they wanted. Here, we were observing their reactions to the technology itself, e.g. appreciation, attitudes toward the uncertain, existing knowledge, manifestations of interest and emotion, etc. Also, we were observing what they might want to capture and why.

7 It could be argued that these activities were not as structured as formal HCI cultural differentiation methodologies would require (e.g. Smith, Dunckley, French, Minocha, & Chang, 2004). Findings from this trip were revealing of the communities’ culture. The data collected considerably informed our processes towards our prototyping and decision making about methodologies. Our efforts were aimed at developing an ICT solution that our users can make sense of.

3.2 PROTOTYPING From the primary field inquiries conducted, we prepared a background report broadly describing our target users in their geography, environment, resources and needs for the six universities involved in VESEL. The multi-disciplinary aspect of the project started to provide a great deal of areas of interest for an ICT solution. However, the difficulty in bringing these views together was equally challenging. In the first instance, the group had to decide in accordance with our means, time frame (3 years) and areas of expertise what is needed. The partner university in charge of usability and evaluation was given the task of coming up with case studies of possible ICT that could address our farmers’ needs. The question then was how these cases could be represented to effectively convey ideas to partners with different cultural and professional backgrounds and expertise, but also to our semi-literate users. Would a written report suit and be understood by everyone? Do technical partners prefer diagrams or illustrations (scientific or not)? And if a diagram is preferred, should it be drawn using a software engineering method such as the Unified Modelling Language (UML) in which some forms and shapes are used to represent objects, activities and states of a process? Or should scientific diagrams like in electrical and electronic engineering with standard symbols and notations be used? The team spent a considerable amount of time finding a means of communication suitable for every partner. A cross between UML use cases scenarios and rich picture based design (Monk & Howard, 1998) - a methodology that uses drawings or pictures to represent a complex situation in order to facilitate brainstorming or other cognitive processes - was adopted. Figure 1 shows an example of the type of diagrams used.

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 8

Schoo l

Figure 1. Kambu Use Case. The cyclic process of refining these prototypes by discussing every step among Shamb partners with users’ involvement proved to be daunting. We needed a path or a allow us to framework sensitive to cultural and socio-technical differences that would completely bring everyone together while at the same time deciding formal and rapid methodologies to get the requirements right. The usability and evaluation team opted for a participatory design approach by proposing socio-technical evaluations inspired in the concept of TF (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2007) and the work of Sommerville & Dewsbury (2007).

3.3 TECHNOLOGICAL FRAMES In effect, how we bridge the technological divide may well mean something different to our farmers. With this in mind, we thought of TF as a ‘(...) framework for assessing how context and local culture shape the utility and usability of systems in situ, that is, once they are deployed to their actual contexts of use’ (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2007). This concept was first developed by Bijker in trying to understand the socio-technical processes that guided the interactions of groups of scientists and technologists in the invention and development of bakelite and the fluorescent lamp. TF are constituted by knowledge, assumptions, expectations, practices, workarounds and other tools shared in a community that influence how meanings are attached to technology and how it evolves within that community. The power of the TF concept lies in the dual consideration of the constructionist and semiotic processes that underpin the appropriation of systems: constructionist, since it focuses on the interpretive flexibility of technology; semiotic, since it studies how the ‘scripts’ inscribed in technology configure its users (Akrich, 1992). The idea of semiotic power is derived from semiotic approaches in the Sociology of Technology, which

9 study processes of user and producer configuration (Akrich, 1992; Mackay, Carne, Beynon-Davies, & Tudhope, 2000; Woolgar, 1991). Bijker’s approach has been useful in previous research that aims at understanding the political processes involved in participatory design (Sarkkinen, 2004) the implementation of intranets in complex organisational settings (Pellegrino, 2005) and the adoption of enterprise information systems by small companies (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2007). TF have also been used in information systems (IS) research in trying to understand how users make sense of groupware and intranet technologies as these are introduced into organizations (Khoo, 2001; Lin & Silva, 2005; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). Thinking in terms of TF may allow the VESEL team to assess their own assumptions and expectations of ICT and anticipate and control problems that are likely to arise in the development of the farming suport system; aiming to design technology in line with the TF of user communities. The elements of TF of the producer and user communities are explicated through the creation of socio-technical evaluation matrices. Through the evaluation of scenarios and prototypes the matrices provide a way of analyzing the situation so that interpretive frames and practices of the different stakeholders in the project can be understood and modified or mitigated.

