debretsion paper

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF USERS OF COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS

ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ICT ON POVERTY IN ETHIOPIA:

A QUALITATIVE STUDY

by

Debretsion Gebremichael

JELENA VUCETIC, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

JOSE M. NIEVES, PhD, Committee Member

CYNTHIA CALONGNE, PhD, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2011

UMI Number: 3445224

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3445224

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Abstract

The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as

a development tool have raised divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.

The purpose of this qualitative multiple-case study was to explore the role ICT plays in

addressing poverty in the context of the impact of community ICT centers on the user

community. Serving as the theoretical framework for the study were the input-process-

output contingency model of R. Benbunan-Fich, S. R. Hiltz, and L. Harasim (2005); the

innovation diffusion theory of E. M. Rogers (1983); the integral and systematic view of

ICT developed by R. Heeks (2002); and ICT and development of M. Torero and J. von

Braun (2006). In addition, the maximum variation strategy was used to select five

community ICT centers. Qualitative data were collected from focus group discussions,

interviews, observations, and documents to answer three research questions related to the

perception of users on the community ICT centers. Constant comparative analysis was

used to analyze individual cases, and cross case analysis was conducted. The findings

suggest that each community ICT center has demonstrated the benefits of using the center

and these benefits have an influence on the daily life of the users. However, the benefits

for individual centers were influenced by factors that were unique to each of the centers.

Insights from the study have important implications on effective utilization of community

ICT centers in addressing poverty. It is imperative to link community ICT centers with

the development program of the community to effectively use ICT to alleviate poverty.

iii

Dedication

I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my fallen heroes of the war to topple

the military regime of Ethiopia who are my role models I can aspire to attain the level of

commitment I needed to continue my studies. They were sources of a constant

encouragement and inspiration to me as they posses abundant supply of commitment and

sense of fulfilling.

To my daughters, Rahwa and Retie who supported me in my entire journey.

Thank you for understanding the situation I was in and for possessing an unending

patience and support. To all other family members and friends who encouraged and

provided me unlimited support. I appreciate and give value to your backing.

iv

Acknowledgments

There are so many to acknowledge and it should be noted up front that these

acknowledgments are not made in any order of significance. All who are recognized here,

and those whom I inadvertently forget to acknowledge, made their valuable contributions

to me as I made my journey through this process. To each and every one of you I shall

always be sincerely grateful.

I want to extend my gratitude to my faculty mentor and chair, Dr. Jelena Vucetic,

for inspiring me with her concerns, timely guidance, and expertise. I felt privileged to

have been mentored by Dr. Jelena who made this dissertation a truly wonderful journey

and experience. I also want to thank my committee members Dr. Cynthia Calongne and

Dr. Jose M. Nieves for their contributions of knowledge and experience.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Ato Teferra Waluwa for

encouraging me to continue my studies and providing support when I needed it. I would

like to thank Mr. Bobak for encouraging and supporting my interest to study. Ato

Tessema Geda, deserve special thanks for all the support you extended during my studies

and most of all volunteered to facilitate the field visit and data collection.

Last, but not least, I would like to express my appreciation to the management and

all research participants of the five community ICT centers where this study was

conducted, I acknowledge your contributions to this study. I admire your interest and

passion for the development of ICT. I gratefully acknowledge and appreciate your

encouragement and cooperation with this research.

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables ix

List of Figures x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 3

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 4

Rationale 5

Research Questions 6

Significance of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 7

Assumptions and Limitations 10

Conceptual Framework 10

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13

Introduction to ICT and Development 13

Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction 15

Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty 22

Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty 28

Telecentre Models in Africa 35

Theoretical Framework for Telecenters 36

vi

Impact Assessment of Telecenters 39

Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters 45

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 49

Research Design 50

Sample 56

Setting 57

Instrumentation 57

Data Collection 58

Data Analysis 62

Validity and Reliability 67

Ethical Considerations 69

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 71

Introduction 71

Overview of the ICT Community Centers 72

Sources of Qualitative Data and Demographic Data of Research Participants 76

Data Analysis and Interpretation 81

Findings 87

Research Question 1 88

Themes 89

Economic Benefits 91

Educational Benefits 99

Health Benefits 109

General Benefit of the Community ICT Centers 117

vii

Common Benefits Perceived by Individuals 125



Difference Between Individuals’ Perceptions 145

Cross Case Analysis 147

Summary of the Findings 153

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 157

Introduction 157

Summary 158

Findings and Related Conclusions 159

Summary of Thematic Groups 161

Conclusions 166

Implications of the Research Findings 168

Recommendations for Further Study 169

Reflections of the Researcher 170

REFERENCES 173

APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH 187

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 188

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (AMHARIC

VERSION) 189

APPENDIX D. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT 190

APPENDIX E. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT CENTER 193

APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 197

viii

APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 199

APPENDIX H. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS AND USAGE

CHARACTERISICS 202

APPENDIX I. EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTS 206

APPENDIX J. EXCERPTS OF QDA MINER 3.2 CODING 210

APPENDIX K. RESULT OF AUTO-CODING BY WORDSTAT 6.1 214

APPENDIX L. FREQUENCY COUNTS FOR SUBCATEGORIES 215

APPENDIX M. RESPONSE ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS 217

APPENDIX N. RESPONSE ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS 218

APPENDIX O. RESPONSE ON HEALTH BENEFITS 219

APPENDIX P. RESPONSE ON GENERAL BENEFITS 220

APPENDIX Q. RESPONSE ON UNCOMMON BENEFITS 221

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. ICT Performance Measures 44

Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy 50

Table 3. Relationship of Research, Focus Group, and Interview Questions 82

Table 4. Initial Manual Codes Developed and Used by QDA Miner 3.2 Qualitative

Analysis Software 83

Table 5. Final Codes After Combination and Refinement of Manual and Auto-coding 85

Table 6. Frequency Counts for Categories 86

Table 7. Frequency Counts for Subcategories 126

Table H-1. Objectives of the Five Community ICT Centers 202

Table H-2. Services Offered and Number of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203

Table H-3. Demography of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203

Table H-4. No. of User and Non-User Research Participants 204

Table H-5. Educational Background of Participants 204

Table Q-1. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Economic Benefits

221

Table Q-2. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Educational

Benefits 221

Table Q-3. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Health Benefits

221

Table Q-4. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon General Benefits

222

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 11

Figure 2. Heeks’s integral and systematic view of ICT. 17

Figure 3. Torero and von Braun’s ICT and development: A conceptual base. 18

Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. 20

Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. 24

Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid. 41

Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. 55

Figure 8. Explanatory data display. 56

Figure 9. Template for coding study of ICT community centers (CITC). 64

Figure 10. Sample descriptive data display. 65

Figure 11. Age of interviewed participants of the study. 77

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of gender. 78

Figure 13. Educational background of participants. 79

Figure 14. Work status of participants. 80

Figure 15. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 89

Figure 16. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of LA community ICT center. 91

Figure 17. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of KY community ICT center 94

Figure 18. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of DH community ICT center. 95

Figure 19. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of TK community ICT center. 97

Figure 20. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of YY community ICT center. 98

Figure 21. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of LA community ICT center.

100

xi

Figure 22. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of KY community ICT center.

102

Figure 23. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of DH community ICT center.

104

Figure 24. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of TK community ICT center.

106

Figure 25. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of YY community ICT center.

108

Figure 26. Analysis of responses to health benefits of LA community ICT center. 110

Figure 27. Analysis of responses to health benefits of KY community ICT center. 111

Figure 28. Analysis of responses to health benefits of DH community ICT center. 113

Figure 29. Analysis of responses to health benefits of TK community ICT center. 115

Figure 30. Analysis of responses to health benefits of YY community ICT center. 116

Figure 31. Analysis of responses to general benefits of LA community ICT center. 118

Figure 32. Analysis of responses to general benefits of KY community ICT center. 120

Figure 33. Analysis of responses to general benefits of DH community ICT center. 121

Figure 34. Analysis of responses to general benefits of TK community ICT center. 123

Figure 35. Analysis of responses to general benefits of YY community ICT center. 124

Figure 36. Analysis of responses against common economic benefits. 127

Figure 37. Analysis of responses against common educational benefits. 129

Figure 38. Analysis of responses against common health benefits. 130

Figure 39. Analysis of responses against common general benefit. 131

Figure 40. Aggregated response of important services. 133

Figure 41. Response of important services against community ICT centers. 134

Figure 42. Aggregated response of second important services. 135

Figure 43. Response of second important service by community ICT centers. 136

xii

Figure 44. Aggregated response of most valued IT. 137

Figure 45. Response of most valued IT against community ICT centers. 138

Figure 46. Aggregated response of second important IT. 139

Figure 47. Response of the second important IT against community ICT centers. 139

Figure 48. Aggregated response of less important services. 140

Figure 49. Response of less important service by community ICT centers 141

Figure 50. Aggregated response of less important IT. 142

Figure 51. Response of less important IT by community ICT centers. 143

Figure 52. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on economic benefits. 148

Figure 53. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on educational benefits. 149

Figure 54. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on health benefits. 151

Figure 55. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on general benefits. 152

Figure 56. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 161

Figure H-1. Educational background of participants. 205

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Information and communication technology (ICT) was a basis for globalization

and now is one of the features or a prerequisite for development. The progress a country

registers depends on how much the socio-economic development is assisted by ICT. ICT

diffusion, development and sell are a measure of the development level of a nation. For

countries like Ethiopia, who are left behind in the global development, ICT, in addition,

is a weapon by which they can narrow the digital divide and thereby the development gap

between the developed and the developing countries.

Several researches have been conducted to understand the relation between ICT

and poverty. Although agreements are reached on the importance of ICT to development,

there are divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.

One of the common denominators observed in the literature is that in some aspect

of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed

areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of

economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor, Scott, & Woolnough,

2005). The World Bank (2000b) declared that information and communication

technologies hold the promise of enormous positive influence on countries' economic and

social development.

Effectiveness of ICT on Poverty

2

But the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to the

other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing ―opinion

camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that

claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction‖ (p. 82). Bedi (1999) added to this

view, expressed differently as, ―The role and impact of these technologies are still

obscure‖ (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen lies in between the previous two

views.

When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty

alleviation mentions Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income

inequality if conditions are not right. Alampay (2006), on the other hand, grouped the

views on the role of ICT in addressing poverty into three: optimist, pessimist, and

middle-ground.

This research, therefore, explores the link between ICTs, and poverty in

developing countries. The primary focus of this research is on the exchange of

information in the rural areas which is instrumental in improving their lively hood. In

addition, examination of the current scenario is conducted to identify or develop ICT

based on reliability, affordability and effectiveness to the rural communities.

To limit the scope, the study is conducted in the context of usage of ICT

community centers in Ethiopia which could facilitate in addressing or settling the gap

observed.


3

Background of the Study

The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies

(ICT) as a development tool have raised various views. The role ICT plays in addressing

poverty varies from one literature to the other. In the preliminary literature review, at

least two broad different camps were observed: those who declare that ICT is the panacea

of poverty (Talero & Gaudette, 1995) and those that argue that ICT has no significant

role in addressing poverty (Rodgers as cited in Bedi, 1999). In fact, there are few who

also argue that ICT can even widen the gap of income inequality. Alampay (2006), on the

other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.

According to Talero and Gaudette (1995), the use of information technologies is

enhancing change in the development of economies and societies. On a more skeptical

note, Rodgers (as cited in Bedi, 1999) pointed out that access to the new technologies is a

function of the existing income, education, and wealth distributions. It is argued that

both, the inability to access due to limited education or inappropriate language skills and

the prevalence of inequalities in access will tend to exacerbate information gaps and thus

increase inter-personal and inter-regional income inequality in developing countries.

Haseloff (2005) also underlined that the availability of ICT does not necessarily

guarantee that people are benefiting from it, confirming Gurstein’s (2003) concept of

effective use.

The variety of views expressed suggests that the role played by information and

communication technologies is still inconclusive and that the discussion concerning it

suffers from a lack of adequate evidence and information. The result of this research will


4

lay a good ground for future research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT

plays in addressing poverty. In addition, the result is expected to support in designing and

promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation programs and may contribute in developing a

comprehensive perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.

Statement of the Problem

Several research studies showed the existence of relationship of ICT,

development and poverty alleviation (Batchelor et al., 2005; Miller, 2006). The outcome

of the research undertaken however varies in describing the role of ICT in poverty

alleviation (Bedi, 1999; Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). Therefore,

further research on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could

facilitate in addressing or settling the gap observed.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.

To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention will be considered as applied to

community ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user

community. The result is expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled

poverty alleviation programs and will contribute in developing a comprehensive

perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.

The general objective of this research is to examine different ICTs deployed in

varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by

extension to other developing countries.


5

Rationale

Researches differ in the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation (Bedi, 1999;

Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). As a result, conducting further research

on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could facilitate in

addressing or settling the gap observed.

Other motivation for the study was that few years back the Government and the

World Bank have committed substantial amount of finance to develop ICT infrastructure

and applications to change the life of the poor. Public investment in ICT infrastructure

and services have increased substantially from a paltry US$29 million in 2002 to US$300

million in 2004 and US $1.5 billion in 2007-2008 (Federal Democratic Republic of

Ethiopia, 2009). Specific among the projects financed by government and World Bank

was the establishment of community ICT centers. Increases in investment have resulted

in improvements in ICT infrastructure but the provision of services introduced at the

community ICT centers have yet to be examined whether they benefit the community.

In addition, to countries like Ethiopia where more than 80% of the citizens are

rural habitants, exploring the relationship between ICT and poverty can bring a great

contribution in transforming the country (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,

2008).

On the other hand, the findings of the study will lay a good ground for future

research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.

By studying the various scenarios of the multiple-cases, developers and users of ICT can

explore for ways to maximize the benefit of ICT deployment. In addition, the result is


6

expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation

programs. Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive

perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.

Research Questions

The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and

Schindler’s (2003) hierarchy of questions.

Top Research Question: What is the relationship between ICT intervention and

poverty alleviation in the context of poor communities?

Sub-questions:

1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT

centers in addressing poverty?

2. Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most important in

addressing poverty?

3. What is the difference between individual’s perception on the use and benefits

of community ICT centers in addressing poverty?

Answers to these research questions were not conducted on Ethiopian ICT

community centers prior to this study. Moreover, the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) indicated that more convincing empirical evidence is required on

the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochrú & Girard, 2005). More clarity concerning

which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how they were used is needed.

Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of poverty ICTs are capable of

reducing most is also necessary to know. Therefore, overall there is a lack of knowledge


7

on the role of ICT on poverty and in particular in the context of ICT community centers

in Ethiopia.

Significance of the Study

The study lays foundation for further research that will show the relationship of

ICT and poverty alleviation. By understanding the factors that influence the use of ICT,

models could be developed that assist for improving the deployment and the benefit of

ICT. This will contribute in maximizing the return of ICT investment on development.

Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive perspective on the

role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.

In addition, by understanding the reasons and factors that determine the

effectiveness of ICT on development, stakeholders will improve the way ICT is

deployed. Although many models are proposed, there is no full agreement on the role of

ICT on development. With better depth of understanding the factors, existing models and

approaches could be refined or new approaches could also evolve that guide ICT

deployment. An immediate outcome of the study is the ability of stakeholders to

influence the effective deployment of ICT.

Definition of Terms

ICT. The term information and communication technology (ICT) has many

definitions and two of the closely similar definitions related to the purpose of the

literature review are that of Torero and von Braun (2006) and Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1998) member countries.


8

Torero and von Braun (2006) defined ICT to encompass both equipment and

services that facilitate the electronic capture, processing, display, and transmission of

information. Broadly this includes ―the computing industry, electronic data processing

and display, telecommunication and related services, and audiovisual equipment and

services‖ (p. 3). Related to the definition of Torero and von Braun’s, in 1998, OECD

member countries agreed to define the ICT sector as ―a combination of manufacturing

and services industries that capture, transmit and display data and information

electronically‖ (p. 19). In addition, in 2001, the Commission of the European

Communities stated that ICTs denote ―a wide range of services, applications, and

technologies, using various types of equipment and software, often running over telecom

networks‖ (p. 3).

The definitions make a useful distinction between the equipment or

manufacturing and service dimensions of the ICT which clears way for understanding the

scope and breadth of ICT.

Poverty. Definition of poverty was developed by development economist Sen

(1999) and institutions such as the World Bank (2000b) and the Commission of the

European Communities (2001). Absolute poverty, as reflected by Wolfensohn and

Bourguignon (2004), is seen ―as the inability to achieve basic standards in nutrition,

health, education, the environment, and a voice in the decisions affecting poor people’s

lives‖ (p. 8). Any individual who earns less than 1.25 USD/day is defined to be under

absolute poverty. Globally, the World Bank and the UN has developed a plan that will be

executed by countries to cut in half the number of poor people by 2015 (UNDP, n.d.). To


9

reach that goal, several development programs on agriculture, health, education, etc has

been outlined which will affect income and the standard of living of the poor. ICT is one

of the technologies that have a contribution in this endeavor.

Poverty, as discussed by Kelles- Viitanen (2003), is a highly complex socioeconomic

problem that should be tackled concurrently in various aspects. As a result, addressing

poverty requires the synergy of combined efforts that produces the most sustainable

results.

Community ICT center/Telecenter. There are several definitions of telecenter, two

among them are: one is the definition specified by Kanfi and Tulus (1998) of

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) as a site with facilities to provide

diverse information-based goods and services, and in addition supports social or local

economic development. The second definition is the one given by Doshi and Gollakota

(n.d.), who underlined that the basic element of a telecenter is a place that houses one or

more computers with internet access, printer and often has webcam.

According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects are identified.

The first type of telecenter initiative includes smal1 phone shops which have covered

parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The second type of telecenter initiative offers

greater scope to support socio-economic development by providing a wide variety of

public and private information-based goods and services to rural communities. These

telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters) are designed to offer

communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related subjects, and to serve as

local hubs for government information and services and for commercial activity.


10

Assumptions and Limitations

One of the limitations expected is that of data collection which will be confined to

the individuals and community ICT centers identified in the study. Second major

limitation might be due to some perception, the respondents might not have provided the

correct information which would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings.

Among the various limitations that are perceived in the study, the participants’ biased

response might be the most serious one.

Conceptual Framework

The research is an exploratory study that employs a qualitative multiple-case

study approach. The main area of focus will be on the effectiveness of using information

and communication technology in helping poor communities in getting information that

improves their standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis

will be the relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. As a result the key

variable under investigation is the user perceived benefits of using ICT.

The conceptual Framework developed to comprehend the scenario is depicted on

Figure 1. This conceptual framework was developed as a synthesis of existing

frameworks from literature. Community ICT centers are designed to provide technology-

based services to communities that did not have an opportunity to access computer

technology. As shown in Figure 1, the ICT community centers could not exist without

appropriate ICT policy, investment, and the necessary support for the operation of the

centers. Users and communities will benefit out of the center by accessing the services of

the community ICT center to achieve personal and business goals. Since the outcomes of


11

all these issues are contingent upon various contextual and environmental factors, aspects

of the input-process-output contingency model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005) served as the

theoretical framework for the study.

Factors Activities Outcomes

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Effectiveness of information and communication

technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

The focus of the case study was on 5 community ICT centers located in several

parts of Ethiopia that have been operational for at least a year. Users of the ICT

community centers were interviewed on the benefits they got after the establishment of

the centers. Focus of the benefit was on utilizing the ICT centers for accessing

information that has brought benefit to the community. This was the bases for analyzing

whether ICT can support communities in improving their standard of living.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of related literature, beginning with literatures related

to ICT, development, and poverty. The review continues with literatures that discuss the

impact of telecenter as related to community development. It concludes with an

assessment of the current literature. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology chosen

ICT Policy

ICT investment

o Community

ICT centers

ICT support

Increased

economic

activity

o Marketing

informatio

n

Services

Economic

benefit

Social benefits

o Benefits to

communit

y


12

to answer the research questions, a justification for employing multiple-case qualitative

methodology, the purposeful sampling plan, plans for data collection, analysis, and

reporting, and concerns with reliability and validity. Chapter 4 presents the data collected

from participants in the study and analysis of the data in light of the research questions.

