Information Society: What does it mean for the South?

Information Society: Voices from the South

Summary of discussions on the topic
Knowledge Societies

Prepared by Partha Pratim Sarker
Co-editor, Bytes for All
& Moderator, Information Society Discussion Forum

Time Frame: May 15 to June 15, 2003
Number of Subscribers (Until June 15): 320 members
Number of Messages Posted (Until June 15): 162 messages

Main theme line of discussion

Information Society: What does it mean for the South?

Sub-topics:

(1.A.) Should ICT be always associated with Information Society?
(1.B.) Information society for grassroots development: Who takes the most important role (of the information intermediaries)? Government? Private sector? NGOs? Community cooperatives? Individuals? Who and why??? What could be the possible roadmap?
(1.C.) Indigenous knowledge and information for local needs: How to collect, process and deliver that?

It was important for the discussion to establish a relationship of the South to the issues of Information Society and to define the term more to the needs and perspectives of the South.

How is that possible?

Barbara Fillip from the Knowledge for Development preferred to use the term ‘knowledge’ rather than ‘information’. She thought even if “information poverty” is a problem, it is the lack of knowledge (the ability to apply information to solve specific problems) that is most important.

Ajit Maru, from ‘International Service for National Agricultural Research’ in the Netherlands, supported the view that ‘it is not information but learning from information and being able to act through this learning that is important in an "information" or "knowledge" society’. He also brought some examples of local information management, such as the Indian calendar for agricultural operations that was once suitable for subsistence of food production but is now inadequate to meet the complex and complicated needs of information of these communities whose agriculture is now oriented to satisfy market demands. He urged to look at ‘Information Society’ more as a means for empowerment not as a symbol of modernity in the South.

John Chacko, Content Coordinator of OneWorld South Asia, emphasized the fact that ICT is an interactive tool that makes the medium different from other technologies in a sense that individuals are not at the receiving end anymore. He considered that the information society is for everyone. ‘Even fisherfolk in India's Kerala state negotiate prices on their mobile phones while still out at sea! Suddenly, communication -- that very basic need of people to share – has become truly affordable’.

Some tried to trace the historical evolution of the term.

Atanu Garai from the University of Calcutta wrote: ‘Theoretically the emergence of the IS concept was in the computerization of the societal, business, economic processes as it was emerging in 60s in Japan and United States. But today with the passage of time, the Information Society concept encompasses more the human thinking of information rather than machine led processing of the same. This means we are now feeling easier to think about the Information Society where information is valued for its thought content rather than as binary digits’.

Roger Dumelie of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), focused on the understanding of modern society where the falling cost of information dissemination is fundamentally changing the way in which our global society functions. He set up some key aspects of present Information Society that includes:

‘(a) a growing need to examine and deal with issues from a global and comprehensive perspective because of increased interdependenc
(b) increased two way flows of information based on genuine horizontal partnerships
(c) knowledge creation, collection and sharing as a new priority for society with an increased focus on the public good, and
(d) a greater awareness of global information age trends that must be managed to create the just, prosperous and secure world that is now possible’.

Margaret Grieco from the University of Ghana, put more priority on the potentiality of ICTs as he thought ‘the new information communication technologies enable a more highly distributed discourse and this has real action consequences. Through ICTs the historically isolated and powerless can shadow the powerful and create pressure for change. The pressure on big pharma by social movements of infected people who can not afford drugs provides one example’.

John Lawrence of UNDP supported the view expressed by Margaret and added that ‘just-in-time knowledge access, and customized knowledge acquisition processes are revolutionizing not only the professions, but learning itself’.

Yaacov Iland, “Computer Geek in Kenya”, defined Information Society as ‘a society where all people can easily produce and access public information. By public information, I mean information that is freely, easily and quickly available to all members of the society’. He also pointed out some problems and challenges related to present structure of Information Society. To him the problems are three folded. ‘The first is figuring out what such a society would be. The second is figuring out how to make such a society come true. The third is figuring out how to make that society a just one’.