3.4. SOCIO-TECHNICAL EVALUATION MATRICES Participatory design (PD) has the merit of taking into account determinant aspects of a system that could potentially influence its design processes and its usage. This is generally ensured ‘by focusing equally on the technical and the social aspects of a design, by exploring future use situations and by highlighting how the strengths from different disciplines benefit the overall design’ (Hansen, 2006) . The final system is, to a great extent, dependent upon user participation and the processes of participation, (Rizzo, 2005); the trust level with participants, (Flechais, 2005) ; the group, institutions, geography and leadership impact, (Cogburn, 2002); prior knowledge, context and experience (DePaula, 2004); and the dependability of the system (Sommerville & Dewsbury, 2007). By focusing on the cultural, social and technical aspects of the design, we created two sets of matrices for each community to enable us to gather and analyse dimensions and attributes of a future system. Both matrices were aimed at the evaluation of sociotechnical scenarios, one for each site. The scenarios were composed of narratives of how the farming support system would be used from the perspective of farmers and use cases as the one presented in Figure 1. Since access to users is disrupted due to financial constraints and geographical dispersion, scenarios have proven a great mechanism to think abut users from their perspectives, enhancing and keeping alive the findings from the field visits throughout the design process. Partners were then invited to contribute to these matrices based on preliminary inquiries from the field. An extract of one of the matrices can be seen in Table 1. These matrices have generated a useful process in which all project stakeholders are making explicit their different concepts, expectations and ideas about the ICT solution and its

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 10 Table 1. Socio-technical evaluation matrix abstract Socio-technical evaluation matrix for Kiangwachi Building a dependable system Dimension

Attribute

Device or Activity

Issues/ Implications for users and context of use

Issues/ Implications for technology

Fitness for purpose

Requirements

Improve knowledge of water resource management and water usage leading to improved agricultural practice, food security and income.

Why would they want this? Is there evidence for this?

Key technology needed to achieve this is…

Trustworthiness

Confidentiality (for all stakeholders)

Farming Knowledge management system

What aspects of the communities’ life/practices should be kept confidential? Competitive advantage?

How to achieve this technologically?

Acceptability

Compatibility


Can farmers and local stakeholders integrate and disseminate VESEL knowledge with their existing knowledge sharing and farming practices?

Technology to be integrated with, e.g. local radio, third party web servers, etc.

Acceptability

Cultural fitness ( issues about cultural resistance not addressed elsewhere)


What are farmers’ perceptions of VESEL solution? Are social hierarchies and values being clearly violated with current VESEL design?

How malleable is the technology?

11 users. This process is still ongoing and intended to initiate debate and raise questions to be considered leading towards a useful ICT solution, which is culturally fitted to the needs of local farmers. The matrices will generate the further and more refined scenarios and prototypes that will be presented, evaluated and validated by farmers in a process of participatory customisation, initiated by VESEL in May 2007.

3.4. INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNT SO FAR The matrices have triggered a discussion of the implications of the design for villagers and their socio-cultural and technological context. This has pointed to a number of key insights. We will just mention a few of them here. Both communities share an important oral culture, which covers knowledge communication among villagers of farming practices. Elders are respected in the communities and the knowledge they impart is not usually challenged by younger members of the community, and this extends in some cases to government officials, such agricultural officers. This characteristic points to ICT solution that must be speechbased and certified by elders before it can thrive in these communities. Producers need to constantly review their assumptions about the universal usefulness and validity of technical artefacts and locate them in the context of these communities. An ongoing socio-technical evaluation of VESEL has helped the project team to think of the situated usefulness and relevance of the scientific content and functions being implemented in the system. Kenyan farmers are uncertain about the technology – its nature and what they would use if for. Some of the farmers’ experience of the Internet was limited to seeing Western movies. For the community of Kiangwachi the main problem is to locate and access markets to obtain a fair price for their crops. They also wanted to know what crops would yield the best prices. The land is fertile and there are supplies of water locally although petrol pumps had to be used to irrigate the crops. Most of the members of this group had between 2 and 5 acres of land on which they grew mixed crops of bananas, maize, French beans and baby corn. One of the farmers was experimenting with organic farming, following advice from the radio, in the hope of finding a niche market with higher value crops. Pests are abundant so that pest control in terms of the use of pesticides and fungicides is an issue. These farmers have information needs to know when to plant, when to harvest and how to obtain a good price for their produce. They find it difficult to access information about markets, supply and demand. The community of Kambu had similar needs, but in this case there was the added need of adequate water irrigation mechanisms since there were no nearby abundant water sources. Therefore, water management knowledge was also required. The Kambu community also saw an opportunity in the use of the internet to forge commercial alliances and publicise their village to the world. However, they have not had direct experience of using it. Both communities have a clear need to obtain and disseminate knowledge but did not have any idea of what tools could be used for this while farmers were in the field or away from knowledge hubs connected to the internet. Mobile phones were the main form of communication and technology they were used to. This means any type of technology introduction for VESEL would have to explore the discourses surrounding

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 12 the use of mobile phones and how these could be used as metaphor to introduce more sophisticated, yet usable and senseful mobile technologies. These requirements point to the provision of useful and relevant Knowledge Based Systems for culturally diverse communities. However even after identifying key characteristics of knowledge exchange tools in these cultures, there is the challenge of identifying what is considered to be useful knowledge by these communities and not just senseless information. How to communicate it? How to implant a process of technical communication based on Western models in a process of knowledge communication culturally different? The right metaphors in their knowledge communication processes must be found to improve and support their farming practices. A socio-technical analysis of users’ TF can help with this.