Chapter 5 briefly summarizes the purpose of the study, the research methodology, the key

findings, and provides conclusions from the analyzed data found in Chapter 4. Chapter 5

also contains recommendations for further research.

13

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to ICT and Development

The potential and deployment of information technology as a development tool

could be taken as a universally accepted view. The 2001 United Nation's Human

Development Report underscored that technological innovation is essential for achieving

the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, 2001) and recognized ICT as a technology

that can play a key role in development. In addition, the World Summit on the

Information Society (WSIS, 2004) underscored the role of ICT in supporting rural

development by helping to participate in global markets; transform the provision of basic

services; and increase opportunities for local development. Furthermore, Heeks (1999)

underlined that hundreds of billions of dollars per year are spent on ICTs, reflecting a

powerful global belief in the transformatory potential of these new technologies.

According to Best and Maier (2007), there is a great promise on the effects of

ICTs on development and poverty reduction in the global South. In addition, Pade,

Mallinson, and Lannon (2005) stressed that ICTs play a significant role in social and

economic development in developing countries. Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009)

noted that ICTs are widely acknowledged as important resources for socioeconomic

advancement in both developed and developing countries.

The 2002 report of Department for International Development (DFID) discussed

the roles of ICTs in regards to achieving the MDGs of eradicating extreme poverty and


14

hunger, and noted that ICT increases access to market information and lower transaction

costs for poor farmers and traders and enhance ability of developing countries to

participate in the global economy. In addition, the World Bank (2003) underscored that

ICTs can help to alleviate poverty by: stimulating macroeconomic growth; making

markets more efficient; improving social inclusion; and facilitating political involvement.

However, according to Franklin (2006), although there is a growing body of

evidence linking investment in ICTs to economic growth, but little convincing evidence

on the links to pro-poor growth. As a result several studies have been conducted to

examine the link between ICT and poverty. As stated by Munyua (2000), some studies

have focused on information systems serving rural communities on specific sectors such

as agriculture or health, instead of covering the rural community needs in a holistic

manner.

Several studies showed that the effects of ICT on poverty are treated in various

forms from conceptual to micro investigation of the issue. It was found that poverty is a

social phenomenon with a multitude of dimensions and likewise the publications

examined the effects of ICT on poverty from various facets. Just as poverty had several

manifestations, so was the mix of researches undertaken in studying the effect of ICT on

poverty.


15

Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction

The relationship of ICT and poverty could be expressed in various ways. But the

most important of all is a relationship conceptualized by theory, model or framework.

This provides a coherent understanding of the relationship that exists. E. M. Rogers

(1983) and Harris (2002) have contributed on conceptual researches on the effect of ICT

on poverty. In particular, E. M. Rogers (1983) developed the base for innovation

diffusion theory. The theory was applicable in diverse environments of innovations that

also include the use of ICTs. It is therefore imperative in understanding the spread and

use of ICTs in communities. Harris, on the other hand, developed a model that

demonstrate the relationship between ICTs and development which addressed the digital

divide in greater depth. This model was developed to facilitate implementation targeting

community development that empowered the community to develop their own agenda for

ICT-assisted development before deploying technology.

As the relationship of ICT, development, and poverty was studied by researchers

from several disciplines, they utilized various conceptual frameworks, approaches and

models to study the subject matter. Few among them are socio-technical (Walsham,

1997); rural livelihoods framework (Ellis, 2000); design-reality gap (Heeks, 2003);

capability approach (Alampay, 2006; Sen, 1999); the knowledge and information systems

perspective (Engels, 1997); the sustainable livelihood framework (DFID, 2001); social

construction of technology (SCOT) and actor-network theory (Kline & Pinch, 1990); and

diffusion theory (Doshi & Gollakota, n.d.; E. M. Rogers, 1983).


16

However, in this section, two conceptual models are considered and discussed.

One is the model developed by Heeks (2002) and the second is model developed by

Torero and von Braun (2006).

Heeks (1999) conducted research which provides a theoretical framework for

empirical studies in this area. He underlined the role of ICT as communication

technology to be more pronounced than information processing or production

technology. Further, Heeks (2002) developed an integral and systemic model of ICTs to

facilitate a contextual view of technology in order to understand it. The conceptual model

of Heeks (2002) is an information-centered approach with ICTs sitting alongside other

information-handling technologies, as an integral part of an overall factoral and

institutional environment that will significantly shape ICT-related impacts. This model is

depicted on Figure 2.


17

Figure 2. Heeks’s integral and systematic view of ICT. From ―i-development not e-

development: special issue on ICTs and development,‖ by R. Heeks, 2002, Journal of

International Development, 14(1), 1–11. Copyright 2002 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Reprinted with permission.

On the other hand, Torero and von Braun’s (2006) framework of ICT for poverty

alleviation directly addressed poverty and ICT. Torero and von Braun’s broad conceptual

framework examines the driving forces affecting the supply and demand for ICT. It also

identifies economic and social benefits in general and poverty outcomes in particular, as

summarized in the following simplified chart (Figure 3).


18

Figure 3. Torero and von Braun’s ICT and development: A conceptual base.

From ―Information and Communication Technologies for Development and Poverty

Reduction. The Potential of Telecommunications,‖ by M. Torero & J. von Braun (2006).

Reprinted with permission.

In conclusion, both models perceive ICT beyond technology in the context of

broad factors. This view has strong ground as the development of ICT arguably has to

encompass broad arrays of factors beyond technology. It is noted that most of the factors

listed by Torero and von Braun’s (2006) are incorporated in Heeks’s (2002) model but

not vice versa. The institutional factors of Heeks’s are not part of the broad context of

Torero and von Braun. Whereas Heeks’s put the factors as influencing, Torero and von

Braun’s define them as driving forces. Hence, both models have differences in what the

factors are and their role in ICT for poverty.

According to Kuriyan, Ray, and Toyama (2008), the model for ICTs for

development (ICT4D) is based on increasing the well-being of the poor through market-

based solutions, and by using low-cost but advanced technologies. Recognizing the role


19

of ICT for development, Harris (2002), however, argued that for ICT to contribute in

poverty alleviation effort, the application of ICTs should always begin with a

development strategy. Subsequently, an information plan can be articulated that will be

followed by a technology plan. As noted by Labelle (2005), encouraging public policies

are necessary to make technologies tools for progress, but also make them socially

inclusive. Furthermore, UNDP has indicated that ICT is most effective when embedded

with already effective strategies for poverty reduction (Siochrú & Girard, 2005). This

approach is depicted on Figure 4.


20

Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. From ―A

Framework for Poverty Alleviation With ICTs,‖ by R. Harris, 2002. Retrieved from

http://www.communities.org.ru/ci-text/harris.doc



21

The approach followed by Harris (2002) could be taken as an approach that

operationalizes the model discussed earlier. In the model, ICT development was viewed

in the perspective of broad contextual factors for its implementation and Harris is

prescribing the need of development strategy before the information plan which in effect

calls for the need of addressing the contextual factors for implementing ICT.

Furthermore, Harris (2002) declared that according to the International Labor

Union (ILO), although investments in ICT are not sufficient cause for development, ICTs

can have a significant effect on socio-economic development. Martin and McKeown as

quoted by Harris (2002) suggest that the use of ICT is not adequate to address problems

of rural areas without an integrated rural development. It is noted that unless there is

minimal infrastructural development in at least transport, health, and education, it is

improbable that investments from ICT alone will change rural life. Similarly, Bedi (1999)

suggested that a minimum base of ICT penetration was required in order for these

technologies to influence and show impact on growth.

According to Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.), information gaps are one of the

problems associated with rural poverty. Jacobs and Herselman (2006), on the other hand,

underlined that information is critical to development; thus ICTs as tools of exchanging

information are not simply a connection between people, but a linking bridge in the chain

of the development process itself. Specifically, it has been argued that ICTs are used to

reduce poverty (Duncombe, 2001), and open window of opportunities for economic

development (World Bank, 1998). Access to information provides people with the


22

opportunity to support production, access markets, and engage in communication with

other people (Ellis, 2000).

Furthermore, Wims and Lawler (2007) stated that ICT-enabled access to

information can empower the poor as the hardest obstacle to sustainable development is

information poverty. According to Abraham (2007), ICTs can help in improving

information flows, reducing search costs and generally contributing to market efficiency.

In addition, Waverman, Meschi, and Fuss (n.d.) comprehensively examined the impact of

mobile telephony on economic growth in Africa. They found that usage of mobile

telephony has an encouraging result and impact on economic growth. Thus, Jacobs and

Herselman (2006) concluded that ICT can contribute to development process by

improving efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. However, Beardon (2005) argued that the

impact of ICT-based projects has generally fallen well below the optimistic expectations.

From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that for ICT to have effect on

development some conditions have to be satisfied. The first one is the recognition of ICT

development as part and parcel of broad development strategy. Hence, the need of

integrating ICT in the development strategy is essential. The second issue for ICT

development is the requirement of minimum development bases on infrastructure and

education. Unless these two factors are considered and put into effect, ICT deployment

might end up in failure.

Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty

Research evidence indicates that public access to ICT use has led to increase in IT

knowledge and aspirations (Bailey, 2009; Best, Kolko, Thakur, & Aitieva, 2007;


23

Fedotova, 2008; Lengyel, Eranusz, Füleki, Lőrincz, & Siklós, 2006; Mercer, 2006). In

addition, Kumar and Best (2006) have found that the availability of e-government

services at public access facilities leads to lower levels of corruption in service delivery.

While some researchers have found limited evidence of employment-related

benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008; Parkinson &

Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area. Fedotova (2008) found that

participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT skills they had acquired

would help in their job search, and some felt it would help them to gain a promotion.

Moreover, Best et al. (2007) reported that eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of

the skills they gained at the computer center.

Overall, Alampay (2006) noted that there are disagreements on whether ICTs are

crucial to development. Three different views categorized as optimist, pessimist, and

middle-ground have emerged in the research conducted on the effects of ICT on poverty.

Optimists are those who uphold the view that access and use of ICTs facilitates

sustainable development (McNamara, 2000).

On the other hand, an opposing view underlines that ICT can and will increase the

current inequalities (Nulens, 2000). Some of the international development community

argues that African governments should focus on building schools, delivering basic

health care, electricity and clean water rather than on the building of costly ICT

infrastructure with their limited financial resources (Mahan & Misnikov, 2004;

Ngwenyama, Andoh-Baidoo, Bollou, & Morawczynski, 2006).


24

The view from the middle-ground considers that if ICTs are applied appropriately,

it can play a role in the development of a nation (Soeftestad & Sein, 2003). Furthermore,

there is anecdotal evidence that indicate access to ICT can have a significant effect on

changing the standard of life of the rural poor.

Heeks (2002) further provided a useful framework for comparing different views

about the expected impacts of ICTs in development, which is reproduced in Figure 5.

Optimism (―It will be good.‖) Neutrality (―It will be good and bad.‖) Pessimism (―It will be bad.‖) Technological Contingency Social Determinism Determinism (―It depends…‖) (―People cause…‖)

(―Computers cause…‖) Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. From

―i-development not e-development: special issue on ICTs and development,‖ by R.

Heeks, 2002, Journal of International Development, 14(1), 1–11. Copyright 2002 John

Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Reprinted with permission.

Position A on Heeks’s (2002) framework, optimistic technological determinism,

is the view that Heeks recognized as characterizing most development organizations.

Heeks advocates is B, which views the types of impacts associated with technological

change as both good and bad, and which sees society rather than technological factors as

primary determinants of outcomes.

According to Alampay (2006) more field study is necessary to help determine the

validity of pessimistic, optimistic, or middle ground arguments. Although more cases are

being studied, empirical evidence on the impact of such interventions is very limited in

A

B


25

developing countries (Bedi 1999; O’Farrell, Norrish, & Scott, n.d.). According to Heeks

(1999), there are questions on the real contribution of ICTs on national development.

Hence, more research is needed to determine the users of ICT and the level of benefit

distribution (Bedi, 1999). Furthermore, UNDP indicated that more convincing empirical

evidence is required on the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochrú & Girard, 2005).

More clarity concerning which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how

they were used is needed. Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of

poverty ICTs are capable of reducing most is also necessary to know.

One of the common denominator observed in the literatures is that in some aspect

of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed

areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of

economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor et al., 2005).

Nevertheless, Kelles-Viitanen (2003) tabled fundamental questions on the link

between ICT, development, and poverty alleviation. She argued whether economic

growth together with the ICTs alone will reduce poverty. She further declared that

economic growth is necessary but not sufficient factor to poverty reduction. She went

further to ask,

If poor people do not have access to basic education, how will they take

advantage of employment and income opportunities created by economic growth?

If there is discrimination and social exclusion, how will the discriminated and

excluded people take advantage of the expanded economic activities and share the

benefits of the economic growth? (p. 7)

However, the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to

the other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing ―opinion

camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that


26

claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction‖ (p. 82). Bedi (1999) also added to

this view, expressed differently as, ―The role and impact of these technologies are still

obscure‖ (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen which lies in between the

previous two adds other perspective to the role of ICT on poverty. Alampay (2006), on

the other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.

Similarly, Heeks (2002), although from different perspective, categorized three different

positions regarding the role of ICT.

When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty

alleviation cited Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income

inequality if conditions are not right. Moreover, E. M. Rogers (1995) underscored that

researches undertaken in developing countries has indicated that the diffusion of

innovations has contributed in widening the socioeconomic gap among the higher and

lower strata of a community.

As a result, an observation has been made on the different positions and views of

scholars in the role ICT can have on poverty alleviation. There are some authors who

believe ICT can address poverty. Torero and von Braun’s (2006) book essentially

addresses the linkage between ICT and poverty alleviation. Some case studies done in

Africa were also in support to this side. Opiyo and K’Akumu (2006) argued that ICT can

help informal sector to develop. Bjärhov (2006) supplemented this view by referring to

experience of Tanzania and Kenya that shows mobile opening up business that can

promote their standard of living.


27

There are now considerable evidences that telecommunications contributes to

socioeconomic development (Conradie & Jacobs, 2003; Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Mncube,

2003); studies have shown that access to information through telecommunications can

facilitate many development activities including agriculture, commerce, tourism,

education, health care and social services (Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Sebusang & Masupe,

2003). Ngwenyama et al. (2006) showed that complementary investments in ICT, health

and education can significantly increase development.

Based on the analysis of researches addressed in this research, an observation was

also noted that the researches on the effects of IT on poverty has several characteristics

(a) researchers have diversified disciplines (b) poverty is a multi-dimensional

phenomenon illustrated in various forms; so is the researches; (c) the level of analysis

was diversified ranging from conceptual to micro level of investigation; and (d) the

researches conducted employed diversified approaches and methods to study poverty. In

conclusion, analyses suggest that the types of researches conducted on the effect of IT on

poverty reflect the interdisciplinary nature of research, drawing upon a number of fields

and researchers.

In summary, in the literature review conducted there is a consensus on many areas

of ICT’s role in development; however, the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation

could be taken as unsettled issue. As noted by Abraham (2007), there is considerable

speculation about the correlation between investments in telecommunications and

economic development. Yet, there has been very little research on whether there is a

connection between ICTs and economic growth. In addition, Ramirez and Richardson


28

(2005) asserted that the potential benefits that telecommunication services bring to rural

and remote communities are generally perceived as beneficial though their actual impact

is difficult to ascertain. In relation to this, Gurstein (2003) came with a notion of effective

use to address the extent to which people have access to the infrastructure and can put it

to work in practical ways.

Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009) stressed that despite the fairly long history

of the deployment of public access ICTs around the world, there is still no definitive

word on the utility of this approach. H. Rogers (2007) put this point as, ―Projects that

promote ICTs for poverty alleviation are mostly innovations that are in the early stages‖

(p. 31), which confirms that there is no consensus. Therefore, further research on this

issue could facilitate in addressing the gap observed.

Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty

According to a UNDP report developed by Siochrú and Girard (2005), the

majority of poor across the globe are still beyond affordable reach of ICTs. Furthermore,

the International Telecommunication Union (ITU, 2009) identified lack of connectivity

and the cost of access as obstacles to access to information for the developing world. To

address these challenges and assist developing countries bridge the digital divide, ITU

underlined the need of creating public access centers such as telecenters.

ICT community centers, usually called telecenters, are mushrooming in

developing countries with the aim of bringing the benefits of ICT to the rural poor

(Roman, 2003). Since different types of telecenters are being implemented around the

world, there are various synonyms for 'telecenters'. Some examples are telecottages,


29

teleports, Information Kiosks, Information Centres, Multipurpose Community

Telecenters (MCTs), infocommues, Community Technology Centres (CTC), etc. Due to

this situation, there is not a universally accepted definition for 'telecenters' and no single

definition is claimed to be completely accurate. However, a general concept or broad

working definition of 'telecenters' is attempted by different groups.

Telecenter is defined as a community centre that offers shared access to ICTs for

the purpose of community level development and poverty reduction (Gomez & Martinez,

2001; UNDP, 2007); and as public places where community members can access a

variety of ICTs and related services (Colle & Roman, 2002; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008;

Proenza, n.d.).

According to Gomez, Hunt, and Lamoureux (1999), telecenters around the world

share a common characteristic; they are recognized as centers used for public ICT access

to achieve several development purposes. Telecenters were generally agreed to be tools

and not ends in themselves. As described by the World Bank (2000a), the telecenter is a

promising new model for deployment of service to communities. The view of the World

Bank is shared by many other researchers, including Harris (2004) and Fuchs (1997).

When applying ICTs for development, Harris emphasized the importance to target

disadvantaged and marginalized groups. In addition, Fuchs proposed telecenters as a

method of access to ICTs and as a solution to access difficulties in rural areas and in

regions mainly occupied by the poor.

Telecenters provide an alternative to the model of one-to-one individual access to

a computer that predominates in the developed world. According to Jensen and


30

Esterhuysen (2001), to meet the challenges caused by low penetration rates of new

information technology, public access to communication and information services are

being established through public and private programs across the developing nations. As

a result, telecenters are quickly growing as a means of providing universal access in

places where universal household ownership of a computer and telephone line is clearly

unrealistic (Fuchs, 1997; IDRC, 1999; Proenza, Bastidas-Buch, & Montero, 2001).

Parkinson and Lauzon (2008) noted that globally telecenters have become an accepted

model for creating greater and more equitable access to ICTs, with the understanding that

such access will in turn lead to development.

According to Heeks (2008), given that poverty concentrates in rural areas, the

model that fell into everyone’s lap was the rural telecenter. Toyama et al. (2005) also

added that rural PC kiosks are one manifestation of various attempts to apply ICT for

socio-economic development. Furthermore, Soriano (2007) expressed telecenters as

catalysts for information and knowledge that can create opportunities and choices for

rural communities.

As explained by Whyte (2000) telecenters are looked at as fast and cost effective

ways to provide marginalized communities with access to telecommunications and

information resources. Telecenters are also a viable approach to reducing poverty,

ranging from job creation, providing ICT skills, providing community with access to

information on social, educational, medical and other programs (Jensen & Esterhuysen,

2001). However, Pott (2003) argued that in order to contribute to development, the


31

creation of telecenters had to be connected to the existing community organizations and

initiatives.

Kumar (2004) underscored that stemming from a movement in Europe in the

1980s; telecenters are now arguably the most common type of ICT4D project. According

to Etta and Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003), the telecenter idea was born in 1985 in Velmdalen,

a small farming village in Sweden. In the decade that followed, cybercafés and similar

Netsurfing locales proliferated everywhere imaginable—ranging from the Casa Del

Corrigedor in Puno, Peru, to the Phlegmatic Dog in Moscow (Malloy, 2005). Fillip and

Dennis (2007) noted that the increase of telecenter popularity has occurred as the use of

lCT as a development tool has increased acceptance by governments, the private sector,

and NGOs.

According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects can be

identified from the literature. The small phone shops which have a good coverage in

Africa, Asia and Latin America are the first type of telecenter projects. These centers

have been successful in becoming source of revenue by offering basic telephone services,

fax and Internet services. However, the majority of these types of telecenters are in the

main cities and towns of the developing world and there is usually no explicit

commitment to wider developmental goals.

