I've just had a conversation which re-directed me to one of Mike Gurstein's blogs.

I've copied below a few paragraphs I particularly appreciated. You can read the whole post on The IDRC and “Open Development”: ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class at  http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/

It reminded me of a diagram I created with Andy Dearden- Human-Digital Information Bridge: A pattern for cross-country learning and problem solving network -  

- which explores some of the barriers to inclusion in information exchange online.

The IDRC and “Open Development”: ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class

I’m interested to note that the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (or at least the Information and Communications Technology for Development—ICT4D—folks at the IDRC) have decided to hitch their wagon, and not incidentally their not inconsiderable resources to the “Open” movement and launch a campaign for an Open ICT4D meme.

The major document in this initiative defines “Openness” and “Open ICT4D” as follows:

as a way of organizing social activities for  development benefits that favour: a) universal over restricted access to communication tools and information; b) universal over restricted participation in informal and formal groups/institutions; and c) collaborative over centralized production of cultural, economic, or other content.

 

Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn’t simply a failure of reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an “open” rather than a “closed/restrictive” fashion.  The lack of access in many if not most cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts. In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating the good feelings attendant on an “openness” strategy are as unlikely to change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe.

The paper further seems to suggest that “open” as in “access” is equivalent to “universal access”.  This would appear to be a conceptual mistake since “Open” as a term presents a condition or state of “access” while “Universal” as a term provides a definition of how and by whom this state i.e. “access” may be actualized.  In fact, the notion of “universal” here would suggest that efforts have been made to ensure that all (the universe of) those to whom the access is available have the means to obtain such access.

(Snip)
 

Similarly with “Open Development”; clearly the opportunity to participate in development planning, information sharing, operational implementation will be of interest to and benefit for those already possessing the skills, background and time required to recognize this opportunity and to participate in these processes. In most Developing Countries this would include the quite rapidly developing cohort of technologically savvy recent graduates, newly employed tech workers, many elements in the Diaspora community and so on—the “New Middle Class”.

Getting these people involved in development related activities is, one assumes, overall a good thing.  However, putting one’s emphasis and resources behind these initiatives without putting commensurate resources to support participation by those most needful of benefiting from such development activities—the rural and urban poor, the landless, the illiterate, women outside the paid workforce, the physically disabled and so on is simply to further empower those already being empowered and to assist them in further distancing themselves from the most needful.

Further to this it should be argued that “open access” is not as the definition implies, the opposite of “closed or restricted access” but rather that “open (or available) access” is the opposite of unavailable access with the unavailability having multiple possible sources including cost, skills and so on. Those authoring the paper don’t seem to have considered that restrictions on access may exist (or that “access” may be unavailable) not because those involved haven’t yet had a chance to listen to the gurus from Harvard and Yale but rather that they may be sitting on the other side of structures of power and control where to attempt to remove or change those restrictions involves conflicts and challenges.  Those structures may be invisible to those who benefit from the privileges of status, nationality, occupation or technical skill whether in academe or government; but that they exist is most certainly visible to those who are subject to them and who suffer when they attempt to resist or to insist on things like “openness”.