4. Conclusion: Making the Case for Participatory Customisation We are engaged in the very challenging and sensitive task of bridging the technological divide with sub-Saharan Africa. Like many other ICT projects, there are challenges faced in meeting users’ expectations and enabling participation. However, designing ICT solutions for the developing world require an understanding of contextual and cultural diversity not usually incorporated and accounted for in western ICT development methods. The elicitation of requirements for problems that might not ‘exist’ for villagers, but only in the perspective of other groups in the VESEL team is perhaps the biggest and most critical challenge and one that our approach can help to overcome or, at least, understand. Another important issue is that there can be different goals in relation to the same technology, e.g. mobile phone to speak vs. mobile phone to monitor and share knowledge. Farmers’ TF would have to be ‘re-configured’ so they can be persuaded to attach new meanings to this technology as well as adopting, and articulating, its embedded scientific knowledge into local knowledge. This dialectic process is a fundamental part of the process of participatory customisation and one which sociotechnical evaluation helps to manage and understand. The experiences from the VESEL project and the literature cited in this paper indicate that there is no need to have an overly refined, rigorous and long process to validate technical requirements before deploying a fully localised ICT solution. In many cases, such a solution may end up being not culturally accepted or incompatible with the socio-technical dynamics of user communities in the developing world. This does not mean that empirical cultural dimensions and attributes should not be examined carefully. A paced introduction of existing technologies as cultural probes to elicit relevant requirements for a later customisation of ICT solutions is central to methods followed by VESEL. The arguments provided in this paper support the need for participatory customisation in line with ‘quick and dirty’ approaches that highlight the contextual and cultural diversity of ICT producers and users. It is only when the primary tools and

13 infrastructures have been provided that researchers can engage in more intensive cultural socio-technical studies to refine ICT solutions for these communities. The VESEL approach involves rapid methodologies to elucidate determinant elements of the culture that could increase participation without claiming to be exhaustive. In projects like VESEL, the multi-disciplinary context of the project needs to be nurtured and cultivated in order to accrue its benefits, rather than having it be a hindrance. We see user participation as key to the customisation of existing solution with a few additional novel solutions. Most importantly, our approach does not try to a priori replace technology or existing knowledge networks. Instead, it carries the ethical value of respecting users’ perspective and the objective of integrating ICT into their existing culture and socio-technical dynamics.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the EPSRC for funding the VeSeL project under its Bridging the Global Digital Divide initiative (Grant number: EP/E007/198/1). We thank all our partners and contributors, and particularly the communities with which we are working.

References Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Dunckley, L., & Sharp, H. (2007). An approach to the evaluation of usefulness as a social construct using technological frames. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22(1-2), 153–172. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W.E.Bijker & J.Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology, building society studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Balka, E. (2006). Inside the belly of the beast: the challenges and successes of a reformist participatory agenda. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Byrne, E. (2003). Development through communicative action and information system design: a case study from South Africa. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on Enablement through technology. Choi Boreum, Lee Inseong, Kim Jinwoo, & Yunsuk, J. (2005). A qualitative cross-national study of cultural influences on mobile data service design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Portland, Oregon, USA. Cogburn, D. L., Zhang, L., Khothule, M.,. (2002). Going global, locally: the socio-technical influences on performance in distributed collaborative learning teams. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on Enablement through technology. De Angeli, A., Athavankar, U., Joshi, A., Coventry, L., & Johson, G. I. (2004). Introducing ATMs in India: a contextual inquiry. Interacting with Computers 16(1), 29-44.