The second type of telecenter initiative offers greater scope to support socio-

economic development by facilitating the provision of a wide variety of public and

private information-based goods and services to rural communities. As remarked by

Madon (2005), these telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters)


32

are designed to offer communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related

subjects, and to serve as local hubs for government information and services and for

commercial activity. In addition, Van Belle and Trusler (2006) defined multipurpose

community telecenters as centers established to support and aid a disadvantaged group.

Roman (2003) underscored that the basic objective of telecenter is to provide

demand-driven communication and information services for community development.

Moodley (2005) added that telecenters are usually designed to provide a combination of

ICT services, ranging from email to full Internet and World Wide Web connectivity.

Furthermore, Rajalekshmi (2007) stated that telecenters function as multipurpose

community ICT access centers by providing e-commerce, e-governance, and other ICT

services. James (2005) added that while facilities and usage vary across telecenters, all

reflect the intention to address the issues of access by providing technology, develop

human capacity and encourage social and economic development. According to Rao

(2008), telecenters have evolved dramatically over the years in providing services from

access to computers and basic ICTs to include a wide variety of communications, content

and community development services. Furthermore, Best and Kumar (2008) stated that

these centers provide shared public access to ICTs and services via computers and the

internet.

Zongo (2001) noted that telecommunication and information services at

telecenters aim at a range of developmental objectives. Whyte (2000) provided a detailed

explanation of telecenters as potentially including basic communication such as phone,

fax, e-mail, Internet access, etc.; public and quasi-public sector services such as tele-


33

medicine, distance education, e-government, etc.; and access to information on markets,

transportation, price, and much more. Furthermore, many supporters of the telecenter

movement classify the services provided by telecenters as a kind of community

development, and often refer to them as community telecenters (IDRC, 1999).

Rao (2008), on the other hand, outlined the main category of services provided by

telecenters as (a) providing access to communication facilities and IT equipment; (b)

providing training in use of communication facilities and IT equipment; and (c) providing

on-demand ICTs for development services.

As stated by Rajalekshmi (2007), multipurpose community telecenters (MCTs)

have drawn attention from development agencies and other actors in the development

community, as potential vehicles for providing several social and development services,

much more than expanding access to ICTs. As a result, Colle (2005) noted that among

the most prominent driving forces behind the spread of ICTs and telecenters are the

Millennium Development Goals.

In the developing countries these centers were quickly linked to economic and

social development efforts at community level. As a result, proponents of telecenters

argue that telecenters are vitally necessary if the poor and marginalized are not to be left

behind (Gomez & Martinez, 2001; UNDP, 2001). Furthermore, H. Rogers (2007) stated

that telecenters generally claim to deliver benefits in the areas of health, education,

enterprise development, and agricultural improvement. He further asserted that access to

the abundant information sources and exchanges that the Internet facilitates is said to

empower communities towards development activities that will lift them out of poverty.


34

As discussed by Ashraf, Swatman, and Hanisch (2008), a telecenter project in

Bangladesh indicates that through public access to ICTs, community members gained

knowledge on basic hygiene practices. Moreover, Best et al. (2007), in their evaluation of

the eCenter project in Kyrgyzstan, underscored that social and economic development

impacts have been observed primarily through provision of necessary business and

communication services. On another similar research, Soriano (2007) concluded the

study by indicating positive implications of telecenters on economic, social, and human

aspects of rural poverty.

Furthermore, the 1998 World Bank report underscored that a telecenter ―provides

access to the rural poor‖ (p. 158). Moreover, the United Nations Conference on Trade

and Development (2007) stated that telecenters all have a common goal: to serve the

community and support local development.

ITU’s World Telecommunications Development Report of 1998 stated that

telecenters could play an important role in national strategies for universal access in view

of the fact that full universal service (a phone in every home) is not a realistic goal for

developing countries.

To summarize, the role of telecenters on development, the European parliament’s

document on developing countries and the ICT revolution (Pedrelli, 2001) stated that

Telecenters are today considered one of the most - successful means to promote

ICT diffusion in the developing countries. They increase the access of people to

ICT, particularly the poor and people living in remote rural areas. The telecenters

help local communities improve their business performance: they allow the local

enterprises to gain access to accurate market and pricing information. Through the

Internet and other information transmission systems they can become aware of

new market opportunities and also benefit from the training and access to the

knowledge network provided by the telecenters. Farmers can also access current


35

meteorological reports, information about the spread of animal and plant diseases,

pests and their control. (p.54)

Modley (2005) underscored that given the novelty of access to ICT and the

shortage of guidelines for establishing and operating community telecenters, many

research questions remain open as to how this type of innovation can bring equitable

access to information resources that will contribute to sustainable development among

the most disadvantaged sections of the population. As remarked by researchers (Dhingra

& Misra, 2005; Rangaswamy & Toyama, 2005), often, solutions are designed without

adequate consultation with the rural end-user, leading to a design-reality gap. However,

despite the attention, Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) underlined that much remains

unknown about these centers and rigorous studies that lead to generalisable conclusions

are scarce. In addition, research conducted by Toyama et al. (2005) are skeptical of the

long-term value of these centers.

Telecenter Models in Africa

Since the telecenter strategy was recognized by international development

institutions around the world in the middle of the 1990s, pilot telecenter projects have

been implemented in developing countries. According to Jensen and Esterhuysen (2001),

in the last few years, many telecenter projects have sprung up throughout Africa in an

effort to provide access to telephony and other ICTs to areas with the lowest access to

these systems. Whyte (2000) named four distinctive telecenter models in Africa: basic

telecenter, private telephone shops driven by smaller demand, cyber-cafes, and externally

funded larger community multipurpose centers. These models all aim at stimulating and


36

responding to the demand for information and communication services that provide

access to telephones, faxes, photocopying machines, email and Internet services in-order

to strengthen the personnel and professional needs of the community as well as for

community development.

Theoretical Framework for Telecenters

Rogers’s Diffusion Theory

Roman (2003) argued that telecenter research spans different cross-linked

conceptual levels of analysis and cannot be entirely framed within the bounds of a single

theoretical perspective. However, diffusion theory provides a general framework to

identify relevant research areas that may integrate other theoretical perspectives.

Diffusion of innovations theory (E. M. Rogers, 1983) represents an attractive point of

departure for telecenter practitioners and researchers. Diffusion of Innovations is believed

to be an appropriate theoretical framework for telecenters for at least three reasons: (a)

the predictive potential of diffusion theory makes it important for telecenter planning and

design, (b) diffusion theory offers a favorable incentive to drive telecenter research which

can contribute to develop the theory, and (c) diffusion theory is versatile and flexible to

suit the needs of multidisciplinary inquiry (Roman, 2003).

As identified by Roman (2003), there are three aspects of diffusion theory that are

relevant to telecenter application: the perceived attributes of innovations, the

communication aspects of the diffusion process, and the consequences of innovation

adoption.


37

Perceived attributes of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the three most

essential attributes of innovations in telecenters are relative advantage, compatibility, and

complexity. While relative advantage indicates the costs and benefits associated with the

adoption of an innovation, compatibility shows the perceived match of the innovation

with the value system and social norms of the potential adopters, and complexity

demonstrates the perceived degree of difficulty of the innovations in their understanding

and use.

Communication of innovation. E. M. Rogers (2003) noted that communication

is the exchange of information by which new ideas are shared between individuals. As

underscored by Best and Kumar (2008), communication is ―the very essence of diffusion

of innovations‖ (p. 13). Further, Best and Kumar noted that media and interpersonal

communication are the two most useful means by which ideas are communicated. Roman

(2003) suggested that while interpersonal communication is more important for the final

decision to adopt, mass media are best for conveying the value of innovations.

Furthermore, E. M. Rogers (2003) suggested that diffusion is associated with the

existing community networks and that the concept of homophily is very important in the

communication of new ideas. Homophily is similarity in socio-economic position,

educational levels, etc. among individuals. According to E. M. Rogers (2003), diffusion

most probably takes place more effectively in a community where individuals are similar

in their socio-economic status, educational levels, beliefs, etc.

Consequences of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the study of the

consequences of innovations is a theoretically less developed subject probably because it


38

is conceptually separated from the rest of diffusion theory. Also, the subject is more

unequivocally connected to evaluation concerns. E. M. Rogers (1983) stated that research

on innovation consequences is admittedly challenging. The theory demonstrated how the

socio-structural environment influences innovation diffusion and adoption. Diffusion of

innovations, especially in the context of developing countries, tends to widen the

socioeconomic gap between the higher and lower status segments of a social system (E.

M. Rogers, 1983).

As this research examines the effect of ICT on poverty in the context of ICT

community centers, the research will focus on the consequence of adoption of diffusion

theory.

According to Salvador, Sherry, and Urrutia (2005), Agar (as cited in Salvador et

al., 2005) discussed a networked approach in contrast to that of E. M. Rogers (as cited in

Salvador et al., 2005), in which adoption happens as a result of a network of associations

embedded in the daily life of the participants. In the E. M. Rogers model, which is

labeled as top-down-diffusion model by Salvador et al., the ―technology‖ is diffused and

the perspective from the point of diffusion is assumed to be sufficient. As discussed by

Salvador et al., this assumption is, by definition, an outsider's view and the ―technology‖

is imbued with that view.

Theory of Communication Effects Gap

Roman (2003) underlined that the application of the theoretical body of the

communication effects gap to understand the impact of telecenter programs makes

particular sense; at least for two reasons. First, there is the concept of differential effects.


39

In many cases, the objective of international development programs--at least of more

people-oriented and grass-roots trends in development practice is to find ways to alleviate

poverty by making sure that people most in need of positive change are reached.

Therefore, many scholars study how to reach lower status groups, so that communication

programs mitigate the already wide knowledge and communication effects gaps existent

in developing countries. Second, the theory of communication effects gap has an

underlying normative and practical value. Although research in this area is prone to bring

about important policy implications, its supporting theoretical body may also help shape

communication strategies. In other words, Roman (2003) noted that communication

effects gap is a kind of normative conceptualization oriented to action, or a practical

theory of communication that can serve as a useful approach to conceptualize and design

telecenter practice and research.

Impact Assessment of Telecenters

Many believe that telecenters provide an opportunity to gain access to the global

economy. Others view is that centers can skew benefits and create unintended

consequences. Hence, Telecenter impact assessments are expected to provide answers to

questions whether ICTs produces benefits to the users and communities they serve or not.

According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), impact assessment is needed to

validate the assumption that technology can and will play a key role in narrowing the

technological gap. Benjamin (2000) described the causal chain by which telecenters can

be theorized to have a positive impact on development as a rather long and tenuous one

expressed as


40

telecenters → access to ICTs → provide services → assist development

Madon (2005) stated that the launching of numerous telecenter initiatives in the

developing world has been paralleled by significant efforts to develop performance

criteria and evaluation frameworks to assess their impact. Early work on this is fairly

recent, including Emberg's (1998) suggestions for an evaluative framework, a guidebook

on the subject by Whyte (2000), and a collaborative effort by Stoll, Menou, Camacho,

and Khelladi (2002) based upon several workshops and online collaborations.

However, Madon (2005) declared that ―while telecenter projects have been

running for several years now, evaluation of their impact has been an enormously eclectic

process, largely devoid of systematic research and planning‖ (p. 413). In addition,

Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) also stated that there is no agreed upon assessment on

the impact of telecenters given the variety of telecenter experiences and communities

served.

Badshah, Khan, and Garrido (2005) underscored that assessing the value of

telecenters must consider several aspects of performance measurement. As shown in the

telecenter performance pyramid (Figure 6), value of the community ICT centers can be

assessed by employing four dimensions of performance measurement: organizational

capacity, operational capacity, strategic impacts and mission impacts (Badshah et al.,

2005).


41

Education, Social

& Economic

Development

Mission

By user By activity

Strategic Goals

Process Services offered

Operational

Hardware Software Telecom Expertise Financial

Organizational

Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid.

Adapted from ―United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.

Information Kiosks and Sustainability,‖ by A. Badshah, S. Khan, and M. Garrido, 2005.

As discussed by Badshah et al. (2005), each level of the performance pyramid is

dependent upon the other level and in line with this the operational processes and services

are dependent upon having reasonable organizational resources. An operational

framework is the basis for fulfilling strategic goals needs and the longer-term mission-

based impacts are driven by the success of the strategic goals. The top two aspects of the

performance pyramid indicated the outcomes of the telecenter. The first outcome is

evaluated in terms of strategic goals impacts which indicate that the accomplishment of

the telecenter project's goals in benefiting communities and having them take advantage


42

of the community ICT center services. The strategic objectives of the telecenter

determines the strategic goals of a telecenter project.

The second outcome is evaluated by taking into account mission impacts which

reflect the ability of the telecenter to impact broader educational, social, and economic

development goals. As mission impacts are less tangible and longer term in nature than

other outcomes, measurement at the mission level is the most difficult. In addition,

several factors influence impacts at the mission level. However, by using the approach

followed in building the performance pyramid, it is possible to show the relationships

between the telecenter and mission impacts.

Problems with evaluation. Measuring the impact of community ICT centers is

challenging and H. Rogers (2007) discussed three critical problems with evaluating

telecenters. Firstly, telecenters commonly vary between entrepreneurial ventures,

community initiatives and development projects. This gives rise to a diversity of assorted

indicators that are required to assess the project; both qualitative and quantitative.

Secondly, telecenter outcomes occur at various levels, from the individual, to community,

national and international levels. Appreciating outcomes at each of these levels presents a

challenge to evaluators whose scope may be restricted by narrow perspectives,

insufficient tools or limited resources. Thirdly, telecenter projects are one type of human

development infrastructure where evaluation is highly dependent on time of deployment

and usage.

Badshah et al. (2005) also underlined that telecenter projects involve various

stakeholders other than the direct users of the telecenters. Also measuring the centers


43

value created on development are much broader than the normal business measures of

profitability and other related measures of financial value.

Measuring Impact of Telecenters

According to Badshah et al. (2005), to properly measure value of telecenters, a

multi-dimensional set of performance measures is required. Furthermore, Badshah et al.

identified internal and external stakeholders of telecenters. While the direct users of the

center directly access the services of the ICT kiosks to achieve personal or business

goals, the external stakeholders of the kiosks are customers that seek the services of the

ICT kiosks, but not directly for themselves.

As a result, these two stakeholders differ in how they evaluated the services of the

community ICT centers. While the social mission of the organization is the motivation

factor for upstream stakeholders, different needs and expectations are the reason for

downstream stakeholders to support community ICT centers. As downstream

stakeholders are the users of the kiosk services, their objectives are more activity-

oriented, and they assess the community ICT centers by how their individual goals are

met; rather than the achievement of broader social goals (Badshah et al., 2005).

According to Badshah et al. (2005), the performance measurement approach

(Table 1) can be used to develop a set of performance measures that are useful in

assessing the impacts of the telecenter. By describing performance, the approach helps to

determine if the community ICT centers have brought value for the stakeholders that

have an interest in the success or failure of these telecenters.


44

Table 1.ICT Performance Measures Impact measures

Strategic goals Mission

User information Educational development

Size of user community IT literacy

# Users (by relevant demographics) General literacy

% of target population using Increase school capacity

% of local population using Access to information

# new users

# repeat users

Activity information Social development

Average time on-line use Healthier population

Average time off-line use Community safety

# of people taking classes Community building

# sites visited per user Reduced mortality

# look-ups per site

# on-line transactions Economic development

% of time system used Farm productivity

# health consultations Employment

# government correspondence Reduced transaction costs

Software package usage Reduced poverty

Other equipment usage Wealth creation

Adapted from ―United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.

Information Kiosks and Sustainability,‖ by A. Badshah, S. Khan, S., and M. Garrido,

2005)

According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), both outputs and impacts are

used to assess social impact. Whereas outputs are the measurable actions that result

directly from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social

problem it was intended to address.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and

Virtual System Processing (2006) also added that impact of telecenters could be

measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts. For measuring social


45

impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken as the main

domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters income,

changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected (UNESCO

& Virtual System Processing, 2006).

Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters

According to Donner (2007), the most logical source of the research on the

exploration of telecenters is the established literature on ICTs and economic

development. Many advocates for telecenters, however, come from the emerging field of

Community Informatics. Community informatics is the application of ICTs to enable

underserved populations and particularly to support local economic development, social

justice, and political empowerment (S. Marshall, Taylor, & Yu, 2003).

Researches contain at least two broad approaches to the role of ICTs in

development. Some studies emphasize productivity- the ability to do the same or similar

things faster, more frequently, or at lower cost thanks to the introduction or use of ICTs.

Other studies emphasize structural or social change, where new patterns of ICT use are

associated with significant transformations in the availability of information, suppliers, or

customers and in the constitution of communities, networks, or organizations.

Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.) underlined that most prior research has focused on

supply-side factors such as connectivity, poor infrastructure, management of telecenters

and high deployment costs. But demand-side approach is necessary to understand the

needs and preferences of the people. In addition, studying the perception of the user and

ICT use is necessary.


46

Mukerji (2008), on the other hand, underscored that the notion of a telecenter has

closely evolved with the understanding about ICTs and Development from a purely

techno-economic view to that of technology being embedded in the local economic,

political, institutional and sociocultural context.

Overall, the emphasis of telecenter movement over time has shifted from

technology to services geared towards catering all kinds of information and

communication needs of the people. Furthermore, in the context of developing countries

the concept of infomediary or intermediary emerged to overcome barriers of low levels of

literacy and skills (Mukerji, 2008)

As stated by Roman (2003), the use of telecenters for rural development is

attracting the attention of academic and non-academic researchers. At this stage,

telecenters are spread as pilot projects and field experiments. Therefore, the issue of

project evaluation is critical. Above anything else, there is a strong interest in the effects

of these projects on economic and social indicators, as impact evaluation would

presumably have important policy implications.

Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) have conducted an existing summary and assessment

of telecenter research. It has been noted that a majority of ICT for development projects

have failed either totally or partially in achieving their stated objectives. Heeks (2008)

warned that there is danger of design versus reality gaps: mismatch between the

assumptions and requirements built into the design and the on-the-ground realities of

poor communities. As a result, researchers have proposed a number of theoretical

frameworks for understanding the reasons for success or failure of such projects,


47

including the critical success factor model (Heeks & Bhatnagar, 1999); scenario analysis

(Aichholzer, 2004); stakeholder theory (Bailur, 2007); and economic and financial

sustainability models (Best & Maclay, 2002).

According to Soriano (2007), although telecenters are considered as an instrument

of poverty reduction, others argue that resources are better spent on roads, education,

health or food security. Although some researchers have found limited evidence of

employment-related benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon,

2008; Parkinson & Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area.

Fedotova (2008) found that participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT

skills they had acquired would help in their job search. Best et al. (2007) reported that

eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of the skills they gained at the computer

center. Studies have not established a clear link between public access to ICTs and

socioeconomic change/impacts. Because a lot of these are qualitative studies, they are not

associated with indications of size of impacts.

Although there are some guidelines for developing and implementing telecenters,

much work is required to develop a systematic understanding of the potential and

limitations of telecenters as a mechanism for social and economic development (Bailey,

2009; Colle, 2005). Generally, empirical evidence on the impacts of telecenters, and more

broadly, of lCTs on development has generally found to be lacking (Gomez & Martinez,

2001; O’Farrell et al., n.d.; Panos, 2002). As noted by Gomez and Reilly (2002), ―when it

comes to evaluating what kind of benefit or development telecenters bring to a

community, we are only beginning to scrape the surface‖ (p. 1). Furthermore, Kuriyan,


48

Toyama, and Ray (2005) suggested that there should be further empirical research to

explain the link between services provided by rural community telecenters and social

development. According to UNDP (2007), there is little understanding of how telecenters

contribute to development or even skepticism that they are capable of doing so

sustainably.

As a result, telecenters have drawn researchers for the past decade and

consequently, there is an increasing amount of publications on telecenters. Most of the

researches conducted are case studies of relevant telecenter issues (Colle & Roman,

2001; Latchem & Walker, 2001); some are original field research (Proenza et al., 2001).