Most interesting part had been Yaacov’s observations with regard to the problems of creating an Information Society. He said: ‘First, the well-worn observation that critical mass must be achieved. E-democracy, e-learning and e-civil society won't work unless there is a widespread ICT user base. Second, for a widespread user base to form, adoption of "information practices" (whatever those may be) must occur at the individual level. The individual members of the society must adopt these practices if an Information Society is to be created’.

Krishna Alluri of the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) focused on some ‘P’s i.e ‘People, Purpose, Processes, Protocols (policies), and Products (hardware and software as well as learning materials)’ and how these can be identified and enabled to be an important part of Information Society?

Batir Wardam from Jordan felt that ‘Information Society’ in the South does not reflect the real need of content and the fact as to how information is going to change the lives of poor people. ‘The main issue,’ according to him, ‘is in the quality of information produced, used and distributed in the society and not the number of Internet subscribers or PCs in schools’. He said, ‘We have been accustomed to a system of celebration whenever a new telecenter is opened. Ministers are jubilant, press takes photos of urban people touching the keyboards, but no one asks about the quality of information and how it will be used to enhance the quality of life for end users, and how information could enhance the comprehensive socio-economic and political modernization of a developing country’.

Guido Sohne from Ghana was rather critical about the possibilities of ‘Information Society’ He argued that the Information Society that we have now is ‘based on existing world order which in the context of North/South relationships, carries forward present inequities’. To him ‘Information Society is the old ghetto in new clothes and with new voices. The Emperor has no clothes, as they say. Technology does nothing to change the way we treat each other and to expect otherwise is to propagate the problem even further’.

Madanmohan Rao from Bangalore, India, pointed out some mathematical parameters of ‘Information Society’ and the way it works. He developed 8 ‘C’ parameters of Information Society, based on which different units of analysis could be made. His 8 ‘C’ parameters are:

1. Connectivity: How many people are connected to electronic media (cable/satellite TV, radio, PCs, wireless/wireline networks), at what cost?
2. Content: How much global + local content in multiple languages is accessible in print (newspaper/books/magazines), broadcast and online media? Is it of good quality and user-friendly design?
3. Community: Are there online/offline community forums for the various social groups to discuss issues? Do these forums extend to global diaspora?
4. Commerce: How well do ICTs enhance commercial activities?
5. Culture: Is there a culture of free flow of information and responsible use of media?
6. Capacity: Does the local population have capacity to use and create ICTs and applications?
7. Cooperation: Is there synergistic cooperation between public/private/academic/?

And using these parameters at the National level, he could come out with the following classifications of the countries. Such as,

1. Restrictive: strong government restrictions on media and ICT (eg. North Korea)
2. Embryonic: ICT and independent media are just being created (eg. Afghanistan)
3. Emerging: ICT has been around for a while, but digital divide exists in rural areas (eg. Bangladesh)
4. Negotiating: ICTs are relatively widespread, but government wants to retain control of traditional media and Internet (eg. China)
5. Intermediate: Digital divide exists, but media are relatively free and strong ICT industries and ICT-enabled industries (eg. outsourcing) thrive eg. India, Philippines
6. Mature: Free media, good ICT penetration (eg. Australia)
7. Advanced: Free media, heavy ICT penetration, ICT companies are global players (eg. Japan, South Korea)
8. Agenda-setting: Like “advanced” category, but also set the agenda on issues like cyberlaws, academic literature on ICTs (eg. USA).

Chris Zielinski, Director, Information Waystations and Staging Posts (IWSP) Network in Geneva, Switzerland, extended the arguments of public information more to the issues of ‘Human Rights’. He widened the definition of the kind of information that information societies need - and indeed expressed the view that ‘there is a right of universal access to information that is essential for human development’.

Go to sub-topics:

(1.A.) Should ICT be always associated with Information Society?
(1.B.) Information society for grassroots development: Who takes the most important role (of the information intermediaries)? Government? Private sector? NGOs? Community cooperatives? Individuals? Who and why??? What could be the possible roadmap?
(1.C.) Indigenous knowledge and information for local needs: How to collect, process and deliver that?

Information Society: Voices from the South is an online discussion forum run by Digital Opportunity Channel in partnership with Bytes for All. The forum will run until December 2003 and will discuss a number of broad themes related to the emerging information society and the process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).