A CALL FOR PARTICIPATORY CUSTOMISATION IN DESIGNING TO BRIDGE THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE 14 DePaula, R. (2004). Lost in translation: a critical analysis of actors, artifacts, agendas, and arenas in participatory design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1. Dray, S. M., Siegel, D., & Kotzé, P. (2003). Indra's Net: HCI in the Developing World. ACM 1072-5220/03/0300. Elovaara, P., Igira Faraja, T., & Mortberg, C. (2006). Whose participation? whose knowledge?: exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1. Flechais, I., Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., . (2005). Divide and conquer: the role of trust and assurance in the design of secure socio-technical systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on New security paradigms. Ford, G., & Glederblom, H. (2003). The Effect of Culture on Performance Achieved through the use of Human Computer Interaction. Paper presented at the SAICSIT 2003. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural Probes. ACM Interactions, 6(1), 21-29. Hansen, T. R. (2006). Strings of experiments: looking at the design process as a set of sociotechnical experiments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1. Irestig, M., Eriksson, H., & Timpka, T. (2004). The impact of participation in information system design: a comparison of contextual placements. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1. James, J. (2005). The global digital divide in the Internet: developed countries constructs and Third World realities. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 114 - 123. Jones, Q., Ghandi, S., Whittaker, S., Chivakula, K., & Terveen, L. (2004). Putting Systems into Place: A Qualitative Study of Design Requirements for Location-Aware Community Systems. Paper presented at the CSCW '04 Chicago, Ilinois, USA. Kam, M., Ramachandra, D., Devanathan, V., Tewari, A., & Canny, J. ( 2007). Localized Iterative Design for Language Learning in Underdeveloped Regions: The PACE Framework. Paper presented at the CHI 2007, San Jose, California, USA. Kampuri M., Bednarik R., & Tukiainen M. (2006, 14- 18 October 2006). The Expanding Focus of HCI: Case Culture. Paper presented at the NordiCHI 2006: Changing Roles, Oslo, Norway. Kapange, B. (2006). ICTs in Agricultural Development: The Case of Tanzania. Paper presented at the IST-Africa. Khoo, M. (2001). Community design of DLESE's collections review policy: a technological frames analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 157-164). Roanoke, Virginia, United States: ACM Press. Kimaro, H. C., & Titlestad, O. H. (2005). Challenges of user participation in the design of a computer based system: the possibility of participatory customisation in low income countries. Paper presented at the IFIP WG 9.4 Working Conference. Enhancing Human Resource Development through ICT., Nicon Hilton Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria. Kolko, E. B., Rose, J. E., & Johson, E. ( 2007). Communication as Information-Seeking: The Case for Mobile Social Software for Developing Regions. Paper presented at the International World Wide Conference 2007: Technology for Developing Regions. Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 49-59. Luke, R., Clement, A., Terada, R., Bortolussi, D., Booth, C., Brooks, D., et al. (2004). The promise and perils of a participatory approach to developing an open source community learning network. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eighth

15 conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices - Volume 1. Mackay, H., Carne, C., Beynon-Davies, P., & Tudhope, D. (2000). Reconfiguring the user: using Rapid Application Development. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 737-757. Mbarika, V. W. A. (2004 ). On site: Is telemedicine the panacea for Sub-Saharan Africa's medical nightmare? Communications of the ACM, Vol. 47(7), 21 -24. Merkel C. B., Farooq U., Xio L., Ganoe C., Rosson M. B., & Caroll J. M. (2007). Managing technology use and learning in nonprofit community organisations: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the CHIMIT '07. Merkel C. B., Xio L., Farooq U., & Ganoe C. H. (2004). Participatory Design in Community Computing Contexts: Tales from the Field. Paper presented at the Participatory Desing Conference 2004, Toronto, Canada. Monk, A., & Howard, S. (1998). Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context. interactions, 5(2), 21-30. Oostveen, A., & van den Besselaar, P. (2004). From Small Scale to Large Scale User Participation. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada. Orlikowski, W., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organisations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174207. Pellegrino, G. (2005). Thickening the Frame: Cross-Theoretical Accounts of Contexts Inside and Around Technology. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 25(1), 63-72. Rizzo, A., Pozzi, S., Save, L., Sujan, M.,. (2005). Designing complex socio-technical systems: a heuristic schema based on cultural-historical psychology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference on European association of cognitive ergonomics. Sarkkinen, J. (2004). Examining a Planning Discourse: How a Manager Represents Issues within a Planning Frame and How the Other Could Do the Same. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Toronto, Canada. Seshagiri, S., Sagar, A., & Joshi, D. ( 2007). Connectin the 'Bottom of teh Pyramid' - An Exploratory Case Study of India's Rural Communication Environment. Paper presented at the WWW 2007. Smith, A., Dunckley, L., French, T., Minocha, S., & Chang, Y. (2004). A process model for developing usable cross-cultural websites. Interacting with Computers, 16(1), 63-91. Sommerville, I., & Dewsbury, G. (2007). Dependable domestic systems design: A socio-technical approach. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 438-456. Stratakis, M., Miliarakis, A., Asimakopoulou, C., & Spitadakis, V. (2006). The Ypaithros Portal: Decreasing the Digital Divide by Bringing Information to Citizens and Businesses in Rural Areas. Paper presented at the IST-Africa 2006. Suchman, L. (2002). Practice-based design of information systems: notes from the hyperdeveloped world. The Information Society, 18(2), 139-144. Van der Velden, M. (2006). A License to Know: Regulatory Tactics of a Global Network. Paper presented at the Cultural Attitudes Towards technology and Communication Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of monsters: essays on Power, Technology and Domination (pp. 58-100). London: Routledge.