In addition, there are also a number of publications specifically devoted to telecenter

research (Hudson, 2001; Roman & Blattman, 2001; Whyte, 2000). Furthermore, the

literature growth on information systems has turned to be an important reference for

telecenter researchers in developing countries (Heeks, 2002).

Many of these articles study important aspects of telecenter development but lack

a solid theoretical background. On this line, McNamara (2003) underscored that the lack

of convincing knowledge providing a framework for maximizing the impact of ICT

projects can be partially attributed to the lack of detailed evaluations of ICT projects. In

addition, Roman (2003) underlined that no particular conceptual model seems to guide

telecenter planning, and no specific theory is inspiring research questions either.

Furthermore, Badshah et al. (2005) underscored that telecenter is at preliminary stage of

research and noted the need of intensive research on the subject.

49

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Review of the Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.

To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention was considered as applied to community

ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user community.

The research used a qualitative multiple-case study approach to tackle the puzzle.

The general objective of this research was to examine different ICTs deployed in

varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by

extension to other developing countries.

Research Questions

The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and

Schindler’s (2003) hierarchy of questions. The hierarchy starts with an observed business

dilemma that, in turn, stimulates a management question. The management question

spawns research questions. As underlined by Yin (2008), in case study ―questions are

posed to you, the investigator, not to an interviewee‖ (p. 86). In addition, Yin noted that

the potentially relevant questions for case study research can occur at any five levels.

However, in relation to the levels, Yin advised to ―concentrate heavily on level 2‖ (p. 87)

for a case study research. As a result of this approach, the research questions developed

are level 2 questions which will be answered by the researcher.


50

The research method is chosen to answer the research questions, which answers

the management question. Table 2 shows the research question hierarchy.

Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy

Question or Statement Business Dilemma Deployment of ICT to address poverty has a mixed outcome. Some

interventions are failing to achieve the desired result and as a consequence

meager resources and efforts are wasted.

Management

Question

How can ICT be effectively utilized to address poverty?

Research Questions 1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community

ICT centers in addressing poverty?

What are the common benefits perceived by individuals

using the community ICT centers?

2. Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most

important in addressing poverty?

2.1 Which services and ICTs are considered as the most


2.2 Which services and ICTs are considered as the least


3. What is the difference between individual’s perception on the use

and benefits of community ICT center in addressing poverty?

3.1 Which benefits identified by individuals are not

commonly listed as benefits of community?

3.2 Why is there a difference between individual’s

perceptions on the use and benefits of community ICT

centers?

Research Design

The study in this dissertation was designed to determine the effectiveness of using

ICT in helping poor communities in getting information and services that improve their


51

standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis was the

relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. Therefore, the research is an

exploratory study as opposed to confirmatory theory-testing study (Creswell, 2003).

According to Creswell (2003), exploratory studies are most advantageous when

―not much has been written about the topic or the population being studied‖ (p. 30). As

an exploratory study it requires a holistic and a flexible methodology. With the objective

of collecting experiences of telecenter users the research requires an in depth study with

inputs of varying perspectives and experiences from users of the community center. Thus

the characteristic of this research requires the selection of a qualitative methodological

approach. According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods produce a wealth of detailed

information about a small number of people and cases, which increase the depth of

understanding of the cases and situations studied. As a result to answer the questions

developed, a qualitative multiple case study was conducted to determine the effectiveness

of ICT on poverty based on users’ perception. In-depth interviews provided the necessary

flexibility and each interview was built upon the previous one to generate and pursue a

new set of inquiries.

Appropriateness of Approach

Exploratory Qualitative Multiple Case Study Method

Any research method has to be examined in the context of the scope and depth of

the study. As every area of research has its own best method, there is no ―one size fits all‖

best method for all scenarios. However, this research employed a qualitative multiple

case study method. The case study methodology is used because as stated by Yin (2003)


52

as well as Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993), it satisfies the three tenets of qualitative

method: describing, understanding, and explaining. According to Merriam (1998), a case

study is used to uncover the phenomenon under study & related views of users and other

actors. Yin (2008) further defined case study as ―an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the

boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident‖ (p.18). According

to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003), ―Researchers generally do case studies for one of three

purposes: to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible

explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenomenon‖ (p. 439).

Yin (2008) noted that the evidence of multiple-case designs is often considered

more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust. Yin

(2008) further added that if you want a high degree of certainty you may take five, six, or

more replications. He stated that the rationale for multiple-case designs derives directly

from the understanding of literal and theoretical replications. Literal replication is used to

replicate a similar result of a case study while theoretical replication is used when there

are contrasting theories (Yin, 2008). Thus, this research employ a qualitative multiple

case study method to attain the purpose of the research.

The multiple case study used two levels of sampling: sampling at the site level

and at the participant level. The sampling strategy used for this study was maximum

variation (Creswell, 2007). ICT community centers and users of the centers were selected

on certain criteria using maximum variation strategy which allowed the representation of

diverse cases and to fully describe multiple perspectives about the cases. The maximum


53

variation strategy (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2002), the process of seeking the greatest

range of diversity, or variation, in the selection of participants is a strategy that promotes

validity and reliability in a study. The maximum variation strategy was applied in the

selection of the telecenters and participants. Each telecenter was as different as possible

in characteristics such as region, ethnic diversity, and demographics. In effect the

selection of the telecenters was based on a purposeful sampling to get maximum relevant

information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling ―will

intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the

research problem under examination‖ (p. 118). Furthermore, Patton (2002) noted that

―the purpose of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will

illuminate the questions under study‖ (p. 46).

Patton (2002) stated that ―qualitative findings grow out of three kinds of data

collection‖ (p. 4). In-depth, open-ended interviews; direct observation; and written

documents were the three kinds of qualitative data identified by Patton.

The study used questions from prior recognized researches to address validity and

reliability. However, the most important factor in obtaining valid and reliable results

using questionnaire is ensuring that the questions used for the interview adequately

represent the research question under examination. Furthermore, after the development of

the questionnaire, field test was conducted to test and improve the validity and reliability

of the interview.

In addition to interview, data was collected in the form of field notes gathered

through direct observation. That means observation tends to eliminate the inaccuracy and


54

bias of some data. In the study various documents were also collected and analyzed. The

documents were an invaluable addition to the data stream that serves to corroborate and

augment evidence gathered from other sources. Furthermore, triangulating information

obtained from the multiple sources was used so as to ensure data currency and validity.

Yin (2008) argued that with data triangulation, the potential problems of construct

validity can be addressed because the multiple sources of evidence essentially provide

multiple measures of the same phenomenon.

Hierarchies of Criteria in Evaluating Telecenters Impacts

UNESCO and Virtual System Processing (2006) underlined that impact of

telecenters could be measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts.

Economic and social impacts of telecenters are measured using several indicators. For

measuring social impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken

as the main domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters

income, changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected

(UNESCO & Virtual System Processing, 2006).

Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) indicated that social impact is comprised of

both outputs and impacts. While outputs are the measurable actions that result directly

from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social problem

it was intended to address.

As a result, Figure 7 is developed to evaluate telecenter impact.


55

Impact of Telecenter

Economic Social

General

Income

Agricultural

income

Employment

Distance

Learning

Computer basic

skills

Education Health

Healthfacilities

Health Improvement

Foreign languages

Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. From ―The

Social-Economic Impacts of ICTs in Rural Iran,‖ by UNESCO & Virtual System

Processing (2006). .

The variables involved in addressing the role of ICT on poverty are represented

by Figure 8.

.


56

Figure 8. Explanatory data display. Effectiveness of information and communication

technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

Sample

The study was essentially a multiple case study which used two levels of

sampling: sampling at the site level and at the participant level and the sampling strategy

used for this study was maximum variation (Creswell, 2007, p. 126). ICT community

centers and users of the centers were selected on certain criteria using maximum variation

strategy which allowed the representation of diverse cases and to fully describe multiple

perspectives about the cases. In effect it was a purposeful sampling to get maximum

relevant information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling

―will intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the

research problem under examination‖ (p. 118). According to Patton (2002), purposeful

sampling refers to selecting information-rich cases, from which one can learn a great deal

about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research. The purposive sampling


57

enabled the researcher to identify participants who have the experience in using the

community ICT center and was willing to share their experience with the researcher

about the effectiveness of ICT on poverty reduction.

Setting

The focus of study was on 5 information and communication technology (ICT)

community centers located in several parts of Ethiopia that were operational for at least a

year. Users of the ICT community centers were interviewed on the benefits they got after

the establishment of the centers. Focus of the benefit was on utilizing the ICT centers for

poverty alleviation. This was the bases for analyzing whether ICT can support

communities in improving their standard of living.

Instrumentation

Questionnaire was adopted to inventory the benefits of the telecenter. In addition,

a focus group was employed with a type of semi-structured interview that was carried out

in a group setting. The interview developed was guided by the five categories of

questions namely opening, introductory, transition, key, and ending developed by

Krueger (1998). Each focus group consisted of 8–10 people and to allow the smooth flow

of conversation, participants were selected from similar socioeconomic and cultural

backgrounds.

Researcher’s Role

The role of the researcher in this study was multi-dimensional, and started as the

designer and founder of the study. More important was the functional role, which this


58

section relates to. The functional role was that of moderator and administrator of the

questionnaire, focus group discussions, then analyzing and interpreting the findings.

Data Collection

The study was undertaken in 5 different ICT community centers located in

different regions of the country. A purposive sample was used in selecting five

community ICT centers that meet the following criteria:

1. Center that has been operational for more than a year.

2. Relevance of the service provided to the poor community.

3. Located in diverse geographical areas.

4. Representation of different services and community.

The data gathered from the sources was the bases for conducting the study on the

effect of using different ICTs within the community centers; fixed telephone, internet and

email. The ICT community centers in the villages shaded light on the extent to which use

of ICTs contributed to effective poverty alleviation. In addition, the deployed ICTs were

evaluated for the extent to which they were integrated into the daily lives of the people.

The unit of analysis of this research was the community ICT centers role in addressing

poverty and information was collected by interviews, focus groups discussion, direct

observation, and documentation. Using multiple methods to collect data enhances the

validity of case study findings through a process known as a triangulated research

strategy. As stated by Yin (2008), collecting data in this way helps the researcher

organize and document the case study, as in experimental studies. Yin further suggested

that, in all research, consideration must be given to construct validity, internal validity,


59

and external validity. Thus, the multiple sources of evidence that was used in this study

served as a way to ensure construct validity.

According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), Campbell many decades ago

promoted the concept of triangulation - that every method has its limitations, and multiple

methods are usually needed. Triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods,

data, theory, etc. Studies that depend on only one method are more vulnerable to errors

linked to that particular approach. Patton (2002) also argued that triangulation in

qualitative study ―can be attained by combining both interviewing and observations‖ (p.

248). This resulted in the mix of data collecting methods in this research—interviewing,

observation, and document analysis.

As interview was the primary source of data, interview protocol was developed

with open-ended questions. Rubin and Rubin’s (1995) guided interview approach seems

best suited for this study. The topics and issues were chosen in advance, and then

structured to a certain extent. Suitable for group interviews, the interview guide approach

was used to gather data from the focus group sessions. Not only does this approach keep

the interaction focused, it also allows individual perspectives and experiences to emerge

(Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

Participants were selected with the support of the managers of the ICT community

centers and were the top four frequent users of each center in total 20 frequent users were

interviewed. Four non-users of the ICT community centers were also interviewed for

comparing and contrasting to the experience of users of ICT community centers.


60

Direct observation was used to understand and study the activities of the ICT

community centers as related to the focus of the study. In addition, documented data of

the activities of ICT community centers was also a source of data for extracting

information on previous achievements and other issues related to the study.

The study was essentially a multiple-case study which used questions from prior

recognized researches to address validity and reliability (Ernberg & ITU, 1998).

However, the most important factor in obtaining valid and reliable results using

questionnaire is ensuring that the questions used for the interview adequately represent

the research question under examination. Furthermore, after the development of the

questionnaire, field test was conducted to test and improve the validity and reliability of

the interview. The field test was also necessary to check whether the questions in local

language convey the same message to the participants and to get feedback on the

readability and clarity of the questionnaire items. The field test was conducted by the

investigator of this research by engaging five managers of the ICT community centers

who were not part of the target population for this research.

In addition to interview, a focus group discussion was also employed with a type

of semi-structured interview carried out in a group setting. According to Pattton (2002),

the focus group method is, ―first and foremost, an interview‖ (p.385), which engages a

small group of people on a specific topic. In other words, a focus group is a special

interview. Introducing a focus group separately from interview methods was from the

consideration that characteristics and techniques are distinguished between the two. The

focus group approach is not merely a discussion, although direct interactions among


61

participants often occur. On this line, Krueger (1994) highlighted the nuances between an

interview and a focus group interview: The term interviewer tends to convey a more

limited impression of two-way communication between an interviewer and an

interviewee. By contrast, the focus group affords the opportunity for multiple interactions

not only between the interviewer and respondent but among all participants in the group.

The focus group is not a collection of simultaneous individual interviews, but rather a

group discussion where the conversation flows because of the nurturing of the moderator.

With the object to get high-quality data in a social context where people can consider

their own views in the context of the views of others, focus group interviews have helped

collect valuable research data.

In the focus group discussion, the emphasis was on exploring the diversity of

viewpoints of the participants on the community ICT center and its role on poverty

alleviation. Each focus group consisted of 8-10 people and for allowing the smooth flow

of conversation, participants were selected from similar socio-economic and cultural

backgrounds. Thus, separate focus groups were held for each type of group. Unique

concerns and issues of each group concerning the effectiveness of ICT on poverty

alleviation was the focus of the discussion. The investigator was a facilitator and a

recorder of each focus group meeting and the time it took was from one and a half to two

hours. Yin (2008) noted that audiotapes certainly provide a more accurate rendition of

any interview than any other methods.

Furthermore, data was collected in the form of field notes gathered through direct

observation. That means observation tends to eliminate the inaccuracy and bias of some


62

data. In the study various documents were also collected and analyzed. Merriman states

that ―many documents are easily accessible, free and contain information that would take

the investigator an enormous amount of time and effort to gather otherwise‖ (Merriman,

1998, p. 125). Documents can add another piece to the puzzle in constructing meaning

from all the data that the researcher collects during field visits. The documents will be an

invaluable addition to the data stream that serves to corroborate and augment evidence

gathered from other sources. Yin (2003) included artifacts in the sources of evidence for

case studies. According to Tellis (1997), artifacts can broaden the perspective of the

researcher and provide additional contextual data. Physical and electronic artifacts were

examined during field visits and, whenever possible, photographed. Notes relevant to the

artifacts examined during field visits were recorded in the researcher’s journal as part of

the field notes.

Furthermore, triangulating information obtained from the multiple sources was

used so as to ensure data currency and validity (Hartono, Lederer, Sethi, & Zhuang,

2003). Triangulation, mapping one set of data upon another (Silverman, 2006), was also

used extensively in this study, for example, comparing the perception of users, focus

group participants and non users. Reflexive journaling, as stated already, was used

extensively during the study as well as during the report-writing stage.

Data Analysis

Cross-case synthesis was taken as analytic technique for this research (Creswell,

2007, p. 163). Yin (2008) noted that cross-case synthesis specifically applies to the

analysis of multiple cases. By this technique, the findings from the five community ICT


63

centers were aggregated and the synthesis was more robust than a single case study

research.

The template for coding this research depicted on Figure 9 takes the five

community ICT centers as the cases to illustrate the precode specifications. For each

community ICT center, codes exist for the context and description of the community ICT

center. Also, codes were developed for themes within each community ICT center, and

for themes that were similar and different in cross-case analysis. Finally, codes for

generalizations and assertions across all cases were developed so that people can learn

from the case either for themselves or to apply to a population of cases (Creswell, 2007,

p. 163).

Drawing Conclusions

Partially ordered cross-case matrices are the basis for the important data-

formatting, data-standardizing, and data-reducing functions that support descriptive

analysis of the ICT community centers. Inductive analysis was used in the qualitative

inquiry approach of this research. The strategy of inductive designs was to allow the

important analytical dimensions to emerge from data collected in the research without

presupposing in advance what the important dimensions will be (Patton, 2002). Analysis

was conducted on each ICT community center to identify patterns and themes and this

was followed by comparing and contrasting relationships between the variables and

cases. Predictor-outcome matrix was used to observe and analyze how several

contributing factors function together in the use of ICT in development.


64

In Depth portraitOf CITC

CITCContext

CITC 1

CITC 2

CITC 3

CITC 4

CITC 5

CITCDescription

CITC 1

CITC 2

CITC 3

CITC 4

CITC 5

Within-CITCTheme analysis

CITC 1

CITC 2

CITC 3

CITC 4

CITC 5

Themes

Similarity Difference

Generalizations

Figure 9. Template for coding study of ICT community centers (CITC).

Data of the research was displayed by using the approach of Miles and Huberman

(1994). By display it is meant that ―a visual format that presents information

systematically, so the user can draw valid conclusions and take needed action‖ (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p. 91). As identified by Miles and Huberman, formats for displaying

qualitative data fall into two major families: matrices and networks. Figure 10 depicts

sample descriptive data display that was used in the study.


65

Factors User 1 User 2

ICT policy

Encouraging Prohibitive

ICT infrastructure

Reliable Unreliable

Business model

Public-private Public

Skill

Moderate Low

Management

Non-existence Effective

Technical support

Inadequate Adequate

Services offered

Fax, copier Telephone, internet

Entrepreneurship

Lacking Strong

Information provided

Government information Health information

Figure 10. Sample descriptive data display. Effectiveness of information and

communication technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers

Computer Application Strategy

Software package QDA Miner V. 2.0 (Lewins & Silver, 2008) was planned to use

to conduct comparison, identify potential clusters of cases, and has adequate variable and

data storage capacity. In reality, software package QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1

were used in this research. As there was some quantitative data like frequency to appear

in the study, the statistical capability was also an added feature for the choice of the

software package.

The Researcher’s Role

The researcher integrated qualitative data throughout the research process. The

integration in data collection process involved combining open-ended questions of an

interview with open – ended questions of focus group discussion. During the data


66

analysis process, the researcher’s role was interpreting and analyzing the evolved and

developed qualitative themes or codes (Creswell, 2003).

The role of the researcher in qualitative research was to address concerns that

emphasize the relationship between the researcher and the participants. Creswell (2003)

cited the following practices as part of the role of the qualitative researcher

1. Position himself or herself and bring personal values into the study

2. Focus on a single concept or phenomenon

3. Study the context or setting of participants

4. Collaborate with participants and collect participant meanings

5. Make interpretations of the data and validate the accuracy of findings

(p. 19)

As an instrument of data collection in the study it is necessary for the researcher

to have an ongoing means of ―separating impressions, feelings, and early interpretations

from descriptions‖ (Hatch, 2002, p. 86) as data are collected. Reflexivity is the

researcher’s ability to systematically acknowledge and reflect upon personal biases,

values, prejudices, and views (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 2002) as the researcher becomes

an instrument of data collection and a participant in the research. Reflexivity brings an

honest and open self to the study that is aware of the need to bracket (Hatch, 2002;

Merriam, 2002), or separate, personal biases and document the potential influence of

personal values. A research journal of field notes, personal reactions, and other raw data

(Hatch, 2002) was maintained throughout the course of the study. This journal served as

the primary means of bracketing personal biases, values, prejudices, and views (Creswell,


67

2003; Merriam, 2002) identified by the researcher. As C. Marshall and Rossman (2006)

pointed out, ―writing notes, reflective memos, thoughts and insights is invaluable for

generating the unusual insights that move the analysis from the mundane and obvious to

the creative‖ (p.161).

Validity and Reliability

In the research, major issues of concern in regard to bias and validity emanate

from the researcher and the participants of the research. The research was conducted on

one of the World Bank funded projects where the researcher has not a direct

responsibility but a general management stake. Hence, bias of interpretation and analysis

of the data and situation could surface during the research and this implies that

interpretive validity will be a question. In addition, second major limitation could emerge

from the participants due to some perception by which they might not provide the correct

information which would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings. The

participants could also incline to tell what the researcher wants to hear which will

jeopardize the credibility of the study.

Yin (2008) indicated that quality of any research design can be judged by certain

logical tests. According to U.S. Government Accountability Office (as cited in Yin, 2008),

concepts that have been offered for these tests include trustworthiness, credibility,

confirmability, and data dependability. In case study research, the four tests have been

summarized as construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin,

2008). According to Yin, to increase construct validity, three tactics are used in case

study research. The first is the use of multiple sources of evidence, the second tactic is to


68

establish a chain of evidence, and the third tactic is to have the draft case study report

reviewed by key informants (p. 42).

Internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies which is not the

scope of this research. External validity on the other hand deals with the problem of

knowing whether a study’s findings are generalizable beyond the immediate case study

(Yin, 2008). The objective of reliability is to be sure that, if a later investigator followed

the same procedures as described by any earlier investigator and conducted the same case

study all over again, the later investigator should arrive at the same findings and

conclusions (Yin, 2008). The researcher increased the reliability of the design by

listening to audio taped interviews multiple times. In addition, the transcriptions are

stored electronically on a computer file.

In this study, credibility was addressed using several techniques. Field test was

undertaken to review the research questions and the structured questionnaire to establish

the credibility and trustworthiness of the study. Other techniques used were persistent

observation, the purpose of which was to identify those characteristics or elements in

each ICT community centers that were most salient to the issue of concern. Triangulation

or the use of multiple cases, methods, and sources of evidence was also used to add to the

credibility of the study. Gall et al. (2003) noted that ―using multiple methods to collect

data about a phenomenon can enhance the validity of case study findings through a

process called triangulation‖ (p. 447). Yin (2008) also noted that findings or conclusions

in case studies are likely to be more accurate and convincing if they derive from different

sources of information and collection methods.


69

The researcher enhanced transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the

research context and the assumptions that were central to the research. In addition,

generalizability was increased by studying five cases and attempt was made to relate it to

studies conducted elsewhere to find any thread of generalizability. The study is

dependable as the outlined approach will be instrumental in replicating the study

elsewhere. Furthermore, the researcher is responsible for describing the changes that

occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the

study. To enhance confirmability the researcher documented ―the procedures for

checking and rechecking the data throughout the study‖ (Trochim, 2006, p. 2).

Ethical Considerations

As the research involves human participants, participants’ privacy, dignity, well-

being, and freedom were safeguarded. To guarantee these, the next guidelines were

followed: (a) explanation was given to potential participants as to the purpose and nature

of the research so they can freely choose whether or not to become involved; (b)

participants were informed on their right to refuse to answer any questions or participate

in the study; and (c) obtained informed consent from organizations and individuals that

participate in the study.

To avoid any ethical issues to arise during the research, the researcher acquired

the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to avoid any violation of human rights.

The researcher developed an informed consent form for participants to sign for literate

participants or oral commitment for those who are illiterate before they engage in the


70

research. The form acknowledges that participant’s rights have been protected during

data collection (Creswell, 2003).

Yin (2008) underlined that the basic skills required for a case study are the ability

to ask good questions and interpret the answers, to be a good listener, to be adaptive and

flexible, to have a firm grasp of the issues being studied, and to be unbiased by

preconceived notions. Yin further related case study fieldwork with the role of detectives.

The researcher of this study is qualified to conduct the present study as a result of being a

PhD candidate and being guided and supervised by a doctoral committee. In addition, the

researcher has more than 15 years of experience in managing several IT projects and has

some experience in contributing research articles for academic journals. Furthermore, the

researcher has the skills outlined by Yin as a consequence of several trainings and field

experience in the human and electronic intelligence both as an officer and a manager.

Currently, the researcher is a Director General of ICT development agency which lays a

good ground for understanding the issues around ICT usage for development in real life

projects and other engagements.

Furthermore, the researcher’s code of ethics was based on integrity when

conducting research, collecting data, drawing conclusions, and presenting findings.

Conclusions were driven by the data only and not by expectations. In addition, when

writing the research report, the researcher avoided using any biased language against

persons because of gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic group, disability, or age

(Creswell, 2003).

71

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

This study was conducted to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty and

the general objective of this research was to examine different ICTs deployed in varied

conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia.

In this chapter an analysis of the data gathered throughout the study is presented.

The sources of data collected in this study were drawn primarily from an on-site focus

group discussion and interviews with users and non-users of the community ICT centers.

Observation notes were also taken during focus group discussion and interviews. In

addition, a review of the archival records was conducted on documents, such as the

periodical performance reports of the centers and the consultant reports of the centers.

Data from the Information and Communication Technology Assisted Development

(ICTAD) project which established the community ICT centers were also collected, to

provide a context for the study. The data from each of these sources were triangulated

into a detailed analysis of each of the five cases.

Finally, the data generated by the study were organized and analyzed based on the

research questions and related themes. The study addresses the following questions:

1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT centers

in addressing poverty?


72


addressing poverty?

3. What is the difference between the individual’s perception on the use and the

benefits of the community ICT centers in addressing poverty?

This chapter presents a detailed description of each case, the themes that emerged

from the cases, and a cross-case analysis. The chapter is organized into four sections. The

first section describes the five community ICT centers. In the second section, the data

analysis and interpretation is reviewed and the resulting data display of categories and

sub-categories is presented. In the third section, a synthesis of the findings of the five

cases is presented in the context of each of the three research questions. In the fourth

section, the cross-case analysis and summary of Chapter 4 are presented.

Overview of the ICT Community Centers

Community ICT centers from five different regions and parts of Ethiopia

provided the diversity mix for this study. One community ICT center was from pastoralist

region and another one from the capital city. The remaining three community ICT centers

represent different regions and communities with different culture, language, and

lifestyle.

The context was further defined in that the five community ICT centers consist of

two youth centers, one pastoralist, one environment based center, and one health (HIV)

association center. The five community ICT centers visited during the course of this

study were DH, KY, LA, TK, and YY ICT center. The community ICT centers were

visited during May, June, and July 2010.


73

DH Community ICT Center

The DH Community ICT center was established in July 2008 with the initiation of

DH branch in collaboration with the Health Bureau and the technical, financial and

advisory support of the Ethiopian Information and Communication Technology

Development Agency (EICTDA, 2009) ICT Assisted Development project management

unit (PMU).

The center has been established with the overall objectives of providing access to

ICT and assisting communities to improve their livelihood through the use of appropriate

ICT that facilitates increased access to markets, development information and public

services (EICTDA, 2009).

The center operates in a space provided by the Kebele (local) administration

equipped with different ICT equipments (Computers, photocopy machine, printer, fax

machine, binding machine, and LCD projector) and furniture. The ICT community center

offers computer training, Internet, photocopy, secretarial, fax, binding, scanning and

telephone services. In addition, the library, recreational services (TV, cafeteria, indoor

and out-door games) and information on HIV/AIDS and reproductive health are provided

at the center.

KY ICT Center

The KY Town Youth Association ICT center was established in August 2008

with the initiation of the KY Town Youth Association facilitated through the Woreda

(district) Bureau of Capacity Building and the technical, financial and advisory support of

the EICTDA, ICT Assisted Development PMU (EICTDA, 2009).


74

KY Town Youth Association ICT center was established with the overall

objectives of providing ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their

involvement and contribution towards the socio-economic development of the country.

The center provides computer training, Internet, photocopy, telephone, secretarial,

binding, recreational (TV show, cafeteria, indoor outdoor games) and library services to

the members of the association as well as to the local community with affordable

payment, up to date information on job opportunities, education, health, and

psychological counseling.

LA Community ICT Center

The LA community ICT center was established in September 2008 with the

initiation of LA irrigation farmers’ cooperative facilitated through the regional bureau of

capacity building and the technical, financial and advisory support of EICTDA, ICT

Assisted Development PMU (EICTDA, 2009). The LA irrigation farmers’ cooperative

was established in 2004 with the objective of creating an agro-pastoralist community and

sustainable livelihood. The association has 20 members and undertakes its farming

activity on 100 hectares of land.

The ICT center has been established with the overall objectives of providing ICT

access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their involvement and contribution

towards the socio-economic development of the country. The center is operating in the

place provided by the LA irrigation farmers’ cooperative and financial support of ICTAD

and equipped with different ICT equipments (computers, photocopy machine, printer, fax

machine, binding machine, LCD projector) and furniture.


75

TK Youth Community ICT Center

The TK Youth Community ICT Center was established in November 2008 with

the technical financial and advisory support provided by EICTDA, ICT Assisted

development PMU (EICTDA, 2009).

The TK youth community ICT center was established with the overall objective

of providing ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged to enhance their involvement

and contribution towards the socio economic development of the country with a special

focus on environmental protection. The center is housed in the room provided by the TK

and cleaned youth association and different ICT equipment (computers, photocopy,

printer, fax, binding machine, LCD projector and furniture) are put in place.

The center is located in a residential area where most dwellers are from low

income group. The center is housed in the heart of a village where the association under

which the center is established has achieved an exemplary task by changing an

accumulated garbage area into a horticultural garden. The place is also an ideal spot for

environmental education.

YY ICT Center

The YY Community ICT Center was established in October 2009 with the

technical financial and advisory support provided by EICTDA, ICT Assisted

development PMU (EICTDA, 2009). The goal of the youth center aims at proper leisure

time activities and giving adolescents the opportunity to learn through ICT, access

national and global information, and become informed and responsible citizens.


76

The ICT services at the center include computer training, Internet, and secretarial

services.

Overall, the five community ICT centers provided several services to the

community in the vicinity of the center. Based on the annual report from the community

ICT centers, the utilization of the ICT community centers in terms of service that they

offer and the demography of users of the ICT community centers are added in Appendix

H.

Sources of Qualitative Data and Demographic Data of Research Participants

For each community ICT center, two focus group discussions, four user and four

non user interviews were conducted. Participants of this multiple-case study were

heterogeneous and consisted of people who differed in age, gender, educational

backgrounds, and work status. While the age of the participants ranged from 18 to 65

years, 65% of the participants age ranges in 18-30 years old (Figure 11).


77

Figure 11. Age of interviewed participants of the study.

In terms of gender mix the interviewed users and non users were 27 male and 13

female and 30% of user participants were female while 35% of non users participants

were female (Figure 12).


78

LA KY DH TK YY

GenderMale Female

Count

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of gender.

There was also a variation in the educational levels of the interviewed participants.

Most of the interviewees (60%) had either secondary or vocational level education.

However, 10% of the participants had never been in school and as a result couldn’t read

and write (Figure 13).


79

Frequency distribution of education

Frequency11109876543210

Ed

uca

tio

n

None

Pre-primary

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Post-secondary

non-tertiary

First stage of tertiary

Figure 13. Educational background of participants.

Whilst 75% of the interviewees were employed, 25% were either students or

unemployed (Figure 14).


80

Figure 14. Work status of participants.

Regarding focus group composition, in each community ICT center there were

two groups one composed of employed and elders and the second one composed of

students, unemployed and youth. The ten focus groups each have participants in the range

of 7 - 11 numbers of participants. Overall, the ten focus group discussions involved 94

participants out of which 36% were female participants.

Focus group discussion was conducted after each participant demonstrated their

willingness to participate in the discussion. During the entire study, with the exception of

one all the participants agreed, gave their views and comments and stayed until the end of

the discussion.

Interviews were conducted via face to face on each site. Out of 40 interviewees 30

gave signed and 8 verbal consent to be interviewed. 8 participants who gave verbal


81

consent are all non users and 4 of them cannot read and write. The remaining two of the

participants agreed to sign but the consent form was returned unsigned.

Almost all interviewees and all group discussion participants allowed the

interviews to be audio taped. All group discussions and 39 out of the 40 interviews were

recorded except one who responded in writing. During the research, two recorders were

ready and no equipment malfunctioned. All interviews and focus group discussion were

conducted by the researcher. At the conclusion of all interviews, the tape recorded data

consisted of approximately 1523 minutes of interviews, & was transcribed into 220 pages

of text (Appendix I provides part of the transcripts)

In addition, the researcher took hand written notes during all focus group

discussion meetings and interviews and transcribed the notes immediately after the

conclusion of the interview.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data from focus group discussions, interviews, observations, and documents were

organized electronically for each community ICT centers in four large files using

Microsoft Office Word 2007. As a result, a very large body of information was amassed

during the three months in which data was collected.

Organization of Qualitative Data

Each focus group and interview question was designed to investigate particular

aspects of the community ICT center participating in the study. Table 3 maps each focus

group and interview question with its related research question.


82

Table 3. Relationship of Research, Focus Group, and Interview Questions Research question Focus group

question

Users question Non-users

question

1. What is the perception of

individuals on the benefits

of community ICT centers


What are the common benefits

perceived by individuals using

the community ICT centers?

1

5, 6, 7

Section 2: 2, 3, 4, 6,

7

Section 3: 1, 2, 3, 4

Section 2: 2, 3,

4, 5, 13, 14, 15

Section 2: 6, 16

2. Which services and ICTs of

the community ICT centers

are most important in

addressing poverty?

2.1 Which services and ICTs

are considered as the most

important in addressing

poverty?

2.2 Which services and ICTs

are considered as the least

important in addressing

poverty?

2, 3

4

Section 2: 1

Section 2: 5

Section 2: 1, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Interviews and Focus Group Discussion

All contents of the transcribed interviews were read by the researcher while

listening to the tapes to insure that all data was captured as accurately as possible. Once

checking was complete the initial analysis of the interview data began. The documents

which were initially saved as MS word files were imported to QDA Miner 3.2 qualitative

software for analysis. Each focus group discussion and interview was segmented by

question number and coded using QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 qualitative analysis

software.


83

This phase of analysis was accomplished via a number of repeated and thorough

readings (Creswell, 1998) of the focus group discussion and interview data set for the

purpose of detecting key words, phrases, or repeating sequences of words. An excerpt

from the focus group discussion and interview in which QDA Miner 3.2 software features

were used is included in Appendix J.

The categories developed at the initial stage of the study for capturing the impact

of the community ICT centers are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Initial Manual Codes Developed and Used by QDA Miner 3.2 Qualitative

Analysis Software

Category Outputs/Codes

1. Economic General Income

Employment

Agricultural income

Saving

2. Education computer skills

Distance learning

foreign languages

3. Health Health Improvement

Health facilities

Initially, coding was done manually by employing QDA Miner 3.2 coding

capability. Subsequent to this the automated coding system of WordStat 6.1 was used to

check the accuracy and capture segments that were missed with manual coding.

Appendix K provides table of codes developed by employing auto coding feature of

WordStat 6.1.


84

Following the automated coding result, revision and refinement was done on the

manual coding. As a result, two new categories (general benefit and general interest)

emerged and some new subcategories as compared to the initial design. While the general

interest category mainly represents expectations and interests of non-users of the center,

general benefits reflect the perceptions on the benefits of the centers by both user and non

user participants. Finally, the codes were grouped following the research design with the

added new thematic areas (Table 5).


85

Table 5. Final Codes After Combination and Refinement of Manual and Auto-coding Category Subcategory/Code

Economy Agri Income

Employment

General Income

Promotion

Saving

Education Computer skill

Distance Education

Foreign language

General Knowledge

Scholarship

School support

Health Health facility

Health Improvement

Knowledge and Skill

General Benefit Access

Communication

Secretarial services

General interest Information about economy

Information about education

Information about health

Information from friends

Market needs

Private centers

Seek information

Seek treatment

Travel to get access

As stated by Gall et al. (2003), recording the number of times a code is observed

or frequency counts may be beneficial when conducting research. In line with this, the

frequency counts, number of cases and the percentages of cases related to the categories

developed in relation to focus group discussions and the interview transcripts are depicted

in Table 6.


86

Table 6. Frequency Counts for Categories Frequency No. Cases % Cases

Education 273 48 96.00%

General benefit 185 48 96.00%

Economy 224 42 84.00%

General interests 161 37 74.00%

Health 52 31 62.00%

Note: Cases in the analysis software refers to participants of the research. One focus group is also included

as one participant and hence one case in the software analysis.

Overall, education and general benefit were the two highly rated categories of

benefits of the community ICT centers (96% of the participants). Next follows economic

benefits (84%) and health benefits (62%).

Frequency Counts for Subcategories

The frequency counts, number of cases and the percentages of cases related to the

subcategories developed in relation to focus group discussions and the interview

transcripts are depicted in Appendix L. From the subcategories, access was taken as the

highest general benefit obtained from the community ICT centers (86%). Following to

access saving was considered as the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers (74%).

The least perceived benefit from the designed outputs was health improvement (12%).

Under the category of education, the highest rated benefit was found to be

acquiring computer skill (66%). While for health category, getting health knowledge and

skill got 58% of participants, information about economy (34%) got the highest return

from the general interests’ category.


87

Observations

Each community ICT center was visited and data collected on the context and

general situation of the center. In addition, the researcher wrote as many notes as possible

in a researcher’s field journal during interviews and focus group discussions. All

observation data was transcribed and recorded in the electronic file for observations as

soon as possible after returning from the field visits.

Documents

Documents and reports were collected and examined during each field visit by the

researcher. The study utilized documents pertaining to the community ICT centers

objectives and history, annual reports and policy documents, print and electronic

newspapers, as well as empirical data collected from previous studies. Thus, document

analysis was also utilized to provide the complete answers to all the research questions

asked.

In summary throughout the analysis of the data a number of analytic strategies as

identified by Creswell (1998) were utilized. These strategies included writing memos and

comments, reducing information, counting frequency of codes, relating categories,

highlighting certain information in the description, displaying findings in tables and

figures, and comparing cases.

Findings

The findings are presented in the context of each of the three research questions.

In an effort to enhance the robustness of the study, and add to the validity and reliability

of the study community ICT centers were selected from different regions and community.


88

That is to say, the strategy of maximum variation (Creswell, 2007) was employed. In

addition, participants represent various educational background, work status, age and

gender.

Research Question 1

What is the Perception of Individuals on the Benefits of Community ICT

Centers in Addressing Poverty?

Research question 1 is the core question of the study and yielded the most

complex set of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers in addressing

poverty. The purpose of the study was to explore the role of ICT in poverty. During the

coding and re-coding process as no new codes emerged, an organizational structure for

perceptions of individuals became apparent.

All codes excluding general interests of non users could be organized into three

groups with a fourth category called ―General Benefits.‖ This organization is illustrated

in Figure 15.


89


Economic Social

General

Income

Agricultural

income

Employment

Distance

Learning

Computer basic

skills

Education Health

Healthfacilities

Health Improvement

Foreign languages

Knowledge and Skill

General

Knowledge

Scholarship

Schooling

Support Saving

Job

PromotionSecretarial

Services

communication

Access

General

Benefits

Figure 15. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings.

Themes

Themes emerged from the analysis of the data collected on the perceptions of

individuals on the benefits of the community ICT center. The themes were:

Agri income. Incomes obtained by selling agricultural products by using the services

of the community ICT center.

Employment. Employment opportunity registered as a result of using the services

provided at the center.

General income. Income obtained by conducting IT enabled owned business

(secretarial services and/or computer maintenance) after taking computer training at the

community ICT center.


90

Job promotion. Promotion in job assignment and salary that was a result of skill

development at the center.

Saving. Saving noted as a result of using the services at the center.

Computer literacy and skill. Computer knowhow and skill developed as a result of

the trainings provided at the center.

Distance education. Distance learning conducted by using the services of the center.

Foreign language. Foreign language taught by using the services of the center.

General knowledge. An added or new general knowledge obtained from the center.

Scholarship. An opportunity to pursue further studies abroad by using the services at

the center.

School support. Support given to school education by way of the services provided at

the community ICT centers to teachers and students.

Health facility. Health facility accessed as a result of the operation of the center.

Health improvement. Health improvement observed as a result of using the services

of the center.

Health knowledge and skill. Getting health related knowledge and skill of diseases,

and their treatment from the center.

Access. ICT access facilitated by the center.

Communication. The ability to exchange information locally and internationally for

work, social, and personal matter by using the services at the center.

Secretarial services. Provision of services like writing, printing, binding, copying,

etc…at the center.


91

Analysis of each case study against participants’ responses will begin with

economic benefits, and proceed to education, health, and general benefits.

Economic Benefits


Research participants had shared their perception on the economic benefits

obtained from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated

responses indicated that affordability of the services and the resulting saving was the

highest benefit (80% of respondents) obtained from the LA community ICT center. The

next economic benefit identified was agri income (60% of respondents). The aggregated

analysis of the economic benefit perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 16.

LA

Job promotion General Income Employment Agri Income Saving

Count

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 16. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of LA community ICT center.


92

Based on the data analysis conducted, both focus group discussion participants

and user interviewees at LA community ICT center came out with four economic benefits

of the community ICT center out of which three are common benefits. The three

commonly identified economic benefits were saving, employment, and agri income. In

addition, the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving and

agri income as benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix M for response of research

participants on economic benefits of LA community ICT center.

Agricultural income was one of those identified as an economic benefit obtained

from the center by focus group (2 counts, 2 cases, 100% of the focus groups) and users (2

counts, 2 cases, 50% of users). In addition, agri income was also recognized as an

economic benefit of ICT by non-users (2 counts, 2 cases, 50% of non-users).

Participant of focus group 1 stated that their association cultivates cotton and they

acquire the information on the price and other status of the crop at the international

market using internet of the center. They will only let their export happen when there will

be a good price at the international market. One participate of the focus group recalled a

time in which the price of one kilo of cotton being around 16 Birr (nearly 1 US dollar)

and sold after delayed for some time and got 19.50 Birr (nearly 1.2 US dollar). They

explained that they exported their cotton to Australia and Turkey. The researcher found

that the only center where users of community ICT center were involved in export of

agricultural product was LA community ICT center.

A participant from focus group 2 noted that ―some people here use the internet as

their main source of information on vacancy announcements.‖ In terms of economic


93

benefit, user participant 5 noted that “I got promotion in my office because of the writing

skills I developed at the center.‖ Hence, the two most important economic benefits

perceived by users of LA community ICT center were affordability of the services and

the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (3

counts, 3 cases, 75% of users).

The lowest economic benefit identified by users of the center was job promotion.

Focus group participants at LA rated all the four benefits identified as the highest

economic benefits they got (2 cases, 100% of focus groups).

KY Community ICT Center

The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection, indicated

that affordability of the services and the resulting saving is the highest benefit (60% of

respondents) obtained from the use of the ICT center. Employment opportunity (50% of

respondents) was the other higher rated economic benefit. Figure 17 represents the result

of the analysis on economic benefits of KY community ICT center.


94

KY

Job promotion General Income Employment Saving

Count

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 17. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of KY community ICT center

The data analysis indicated that both focus group discussion participants and user

interviewees recognize three and four economic benefits of the community ICT center

respectively out of which three are common benefits. The three commonly identified

economic benefits were saving, employment, and general income. See Appendix M for

response of research participants on economic benefits of the center.

According to data collected from the center, the two most important economic

benefits perceived by users were affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4

counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (3 counts, 3 cases, 75% of

users).


95


The result of the analysis of interviews conducted at DH showed that saving was

the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from the DH community ICT center.

The next economic benefit identified by analysis was employment opportunity (80% of

respondents). Figure 18 represents the analysis of the interviews on economic benefits of

DH community ICT center.

DH

Agri Income Job promotion General Income Employment Saving

Count

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 18. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of the DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated four economic

benefits, user interviewees came out with five benefits of DH community ICT center.

Saving, employment, general income and job promotion were the economic benefits

identified by both focus group discussion participants and user interviewees. In addition,

the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving, employment,


96

and general income as an economic benefits of ICT usage. The response of research

participants on economic benefits is included in Appendix M.

The two most important economic benefits perceived by users were saving (4

counts, 4 cases, 100% of users) and employment opportunity (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of

users). Other economic benefits identified by users were job promotion (1 count, 1 case,

25% of users), and general income (1 case, 25% of users).


Research participants had shared their perception on the economic benefits

obtained from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the

aggregated responses showed that employment opportunity was the highest benefit (80%

of respondents) obtained from the ICT center. The next highest economic benefit

identified was affordability of the services and the resulting saving (70% of respondents).

The aggregated analyses of the perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 19.


97

TK

Job promotion Agri Income General Income Saving Employment

Count

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 19. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of TK community ICT center.


and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center identified five and three

economic benefits of the community ICT center respectively out of which three are

common benefits. The three commonly shared economic benefits by both focus group

discussion participants and user interviewees of the TK youth Community ICT center

were saving, employment, and general income. In addition, the non-user group

interviewees also included in their expectation saving and employment as benefits of ICT

usage. See Appendix M for response of research participants on economic benefits.

Affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of

users) and employment opportunity (4 cases, 100% of users) were found to be the two

most important economic benefits perceived by users of TK youth community ICT

center.


98

YY Community ICT Center

The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, indicated

that affordability of the services and the resulting saving was the highest benefit (70% of

respondents) obtained from the use of the ICT center. Employment opportunity (50% of

respondents) was the other higher rated economic benefit. Figure 20 represents the result

of the analysis on economic benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY

Job promotion General Income Agri Income Employment Saving

Count

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 20. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of YY community ICT center.

The result of the data analysis indicated that both focus group discussion

participants and user interviewees addressed five and three economic benefits of the

community ICT center respectively out of which three were common benefits. The three

commonly recognized economic benefits were saving, employment, and agri income. In

addition, the non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation saving, agri


99

income and general income as benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix M for response of

research participants on economic benefits of YY community ICT center.

According to data collected and processed from the center, the two most

important economic benefits perceived by users of YY community ICT center were

affordability of the services and the resulting saving (4 counts, 4 cases, 100% of users)

and employment opportunity (3 counts, 3 cases, 75% of users). A participant of focus

group 46 stated that, ―whenever you have the same backgrounds both in the education

and work experience, having the computer training is a plus and in this regard there is a

greater chance for you to get a promotion or a new post.‖

Educational Benefits


Research participants had shared their perception on the educational benefits

obtained from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated

responses indicated that computer literacy and skill developed as a result of the training

conducted at the community ICT center was the highest benefit (70% of respondents)

obtained from the LA community ICT center. The next expected educational benefit was

getting access and learn foreign languages (40% of respondents). The aggregated

analyses of the perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 21.


100

LA

Count876543210

Distance Education

General Knowledge

School Education Improvement

Foreign language

Computer skill

Figure 21. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of LA community ICT center.


and user interviewees at LA community ICT center perceived three educational benefits

of the community ICT center out of which two were common benefits. The two

commonly shared educational benefits were computer skill, and distance education. In

addition, the non-user group interviewees also came out with three educational benefits

of ICT usage, one of which was identified by focus group and user participants (computer

skill). Furthermore, they have also added two of their general interests they expect from

ICT intervention: to get supportive information about education and access to foreign

language. In fact, acquiring access to foreign language got the highest expectation (4

cases, 100% of non-users). However, contrary to expectation, foreign language was not

one of the benefits recognized by focus group participants and user interviewees. On the


101

other hand, in contrast to users and focus group participants, non-users did not mention

distance education as an educational benefit.

Demonstrating the benefits of the center for distance education, a user participant

5 noted that ―I am a student at a university in the capital city and when I missed once my

exam, I contacted the university and got my exam through fax.‖ This female user

participant finally concluded that ―I am following my distance education program thanks

to the service of the center.‖

See Appendix N for response of participants on educational benefits of LA



The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection, indicated

that computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents) obtained

from the use of the ICT center. School support (50% of respondents) was the next higher

rated educational benefit. Figure 22 represents the result of the analysis on educational

benefits of KY community ICT center.


102

KY

Count76543210

Distance Education

Scholarship

Foreign language

General Knowledge


Computer skill

Figure 22. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of KY community ICT center.

The data analysis found out that both focus group discussion participants and user

interviewees perceived five and two educational benefits of the community ICT center

respectively out of which two were common benefits. The two commonly recognized

educational benefits of the center were computer skill, and general knowledge. In

addition, the non-user group interviewees also identified four educational benefits of ICT

usage, two of which were recognized by both focus group and user participants. See

Appendix N for response of participants on educational benefits of KY community ICT

center.

According to data collected and processed from the center, computer literacy and

skill appeared to be the highest educational benefits accrued from KY ICT center both by

focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (4 cases,

100% of users). The school educational support appeared to be the second highest


103

educational benefits of the ICT center by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus

groups).

According to a teacher in focus group 12, ―their school has an agreement of

partnership with the center to use the computer available in the center rather than

purchase new ones which have become instrumental in saving the school expenses.‖ In

addition, he expressed that ―we have an ICT department in our school and those students

who took the computer training at the center were active in their studies.‖ Furthermore

the teacher added that ―our students print and copy handouts, books and other academic

materials with reasonable prices at the center.‖ In addition, another participant of focus

group 12 noted that rural schools also got copier service at the center.

The other educational benefits were found to be general knowledge (1 case, 25%

of users) for user and non user participants, and computer skill (1 case, 25% of non users)

and scholarship (1 case, 25% of non-users) for non users.


The result of the analysis of interviews conducted at DH community ICT center

showed that computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (60% of respondents)

obtained from the DH community ICT center. The next educational benefit identified by

analysis was school educational support (50% of respondents). Figure 23 represents the

analysis of the interviews on educational benefits of DH community ICT center.


104

DH

Count6543210

Scholarship

Foreign language

General Knowledge


Computer skill

Figure 23. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated four benefits, user

interviewees discussed two educational benefits of DH community ICT center. Computer

skill and general knowledge were the educational benefits identified by both focus group

discussion participants and user interviewees. In addition, the non-user group

interviewees also came out with three educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which

was recognized by focus group and user participants (general knowledge). See Appendix

N for response of participants on educational benefits of DH Community ICT Center.

Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest educational benefit accrued

from the DH ICT center both by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups)

and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). During data collection, one participants of

focus group 33 assessed the value of computer skill by comparing the period before and

after the computer training and summed his experience by underlining that:


105

I can say that we were acting as if we were handicapped; we do have hands and

yet we were acting as if we didn't have that and we have eyes to see but we were

acting like visually impaired people. After the computer training, we were been

able to have a hand to operate and an eye to see. Our hands are active and strong

enough and our eyes are wide open to see the true benefit and use of the

technology.

In addition, school educational support appeared to be the other highest

educational benefits of the ICT center (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). According to a

teacher user participant 26, ―I used to write exam papers in hand. Now using the

accessible resources of the centre I prepare exams in computers. It makes my work easy

which in turn help to reduce the work burden of my secretary too.‖ He added that

―Teachers with good ICT skills used ICT more and more often in a student-centered way

of teaching.‖ Moreover, according to a female student participant of focus group 24, ―a

student who uses internet has lots of knowledge and got respect and has great confidence

in class. In addition, she noted that ―it is better to use excel than calculator for our course

work and assignment.‖

Furthermore, acquiring general knowledge at the services of the center was also

noted as an educational benefit by focus groups (1 case, 50% of focus groups). The other

educational benefits from the center were found to be general knowledge for user

participants (1 case, 25% of users), and non user participants (1 case, 25% of users) and

scholarship for focus group discussion participants. Demonstrating the benefit of the

center in scholarship, a participant of focus group 23 noted that ―my kids are one of the

beneficiaries of this service in getting scholarship. My daughter after a frequent


106

communication she succeeded in getting a scholarship in South Korea. My son also got a

chance to go to Switzerland for short course by using the internet at the center.‖


Research participants had shared their perception on the educational benefits of

TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses showed that

computer literacy and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents) obtained from

the ICT center. The next highest educational benefit of the center was school educational

support (50% of respondents). The aggregated analyses of the perceptions are represented

graphically in Figure 24.

TK

Count76543210

General Knowledge

Scholarship

Foreign language


Computer skill

Figure 24. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of TK community ICT center.


and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center came out with three


107

educational benefits of the community ICT center out of which two are common benefits.

The two commonly recognized educational benefits were computer skill, and scholarship.

In addition, the non-user group interviewees also expected and identified three

educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which was identified by focus group and user

participants (computer skill). See Appendix N for response of participants on educational

benefits of TK youth community ICT center.

Overall, computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest educational

benefits of TK youth ICT center both by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus

groups) and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). School education support appeared

to be the other highest educational benefits accrued from the ICT centers by focus group

discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). One participant of focus group 35 indicated

that ―the students who are getting the services of the center are very active in ICT. They

are even helping the other students at their class.‖ According to a participant of focus

group 35, he has made a connection/contact with an institution working on Africa's

Environmental Network and this has enabled him to attend an international leadership

training seminar in Denmark.

The lowest educational benefit was found to be scholarship opportunity for user

participants (1 case, 25% of users), and computer skill for non user participants (1 case,

25% of non-users).


The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, indicated

that school education support was the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from


108

the use of the ICT center. Computer literacy and skill (60% of respondents) was the other

higher rated educational benefit. Figure 25 represents the result of the analysis on

educational benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY

Count9876543210

Distance Education

Foreign language

Scholarship

General Knowledge

Computer skill


Figure 25. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of YY community ICT center.


interviewees recognized three and four educational benefits of the community ICT center

respectively out of which two were common benefits. The two commonly shared

educational benefits were computer skill, and scholarship. In addition, the non-user group

interviewees also identified four educational benefits of ICT usage, one of which is

recognized by focus group and user participants (computer skill). See Appendix N for

response of participants on educational benefits of YY community ICT center.


109

According to data collected and processed from the center, the two most important

educational benefits perceived were computer skill both by focus group discussion (2

cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviewees (3 cases, 75% of users) and school

education support by focus group discussion (2 case, 100% of focus groups). According

to a teacher participant of focus group 46, he used the center for downloading several

materials from the internet and stated that he downloaded C++ at the center which was a

bit expensive to buy at the nearby town. Another participant of the same focus group also

noted that,

I use the internet as my reference when I carry on my educational career. This has

been hardly possible when I was a student as there was no access to the internet. I

am now using the center as a means to download different materials/documents

from the internet with cheaper expense.

In addition, non-users recognized the benefits of ICT in the development of

computer skill and acquiring general knowledge at the services of the center was also

noted as an educational benefit by users (2 cases, 50% of users).

The lowest educational benefit was found to be distance education opportunity for

user participants (1 case, 25% of users) and computer skill for non user participants (1

case, 25% of non users).

Health Benefits


Research participants had shared their perception on the health benefits obtained

from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses

indicated that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (50% of respondents)


110

obtained from the LA community ICT center. The aggregated analyses of the perceptions

are represented graphically in Figure 26.

LA

Health facility Knowledge and Skill

Count

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 26. Analysis of responses to health benefits of LA community ICT center.


and user interviewees at LA community ICT center came out with two and one health

benefits of the community ICT center respectively and out of which one was found to be

a common benefit. The one commonly shared health benefit was health knowledge and

skill. In addition, non-user group participants also recognized health knowledge and skill

as one of the expected benefits of ICT. See Appendix O for response of research

participants on health benefits of LA community ICT center.

According to a participant of focus group discussion 2, ―the health benefit we get

is that the trainers first browse any information regarding HIV and provide the training to


111

us.‖ Hence, the most important health economic benefit perceived by users of LA

community ICT center was health knowledge and skill by focus group discussion (1 case,

50% of focus groups) and user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users).

Health facility was another health benefit recognized by focus group participants

(1 case, 50% of focus groups) only.


The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection indicated

that health knowledge and related skill was the highest benefit (60% of respondents) of

the ICT center. Health facility (40% of respondents) was the other higher rated health

benefit. Figure 27 represents the result of the analysis on health benefits of KY


KY

Health Improvement Health facility Knowledge and Skill

Count

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 27. Analysis of responses to health benefits of KY community ICT center.


112


interviewees perceived two and three health benefits of the community ICT center

respectively and out of which two are common benefits. The two commonly shared

health benefits were health knowledge and skill, and health facility. In addition, non-user

group participants identified one of the benefits recognized by user and focus group

participants (knowledge and skill). See Appendix O for response of research participants

on health benefits of KY community ICT center.

According to data collected and processed from the center, the most important

health benefit perceived by users was getting health knowledge and skill by focus group

discussion (1 case, 50% of focus groups) and user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users). A

participant of focus group discussion 16 noted that ―the center provided education of

HIV, saved youth from rampant sex and protected youth from wasting time in drinking

alcohol and instead spent time on useful activities.‖

Health facility was another health benefit identified by focus group participants (2

case, 100% of focus groups) and users (2 cases, 50% of users).



showed that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (70% of respondents)

obtained from the DH community ICT center. The next health related benefit recognized

by analysis was the provision of health facility (20% of respondents) at the community

ICT center. Figure 28 represents the analysis of the interview on health benefits of DH



113

DH

Health Improvement Health facility Knowledge and Skill

Count

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 28. Analysis of responses to health benefits of DH community ICT center.

While analysis of focus group discussion participants indicated three health

benefits, user interviewees came with one benefit of DH community ICT center. Health

knowledge and skill was the health benefit identified by both focus group discussion

participants and user interviewees. Similarly, non-user group participants identified

knowledge and skill as one of the benefits of ICT usage. See Appendix O for response of

research participants on health benefits of DH community ICT center.

According to a participant of focus group discussion 23, ―using internet of the

center, we were able to access international annual reports and other materials from

UNAIDS. We were also communicating with Alliance International, an institution

working on HIV/AIDS to raise our knowledge.‖

As a consequence, a participant of focus group discussion 24, concluded that

―now we know everything about HIV AIDS, stigma and discrimination, voluntary


114

counseling and testing and the likes.‖ In the sense of expressing the impact of the center,

a participant from the same group underscored that ―as a result of the information I got

from the center, I have a change of attitude on HIV positive. Now we have developed our

understanding of how to care HIV positive, and feel the sense of responsibility and

humanity we must have towards HIV positive.‖

Hence, the most important health benefit perceived by users was getting health

knowledge and skill by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user

interviews (3 cases, 75% of users). Furthermore, focus group participants recognized

health facility (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and health improvement (1 case, 50% of

focus groups) as health benefits of the center.


Research participants had shared their perception on the health benefits obtained

from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated

responses showed that health knowledge and skill was the highest health benefit (60% of

respondents) of the ICT center. The aggregated analysis of the health benefit perceptions

are represented graphically in Figure 29.


115

TK

Health Improvement Knowledge and Skill

Count

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 29. Analysis of responses to health benefits of TK community ICT center.


and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center shared their view on one and

two health benefits of the community ICT center respectively and out of which one was

found to be common benefit. The commonly identified health benefit of the ICT center

was health knowledge and skill. See Appendix O for response of research participants on

health benefits of TK youth community ICT center.

According to a participant of focus group discussion 35, ―We have been

promoting about a green plant traditional medicine called 'Artemisia' in our website. In

addition, there is a way in which we get some information on ways of understanding the

dosage of the different traditional medicine from abroad which would help us apply to

our situation.‖


116


The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection, showed

that health knowledge and skill was the highest benefit (50% of respondents) obtained

from the use of the ICT center. Other health related benefit identified was health

improvement. Figure 30 represents the result of the analysis on health benefits of YY


YY

Health Improvement Knowledge and Skill

Count

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 30. Analysis of responses to health benefits of YY community ICT center.


interviews came out with one and two health benefits of the community ICT center

respectively. Health knowledge and skill was commonly recognized health benefit of the

center. In addition, non-user group participants identified health knowledge and skill as


117

one of the health benefits of ICT. See Appendix O for response of research participants

on health benefits of YY community ICT center.

According to data collected from the center, the most important health benefit

perceived by focus group discussion (2 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews

(2 cases, 50% of users) was health knowledge and skill.

General Benefit of the Community ICT Centers


Research participants had shared their perception on the general benefits obtained

from the services of LA community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated responses

indicated that access and communication are the highest benefits (90% of respondents) of

LA community ICT center. The next general benefit identified was the provision of

secretarial services (30% of respondents) at the community ICT center. The aggregated

analysis of general benefit perceptions are represented graphically in Figure 31.


118

LA

secretarial services communication access

Count

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 31. Analysis of responses to general benefits of LA community ICT center.


and user interviewees at LA community ICT center recognized three and four general

benefits of the community ICT center respectively out of which three are common

benefits. The three commonly shared general benefits of the LA community ICT center

were access, communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits

identified by non-user group were similar to all the benefits identified by user group. See

Appendix P for responses of research participants on general benefits of LA community

ICT center.

Getting ICT access was recognized as highest benefit by user interviews (3 cases,

75% of users) and focus groups (2 cases, 100% of focus groups). Similar to user

interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases,

100% of non-users).


119

User participants expressed that as a result of the access they got at the center,

they have saved several wastes in terms of time and finance to travel to other towns in

search of access (4 cases, 100% of users). In fact, user participant 3 noted that ―all the

hardships that we were facing traveling all those long distances are no more happening

now and we are benefiting as a result of that saving money and energy.‖ In addition, a

participant from focus group 1 underscored that ―prior to having the internet access at the

center, we had to travel 200 km all the way to Adama town to get access. Now we are

communicating with anybody or any institution anywhere in the country. Previously we

were using post office to send mails now fax saving time and cost.‖

The other highest benefit was communication perceived by focus group (2 cases,

100% of focus groups) and user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users). Non-users also

recognized and expected communication as a general benefit (4 cases, 100% of non-

users).


The result of the analysis of KY community ICT center data collection,

demonstrated that access was the highest benefit (80% of respondents) of the ICT center.

Communication for exchange of information (70% of respondents) was the other higher

rated general benefit. Figure 32 represents the result of the analysis on general benefits of

KY community ICT center.


120

KY


Count

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 32. Analysis of responses to general benefits of KY community ICT center.

The data analysis showed that both focus group discussion participants and user

interviewees perceived three and four general benefits of the community ICT center

respectively and three benefits were found to be common. The three commonly

recognized general benefits were access, communication and secretarial services. In

addition, access and communication were also identified by non-user group as general

benefits of ICT use. See Appendix P for response of research participants on general

benefits of KY community ICT center.

According to data collected from the center, the most important general benefit

perceived by users was getting access by user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users) and

focus groups (1 case, 50% of focus groups). Similar to user interviews, the highest

general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases, 100% of non-users).

The other highest benefit, communication, was recognized by focus group (2 cases, 100%


121

of focus groups) and by user interviews (2 cases, 50% of users). Non-users also expected

communication as a general benefit (3 cases, 75% of non-users). A secretarial service

was also recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (1 case, 50% of focus

groups) and user interviews (2 cases, 50% of users).



showed that ICT access was the highest benefit (90% of respondents) obtained from the

DH community ICT center. The next general benefit identified by analysis was

communication services (70% of respondents). Figure 33 represents the analysis of the

interviews on general benefits of DH community ICT center.

DH


Count

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 33. Analysis of responses to general benefits of DH community ICT center.


122

Analysis of focus group discussion participants and user interviewees came out

with three general benefits of DH community ICT center. Access, communication and

secretarial services were commonly recognized benefits by both users and focus group

discussion participants. In addition, all the general benefits identified by non-user group

were similar to all the benefits recognized by user group. The response of research

participants on general benefits is included in Appendix P.

The two most important general benefits perceived by users were getting access

(3 cases, 75% of users) and communication (4 cases, 100% of users). Similar to user

interviews, the highest general benefit expected by non users was getting access (4 cases,

100% of non-users) and communication (4 cases, 100% of non-users) of ICT. A

secretarial service was also recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (1

case, 50% of focus groups), user interviews (3 cases, 75% of users) and non users (1 case,

25% of non users).


Research participants had shared their perception on the general benefits obtained

from the services of TK youth community ICT center. The analysis of the aggregated

responses showed that ICT access was the highest benefit (80% of respondents) of the

ICT center. The next highest general benefit identified was communication services (70%

of respondents). The aggregated analysis of the general benefits perceptions are

represented graphically in Figure 34.


123

TK


Count

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 34. Analysis of responses to general benefits of TK community ICT center.


and user interviewees at TK youth community ICT center perceived two general benefits

of the community ICT center. One commonly shared benefit by both users and focus

group discussion participants was secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits

expected by non-user group were benefits recognized by user or focus group. See

Appendix P for response of research participants on general benefits of TK youth


Overall, the most important general benefit perceived by users of TK youth

community ICT center was getting ICT access (4 cases, 100% of users). Similar to user

interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was getting access (4 cases,

100% of non-users). According to user participant 37, ―I have no financial capacity to

take a computer training elsewhere‖. In line with this, user participant 39 added that ―had


124

it not been for this affordable service center, I could have delayed my training. With

delay I could even have lost my interest to learn computer.‖


The result of the analysis of YY community ICT center data collection,

demonstrated that getting ICT access was the highest benefit (90% of respondents)

obtained from the use of the ICT center. Secretarial services and communication (60% of

respondents) were the other higher rated general benefits. Figure 35 represents the result

of the analysis on general benefits of YY community ICT center.

YY


Count

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 35. Analysis of responses to general benefits of YY community ICT center.


interviews came out with three and four general benefits of the community ICT center

respectively out of which three are common benefits. The three commonly shared general


125

benefits were access, communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general

benefits identified by non-user group were similar to all the benefits identified by user

and focus group. See Appendix P for response of research participants on general benefits

of YY community ICT center.

Based on the data analysis of the center, ICT access was the most important

general benefit perceived by user interviews (4 cases, 100% of users), focus groups (2

cases, 100% of focus groups), and non users (3 cases, 75% of non users). According to

user participant 50, he noted that:

we have started to save money as we only need to pay half of that of the others.

We have also started to save the amount of money we used to spend for

transportation to Hawassa (town) and all the other expenses when we go there.

Though we try to come as early as possible back home, there were times where

we spend money for tea, coffee and food. We also saved for our work which was

used to be wasted in search of ICT access.

Furthermore, the other highest benefit of the center was communication

recognized by focus group (1 case, 50% of focus groups) and by user interviews (4 cases,

100% of users).

Common Benefits Perceived by Individuals

Using the features of QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 analysis software, report

of categories and subcategories against respondents was generated to identify the

commonly stated benefits based on the frequency of responses. As a result, the benefits

that have aggregate respondents of at least 50% were taken as an indication of commonly

shared perception.


126

As a result of this exercise at the level of categories, all benefit categories of this

research got greater than 50% respondents in aggregate (Refer Table 6). This implies that

economy, education, health, and general benefits were perceived as common benefits by

more than 50% of research participants.

Overall, education and general benefit were the two highly rated benefit

categories of the community ICT centers by 96% of the participants. Next follows

economic benefits (84%), general interests (74%) and health benefits (62%).

When common benefits are examined at the level of aggregated subcategories the

common benefits shared by most respondents were: computer skill, communication,

saving, employment, knowledge and skill, school education improvement and access.

The frequency counts of subcategories developed in relation to focus group discussions

and the interview transcripts are depicted in Table 7.

Table 7. Frequency Counts for Subcategories Frequency No. Cases % Cases

Access 88 43 86.00%

Saving 96 37 74.00%

Communication 67 35 70.00%

Computer literacy & skill 142 33 66.00%

Employment 55 31 62.00%

Health knowledge & skill 37 29 58.00%

School education support 66 27 54.00%

From the subcategories, access was taken as the highest general benefit obtained

from the community ICT centers (86%). Following to access saving was considered as

the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers (74%). While acquiring computer


127

literacy and skill (66%) was the highest rated benefit under the category of education,

health knowledge and skill got the highest response in health category (58%).

Common Economic Benefits

Focus group discussion participants and user interviews recognized five common

economic benefits. The five commonly shared economic benefits of the centers were

saving, employment, agri income, job promotion and general income. In addition, the

non-user group interviewees also included in their expectation four of the commonly

recognized economic benefits as benefits of ICT usage. Figure 36 depicts the response of

common economic benefits of the community ICT centers.

Common economic benefitsSAVING EMPLOYMENT GENERAL INCOME AGRI INCOME JOB PROMOTION

No

of

resp

on

den

ts

40

36

32

28

24

20

16

12

8

4

0

Figure 36. Analysis of responses against common economic benefits.

Affordability of the services and the resulting saving obtained from the study

appeared to be the highest commonly shared benefit of the ICT centers both in focus

group discussion (36 counts, 10 cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (53


128

counts, 20 cases, 100% of users). Another major commonly recognized economic benefit

obtained from the centers was employment (25 counts, 17 cases, 85% of users) and (24

counts, 10 cases, 100% of focus groups).

General income was the other commonly accepted economic benefit of the

community ICT centers by users (5 counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) and focus groups (22

counts, 9 cases, 90% of focus groups).

Common Educational Benefits

Analysis indicated that focus group discussion participants and user interviews

shared five common educational benefits. The five commonly identified educational

benefits of the center were computer skill, school education improvement, distance

education, general knowledge, and scholarship. In addition, the non-user group

interviewees also expected six educational benefits of ICT usage, four of which were

recognized by focus group and user participants. Figure 37 depicts common educational

benefits of the community ICT centers.


129

No of respondents36322824201612840

Co

mm

on

ed

uca

tio

nal

ben

efit

s

COMPUTER SKILL

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

SCHOLARSHIP

DISTANCE EDUCATION

Figure 37. Analysis of responses against common educational benefits.

Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest commonly recognized

educational benefits of the ICT centers both by focus group discussion (87 counts, 10

cases, 100% of focus groups) and user interviews (51 counts, 19 cases, 95% of users).

The support given to school education appeared to be the second highest commonly

perceived educational benefit of the ICT centers both by focus group discussion (36

counts, 9 cases, 90% of focus groups) and user interviews (25 counts, 15 cases, 75% of

users). Non-users also recognize the benefits of ICT in supporting school educational

programs (5 counts, 3 cases, 15% of non-users) and development of computer skill (4

counts, 4 cases, 20% of non-users). Another commonly identified educational benefit

recognized by users (4 counts, 3 cases, 15% of users) and focus groups (12 counts, 5

cases, 50% of focus groups) was getting the opportunity of scholarship by using the

services of the centers.


130

Getting information about education was identified by non users (27 counts, 14

cases, 70% of non-users) as a general interest they expect to get from ICT.

Common Health Benefits

Focus group discussion participants and user interviews shared three common

health benefits. The three common perceived health benefits of the center were health

improvement, knowledge and skill, and health facility. In addition, the non user group

interviewees also expected two of the benefits recognized by user and focus group

participants. The identified benefits were health improvement, and knowledge and skill.

Figure 38 depicts common health benefits of the community ICT centers.

Common health benefitsKNOWLEDGE_AND_SKILL HEALTH FACILITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

No

of

resp

on

den

ts

30

27

24

21

18

15

12

9

6

3

0

Figure 38. Analysis of responses against common health benefits.

Getting knowledge and skill about health appeared to be the highest commonly

perceived benefit of the ICT centers both in focus group discussion (14 counts, 8 cases,

80% of focus groups) and user interviews (17 counts, 16 cases, 80% of users). Health


131

facility was another commonly shared health benefit by user (2 counts, 2 cases, 10% of

users) and focus group participants (6 counts, 5 cases, 50% of focus groups).

Common General Benefits

Focus group discussion participants and user interviews perceived three common

general benefits. The three commonly shared general benefits were access,

communication and secretarial services. In addition, all the general benefits expected by

non-user group were similar to all the benefits recognized by user and focus group.

Figure 39 depicts common general benefits of the community ICT centers.

Common general benefitsACCESS COMMUNICATION SECRETARIAL_SERVICES

No

of

resp

on

den

ts

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 39. Analysis of responses against common general benefit.

While users recognized ICT access (34 counts, 17 cases, 85% of users), focus

group participants favored communication (18 counts, 8 cases, 80% of focus groups) as

the highest general benefit of the center. The second highest benefit of the center was


132

communication for users (27 counts, 13 cases, 65% of users), while access was for focus

groups (20 counts, 7 cases, and 70% of focus groups). Secretarial services was also

recognized as a benefit both in focus group discussion (15 counts, 7 cases, 70% of focus

groups) and user interviews (10 counts, 8 cases, 40% of users).

Similar to user interviews, the highest general benefit identified by non users was

getting access (34 counts, 19 cases, 95% of non-users). Non-users also recognized and

expected communication as a general benefit (22 counts, 14 cases, 70% of non-users) of

ICT.

Research Question 2

Which Services and ICTs of the Community ICT Centers are most Important in

Addressing Poverty?

Most Important Services

Participants of the group discussion had much to say about their perception on the

importance of the services offered at the community ICT centers. Computer training

provided at the community ICT centers got the highest aggregated valued service (8

cases, 80% of focus groups). However, 10% of the respondents came with other highly

valued services: secretarial and an internet services. Figure 40 depicts the aggregated

response of important services.


133

Servicestraining secretarial service internet

Fre

qu

ency

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 40. Aggregated response of important services.

Responses gathered from all the community ICT centers demonstrated that

computer training was indeed the highest rated service. Figure 41 depicts the response of

important services by community ICT centers.


134

DH LA YY KY TK

training secretarial service internet

Count

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 41. Response of important services against community ICT centers.

Participants of the group discussion had shared their perception on the second

important services offered at the community ICT centers. Result of the analysis showed

that secretarial services provided at the community ICT centers got the second highest

valued service (5 cases, 50% of focus groups). Figure 42 depicts the aggregated response

of second important services.


135

Servicessecretarial service internet copy

Fre

qu

ency

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 42. Aggregated response of second important services.

Data analysis showed that a secretarial service was the second highest rated

service by all the community ICT centers. Internet service was also rated next to

secretarial services by four community ICT centers (Figure 43).


136

LA KY DH TK YY

secretarial service internet copy

Count

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 43. Response of second important service by community ICT centers.

Most Valued IT

Participants of the group discussion have discussed about their perception on the

importance of the ICT equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers.

As the result of the discussion, computer as an IT technological devise got the highest

valued IT technology at the community ICT centers (7 cases, 70% of focus groups).

Figure 44 depicts the response of most valued IT.


137

TechnologyComputer Internet others

Fre

qu

ency

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 44. Aggregated response of most valued IT.

Responses gathered from the community ICT centers also demonstrated that

computer was indeed the highest rated IT. Figure 45 depicts the response of most valued

IT against community centers.


138

LA KY DH TK YY

Computer Internet others

Count

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 45. Response of most valued IT against community ICT centers.

Participants of the group discussion had identified the second important ICT

equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers. Internet as an IT

technology got the second highest valued IT technology (6 cases, 60% of focus groups).

Figure 46 depicts the response of the second important IT.


139

TechnologyComputer Internet others

Fre

quen

cy7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 46. Aggregated response of second important IT. Based on data gathered from all the community ICT centers, internet was the

second highest rated IT. Figure 47 depicts the response of the second most valued IT by

community ICT centers.

LA KY DH TK YY

Computer Internet others

Count

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 47. Response of the second important IT against community ICT centers.


140

Which Services and ICTs are Considered as the Least Important in Addressing

Poverty?

Least Important Services

Participants of the group discussion had valued Internet services provided at the

community ICT centers as the least important valued service (3 cases, 30% of focus

groups). However, the respondents expressed that it was not the value of the internet

service that got low rating but the availability of the service and other capacity of usage

of the internet that turned it to be low valued. Binding & scanning services provided were

also on the low valued list of services. Figure 48 depicts the response of less important

services.

Servicesbinding scanning internet secretarial service Fax

Fre

qu

ency

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Figure 48. Aggregated response of less important services.


141

Analysis of the data gathered from all the community ICT centers indicated that

internet service was considered as the least provided service at three centers. Two centers

valued scanning and secretarial services as least important services. Figure 49 depicts the

response of less important services against community ICT centers.

LA KY DH TK YY

binding scanning internet secretarial service Fax

Count

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 49. Response of less important service by community ICT centers

Least Important IT

Participants of the group discussion had shared their perception on the level of

importance of the ICT equipments/technologies available at the community ICT centers.

Fax as an IT technological devise at the community ICT centers got the lowest valued IT

technology (3 cases, 30% of focus groups). Figure 50 depicts the response of less

important IT.


142

Technologyscanner binder internet fax others

Fre

qu

ency

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Figure 50. Aggregated response of less important IT.

The analysis of data gathered from community ICT enters indicated that three

centers put fax as the least IT in importance. Scanner and internet as technology were

also rated less important at two centers. Figure 51 depicts the response of less important

IT against community ICT centers.


143

LA KY DH TK YY

scanner binder internet fax others

Count

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 51. Response of less important IT by community ICT centers.

Research Question 3

What is the Difference Between Individuals’ Perception on the Use and Benefits of

Community ICT Center in Addressing Poverty?

Uncommon Benefits Listed by Individuals

Using the QDA Miner 3.2 and WordStat 6.1 analysis software, report of

categories and subcategories against respondents was generated to identify benefits not

commonly stated by individuals based on the frequency of responses. As a result, the

response below 50% was taken as an indication of not commonly shared perception.

At category level, there was not any category left unaddressed by the responses

collected from the five community ICT centers. However, from the subcategories,

distance education was taken as the lowest unshared benefit by respondents (8%). The

other low rated benefits were: health improvement (12%) from health category;


144

secretarial service (40%), from general benefit category, and agri income (26%) from

economic category (Appendix L).

Uncommon Economic Benefits

All the economic benefits recognized in this research were found to be commonly

shared however; two of the benefits have a lower rate of response. Agri income and job

promotion were the economic benefits that got the lowest response. Appendix Q depicts

the uncommon economic benefits.

Based on the analysis conducted, job promotion by users (5 counts, 3 cases, 15%

of users) and focus group (9 counts, 3 cases, 30% of focus groups), and agricultural

income by focus groups (14 counts, 4 cases, 40% of the focus groups) and users (4

counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) were identified as low rated economic benefits obtained

from the centers. Agri income was also listed as a low rated economic benefit of ICT by

non-users (4 counts, 3 cases, 15% of non-users).

In relation to the community ICT centers, the lowest economic benefits

recognized were job promotion (LA, DH & KY), and general income (KY and TK ).

Uncommon Educational Benefits

Acquiring general knowledge at the services of the centers was noted relatively

low rated educational benefit by users (10 counts, 8 cases, 40% of users), focus group

participants (11 counts, 3 cases, 30% of focus groups) and non-users (5 counts, 5

cases, 25% of non-users). See Appendix Q for table of the uncommon educational

benefits.


145

Conducting distance education was the other low rated educational benefit of the

community ICT centers as analyzed from data of users (4 counts, 2 case, 10% of users)

and focus groups (2 counts, 2 cases, 20% of focus groups).

The other lowest benefits identified in relation to the community ICT centers were

distance education (LA & YY), general knowledge (TK), and scholarship (TK & YY).

Uncommon Health Benefits

Low rated health benefit obtained from the centers was health improvement by

user (5 counts, 4 cases, 20% of users) and focus groups (1 count, 1 case, 10% of focus

groups). While health improvement was recognized by KY, YY, TK community centers,

health facility was identified by only KY community ICT center. See Appendix Q for a

table that depicts the uncommon health benefits.

Uncommon General Benefits

All the general benefits identified in this research were found to be commonly

shared by all except that ICT access was not part of the general benefits noted by TK

community ICT center. See Appendix Q for a table that depicts the uncommon general

benefits.

Difference Between Individuals’ Perceptions

By design the research has implemented maximum diversity strategy and as a

result, ICT centers and research participants represent diversity. Consequently,

perceptions of research participants were expected to vary. Major factors observed during

the study that influenced the various perceptions observed were: location of the center,

demography of users (work status, age, education), and computer skill.


146

Location of the Community ICT Center

The centers were located in different regions of the country which has a great

impact on their influence on the users and community around the centers. Three centers

were found to be the only places with ICT access availability. The users of these centers

have benefited better than the other centers where there was an access alternatives. One

center that was located around cotton producer pastoralists was used for searching market

information to export cotton. Hence, the difference of perceptions on the benefits of


Demography of Users

The participants of the research had a great variety in work status, age, and

education. Some of the participants were unemployed and some employed. As a result,

the purpose of using the services of the center varied whether the user was an employ or

not. While, employees were using the center for acquiring information related to their

work and office obligations, unemployed ones used the system essentially in search of

job vacancy. Some elders were using the center to reach distant family members and

relatives in the country and abroad, whereas youth were using the center to download

music and videos for entertainment. However, students were using the center to get

reference materials for their studies and in search of scholarships and distance education.

Therefore, demography of users influenced the purpose and use of the center and resulted

divergent view on the benefits of community ICT center.


147

Computer Skill

Computer skill was another major factor in the use of the center. Those research

participants who had relatively better computer skill were using the centers service in

particular the internet to help their purpose. But some, who did not have the skill to

browse the internet, could not benefit much from the center. Hence, a difference in

perception also emanated from users difference in computer skill.

Cross Case Analysis

The cross case analysis demonstrated that all ICT centers exhibited several

benefits to individuals and communities living around the centers. All centers had similar

ICT equipment and nearly provide same kind of services. However, the kind and degree

of the benefits they provided was varied.

The variety and depth of benefits at LA community ICT center was much higher

than the other centers in depth of the benefits users of the centers got. YY community

ICT center followed next to LA community ICT center and then KY community ICT

center. DH and TK youth community ICT centers trail behind the three centers. The first

three centers were unique access centers in the area. Dependency of users on the centers

and impact of the center on users was comparatively high. Prior to the operation of the

centers, communities of the three centers were travelling to nearby towns for ICT access.

As a result, they witnessed noticeable levels of benefits after the opening of the centers.

In all the community ICT centers, affordability & the resulting saving was the

highest perceived economic benefit obtained from the ICT centers. Employment

opportunity was also perceived as the other highest economic benefit by interviewed


148

users of all community ICT centers. The lowest economic benefits identified were job

promotion (LA, DH & KY ICT centers), and general income (KY, DH and TK youth ICT

center).

Cross case comparison was also done by employing the features of WordStat 6.1,

the result essentially confirmed the analysis and conclusions made. The result is

represented in Figure 52 where the size of the circle represents the magnitude of

participant responses.

Figure 52. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on economic benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was also

done on the economic output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters

showed that LA and YY community ICT centers belong to one group and KY, DH, and


149

TK youth community ICT centers to another based on the similarity they exhibited on

economic benefits.

Regarding educational benefits, in all the community ICT centers, computer

literacy and skill was perceived as the highest educational benefit obtained from the ICT

centers. General knowledge was the second highest benefit of the centers per the response

of all the interviewed users of the centers. The other lowest benefits identified were

distance education (LA & YY community ICT centers), general knowledge (TK youth

community ICT center), and scholarship (TK youth & YY community ICT centers).

The result of cross case comparison by WordStat 6.1 is depicted in Figure 53

illustrating the comparison of all centers on educational benefits.

Figure 53. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on educational benefits.


150

The highest number of educational benefits (4) of ICT was identified by non users

of YY and KY community ICT centers and lowest number of educational benefits (3)

was identified by TK youth and LA community ICT centers. However, DH community

ICT center identified three educational benefits of ICT.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was also

done on the educational output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two

clusters showed that LA youth community ICT center belonged to one group and

remaining centers to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on educational

benefits.

In all the community ICT centers, health knowledge and skill was found out to be

the highest perceived health benefit obtained from the ICT centers. While health

improvement was the second highest benefit identified by three centers (KY, TK, and YY

community ICT centers), health facility was identified by only one community ICT

center (KY community ICT center).

Only the focus group discussion at one center (DH community ICT center)

identified three health benefits while focus group at KY and LA community ICT centers

identified two health benefits. YY and TK youth community ICT centers identified only

one health benefit.

Cross case comparison was also done by employing WordStat 6.1; the result

augments the analysis and conclusions made. The result is represented in Figure 54.


151

Figure 54. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on health benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was done on

the health output and impact benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters showed

that LA, DH, TK and YY community ICT centers belonged to one group and KY

community ICT center, to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on health

benefits.

The two general benefits recognized by all the community ICT center of the study

were access and secretarial services. One community ICT center (KY) identified six

general benefits of community ICT center. While the community ICT center of DH and

YY recognized five of the benefits, LA community ICT center perceived four and TK

youth community ICT center came with three general benefits.

While three general benefits of ICT was identified by non users of community

ICT centers of LA, KY, DH, and YY, TK youth community ICT center identified 2

general benefits. Communication and secretarial services was identified by all centers,


152

whereas access was expected benefit by all community ICT centers non-users except TK


Cross case comparison was also done by employing WordStat 6.1, and the result

is represented in Figure 55.

Figure 55. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on general benefits.

By employing the features of WordStat 6.1, clustering of the centers was done on

the general benefits of the centers. The result of two clusters indicated that DH and YY

community ICT centers belonged to one group and LA, KY, and TK youth community

ICT centers to another group based on the similarity they exhibited on general benefits.

Five general benefits of ICT were identified by non users of LA, YY and DH

community ICT centers. While TK youth community ICT center identified 4 general

benefits, KY community ICT center identified 3 benefits. However, a secretarial service

was identified by 3 centers (LA, DH, and YY community ICT centers).


153

Overall, when viewed through the lens of Heeks’s (2002) ICT model, although

the centers exhibited varied effect, this research showed that the analysis of benefit

perceptions of all five centers demonstrated that ICT can have a role on poverty.

Summary of the Findings

Chapter 4 reviewed the findings obtained by the researcher during field studies

and site visits made at LA, KY, DH, TK, and YY community ICT centers to explore the

use of ICT in addressing poverty reduction. The five community ICT centers used

various forms of ICT technology to provide services aimed at supporting the users and

communities around the centers in their quest for information and services that influenced

their daily life. Although the centers are located on varied environment, similar ICTs and

services are provided in all centers.

For this multiple case qualitative study, the researcher used published literature;

observation field notes; focus group discussions, interviews of users and non users of the

community ICT centers on the impact of ICT. Important issues and themes were

identified in the findings of this study by analyzing the perception of research

participants.

A noticeable difference between the community ICT centers was the diversity of

the areas of operation, kind of owners and the purpose and use of the services provided at

the centers. At LA community ICT center the owners and managers of the center are

pastoralists who started to grow mainly cotton and use the center as a tool to get

information to export their agricultural product which can have a direct impact on their

living by getting better price for their product. As the center is the only one in the


154

heartland of the desert area of LA, the availability of access in the area has brought an

immediate impact on their life. Had it not been for the center, time, finance, and energy

could have been wasted in search of ICT services as it used to be prior to the opening of

the center.

In contrast, TK community ICT center is located at the heart of the capital city,

Addis Ababa and level and depth of influence on the user’s life is limited as there are

other alternatives of ICT access and communication. A consequence of this reality may

have been that the impact of TK youth community ICT center to the life of the user does

not appear to be as powerful as LA community ICT center in the scope of ICT

influencing poverty.

Next to LA community ICT center, YY and KY community ICT centers appear to

have great influence in addressing poverty by virtue of being unique centers of their kind

to provide ICT service to users and community around. When viewed as a continuum

across location from remote to capital city, the remote centers showed a greater benefit

for users of the center and community.

As a result, the findings of the research revealed that ICT has an impact on

poverty and specifically on economic, educational, and health status of individuals. The

study supported and complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided

the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda.

The multiple case study conducted based on reports, observation notes, and

transcripts of interviews and focus group discussions obtained in this qualitative case

study, supports the following conclusions:


155

1. The community ICT centers were active with the focus of providing Internet

and local network access and secretarial services to communities living near

the centers and not local content programs.

2. Most centers served multiple functions as community resource centers.

3. Location of the center for the community greatly affected the use of ICT. The

center itself should be easily accessible to provide access.

4. All centers demonstrate varied level of economic, educational, health, and

general benefits.

5. In all the community ICT centers, employment opportunity, affordability &

saving were the highest perceived economic benefits of the centers.

6. In all the community ICT centers, computer literacy and skill was perceived as

the highest educational benefit obtained from the ICT centers.

7. In all the community ICT centers, health knowledge and skill was found out to

be the highest perceived health benefit obtained from the ICT centers.

8. The two general benefits identified by all the community ICT centers of the

study were ICT access and secretarial services.

9. Comparatively, all effective centers were located in remote and small town

settings. As a result, the impact of TK youth community ICT center to the life

of the user does not appear to be as powerful as LA community ICT center in

the scope of ICT influencing poverty.

10. The community ICT centers role on poverty was the result of multiple factors.


156

11. The centers complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided

the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda.

As a concluding remark, each community ICT center in this multiple case study

has demonstrated benefits of using the center which have an influence in the daily life of

the users. However, individual centers benefit were influenced by factors unique to each

of the centers. That is to say, factors that were related to location, demography of users,

computer skill, communication diffusion, and local contents in each center had their

imprints on the outcome and impact of community ICT centers.

157

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.

To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention was considered as applied to community

ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user community.

Data examined and analyzed during the study provided answers to the research questions

and underscored specific strategies used to improve the impact of ICT on poverty. The

study addresses the following questions:

1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT centers



addressing poverty?

3. What is the difference between individuals’ perception on the use and benefits

of community ICT center in addressing poverty?

This chapter presents a summary and discussion of the results, the conclusions,

and implications of ICT on poverty. The chapter ends with recommendations to include

further research and suggestions to improve the results of the study.


158

Summary

This study explored five community ICT centers in view of examining the

consequence and impact of ICT on the user community. Chapter 1 introduces the problem

and the need of research on the role of ICT on poverty. Chapter 2 contains the literature

review related to ICT and development and provided assessment of current literature on

the effects of IT on poverty. Chapter 3 contains the methodology, including the research

procedure, collection of data, and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presented and discussed

the result of data collection.

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 detailed the need for more research on the role of ICT on poverty.

Chapter 1 also documented the several researches that have been conducted on the

importance of ICT to development and the relation between ICT and poverty. Three

research questions presented the problem to be studied. Significance of the study,

limitations of the study and conceptual framework was also explained.

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 presented the Literature Review. In Chapter 2, the researcher provided a

review of literatures related to ICT, development, and poverty. In this chapter, the

researcher analyzed literatures that discuss the impact of telecenter as related to

community development and outlined an assessment of the current literature. The

findings gathered from Chapter 2 provided comprehensive literature and references on

the role of ICT on poverty and the effect of community ICT centers on communities.


159

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 provided the methodology for the research study. The researcher used a

qualitative multiple case study to explore the effectiveness of ICT on poverty based on

users’ perception. According to Gall et al. (2003), ―Researchers generally do case studies

for one of three purposes: to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop

possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenomenon‖ (p. 439). The focus of study

was on 5 community ICT centers located in several parts of Ethiopia that were

operational for at least a year. Data was collected from focus group discussions,

interviews, direct observations, and documents at the community ICT centers.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 presented a detailed description of the five community ICT centers and

analysis of the themes that emerged from the cases. In this chapter, a synthesis of the

findings of the five cases was presented in the context of each of the three research

questions and cross case analysis was finally dealt.

Findings and Related Conclusions

The conceptual models that guided this qualitative multiple case study were

comprised of the models developed by Heeks (2002), Torero and von Braun (2006), the

input-process-output contingency model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005) and E. M. Rogers’s

(1983) innovation diffusion theory. Overall, the potential and deployment of information

technology as a development tool could be taken as a universally accepted view. However,

researches indicated that ICT as development tool arguably has to encompass broad

arrays of factors beyond technology.


160

This qualitative multiple-case study focussed on ICT intervention as applied to

community ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user

community. For this qualitative case study, the researcher used data from focus group

discussions, interviews, observations, and documents detailing the role of the community

ICT centers and their impact on the communities’ daily life.

Research Question 1

Research question 1 was the core question of the study and yielded the most

complex set of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers in addressing

poverty. Research participants perceived economic, education, health, and general

benefits as common benefits of the community ICT centers. Overall, education and

general benefit were the two most often recognized benefit categories of the community

ICT centers. Research participants underscored the value of the community ICT centers

on supporting their educational needs in various forms.

The researcher expected that computer skill and distance education would be the

most important benefit of the community ICT centers. In congruence to the expectation,

computer literacy and skill was the most often cited benefit of the centers. However, the

community ICT centers had registered low benefit on distance education.

During the coding process, 178 subcategories emerged. After multiple coding

were done manually by employing QDA Miner 3.2 and by automated coding system of

Word Stat 6.1, no new codes became apparent. Finally, the codes were grouped following

the research design into thematic groups. Figure 56 displays the researcher’s construction

of the benefits of the community ICT centers.


161


Economic Social

General

Income

Agricultural

income

Employment

Distance

Learning

Computer basic

skills

Education Health

Healthfacilities

Health Improvement

Foreign languages

Knowledge and Skill

General

Knowledge

Scholarship

Schooling

Support Saving

Job

PromotionSecretarial

Services

communication

Access

General

Benefits

Figure 56. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings.

Summary of Thematic Groups

Educational Benefit

As noted earlier, research participants recognized educational benefit as one of the

highest benefits of the community ICT centers. Educational benefits included computer

skill, school education improvement, distance education, general knowledge, and

scholarship.

Computer literacy and skill appeared to be the highest recognized educational

benefits of the ICT centers. Similar to the finding of this research, other researchers have

demonstrated that public access to ICT use has led to increase in IT knowledge and

aspirations (Bailey, 2009; Best et al., 2007; Fedotova, 2008; Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer,


162

2006). However, researcher unexpected the benefits of the community ICT centers in

terms of the link they had with schools. The support given to school education appeared

as the second highest commonly perceived educational benefit of the ICT centers.

Another interesting finding was the fact that users got an opportunity of scholarship by

using the services of the centers. Thus, effective community ICT centers provided

educational services that benefited the users and the community in the vicinity of the


General Benefit

Similar to educational benefit, general benefit was the other highest benefit of the

community ICT centers recognized by research participants. The three general benefits

were access, communication and secretarial services. Effective community ICT centers

provide general services to the community around the community ICT centers.

While ICT access was the highest general benefit of the center, communication

was the second highest general benefit of the center. As explained by Whyte (2000)

telecenters are looked at as fast and cost effective ways to provide marginalized

communities with access to telecommunications and information resources. Another

interesting finding the researcher did not expect was the impact of the secretarial services

provided at the centers. Users recognized that the community ICT centers had made a

difference by providing secretarial services.

Economic Benefit

Economic benefits were noted as important benefit obtained from the community

ICT centers. The five economic benefits of the centers were saving, employment, agri


163

income, job promotion and general income. Affordability of the services and the resulting

saving obtained appeared as the highest economic benefit of the ICT centers.

Employment emerged as the second most recognized economic benefit of the centers.

General income, job promotion and agri income also appeared as economic benefits of

the community ICT centers. Similar to this research, Fedotova (2008) found that

participants believed that the IT skills they had acquired would help in their job search,

and some felt it would help them to gain a promotion. Moreover, Best et al. (2007)

reported that eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of the skills they gained at the

computer center.

Health Benefit

The three identified health benefits of the centers were health improvement,

knowledge and skill, and health facility. Getting knowledge and skill about health was

the most recognized health benefit of the community ICT centers. Related to this finding,

Ashraf et al. (2008) indicated that in a telecenter project in Bangladesh community

members gained knowledge on basic hygiene practices.

While health facility was the other health benefit obtained by using the centers,

health improvement fell far behind the recognized health benefits. Overall, the least

valued benefits of the community ICT centers were found to be their impact on health

benefits.

Research Question 2

While computer training provided at the community ICT centers got the highest

valued service, secretarial service was recognized as the second highest valued service of


164

the community ICT centers. On the other hand, Internet services provided at the

community ICT centers was found as the least important valued service. However, the

respondents expressed that it was not the value of the internet service but the availability

of the service and other capacity of usage of the internet that turned it to be low valued.

Binding & scanning services provided were also on the low valued list of services.

In terms of the importance of ICT equipments/technologies available at the

community ICT centers, computer as an IT technological devise got the highest valued IT

technology. In contrast, fax as an IT technological devise at the community ICT centers

got the lowest valued IT technology.

Research Question 3

The third research question addressed the difference between individuals’

perception on the use and benefits of community ICT center in addressing poverty.

Uncommon Benefits

While the two economic benefits that got low recognition by research participants

were agri income and job promotion, acquiring general knowledge at the services of the

centers was noted as low rated educational benefit. Conducting distance education was

the other low rated educational benefit of the community ICT centers. The other low

rated benefit from the community ICT center was health improvement for health benefits.

Causes for the Diverse Perceptions on the Benefits of Community ICT Centers

Major factors observed during the study that influenced the various perceptions of

research participants were: location of the center, demography of users (work status, age,

education), and computer skill.


165

Location of the community ICT center. The centers were located in different

regions of the country which has a great impact of their influence on the users and

community around the centers. Three centers were found to be the only places for ICT

access. The users of these centers have benefited better than the other centers where there

was an access alternatives. One center that was located around cotton producer

pastoralists was used for searching market information to export cotton. Hence, the

difference of perceptions on the benefits of community ICT centers.

Demography of users. The participants of the research had a great diversity in

work status, age, and education. Some of the participants were unemployed and some

employed. While, employees were using the center for acquiring information related to

their work and office obligations, unemployed used the system essentially in search of

job vacancy. Some elders were using the center to reach distant family members and

relatives in the country and abroad, whereas youth were using the center to download

music and videos for entertainment. However, students were using the center to get

reference materials for their studies and in search of scholarships and distance education.

Therefore, demography of users influenced the purpose and use of the center and resulted

divergent view on the benefits of community ICT center.

Computer skill. Computer skill was another major factor in the use of the center.

Those research participants who had relatively better computer skill were using the

centers service in particular the internet to help their purpose. But some, who did not

have the skill to browse the internet, could not benefit much from the center. Hence, a

difference in perception also emanated from users difference in computer skill.


166

Conclusions

Maximum diversity strategy was implemented in this research and as a result, ICT

centers and research participants represent diversity. Consequently, perceptions of

research participants were expected to vary. Major factors observed during the study that

influenced the various perceptions observed were: location of the center, demography of

users (work status, age, education), and computer skill.

The five community ICT centers who were the subject of this research used

various forms of ICT technology to provide services aimed at supporting the users and

communities around the centers in their quest for information and services that influenced

their daily life. Although the centers are located on varied environment, similar ICTs and

services are provided in all centers. ITU (2009) has identified lack of connectivity and the

cost of access as obstacles to access to information for the developing world. Furthermore

other studies have shown that access to information through telecommunications can

facilitate many development activities including agriculture, commerce, education, and

health care (Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Sebusang & Masupe, 2003). The finding of this study

also adds to the declared view as the availability of the ICT access and services at the

community ICT centers has demonstrated positive developmental influence.

Pott (2003) argued that in order to contribute to development, the creation of

telecenters had to be connected to the existing community organizations and initiatives.

In line with this thought, all the community ICT centers were linked to community

association which was one of the reasons for the community members to use ICT.


167

A noticeable difference observed between the community ICT centers was the

diversity of the areas of operation, kind of owners and the purpose and use of the services

provided at the centers. Furthermore, when viewed as a continuum across location from

remote to capital city, the remote centers showed a greater benefit for the users. However,

each community ICT center in this multiple case study has demonstrated benefits of

using the center which have an influence in the daily life of the users. This finding is

inconformity to the research conducted by Soriano (2007), which indicated positive

implications of telecenters on economic, social, and human aspects of rural poverty.

In addition, Benjamin’s (2000) causal chain of telecenters impact on development

was also demonstrated by this research:

telecenters → access to ICTs → provide services → assist development (Benjamin)

telecenters → access to ICTs → Computer training → Employment & or job

promotion (Current research)

telecenters → access to ICTs → Internet → Scholarship/export (Current research)

Overall, individual centers benefits were influenced by factors unique to each of

the centers. That is to say, factors that were related to location, demography of users,

computer skill, communication diffusion, and local contents in each center had their

imprints on the outcome and impact of community ICT centers.

In conclusion, the findings of the research revealed that ICT has an impact on

poverty and specifically on economic, educational, and health status of individuals. The

study supported and complemented the notion that ICT can influence poverty provided

the purpose and use of the technology is integrated with development agenda (Harris,


168

2002; Heeks, 2002). In effect, this research upholds the combined view of the middle-

ground view that declares that if ICTs are applied appropriately, it can play a role in the

development of a nation (Soeftestad & Sein, 2003) and Heeks’s (2002) position B, which

views the types of impacts associated with technological change as both good and bad,

and which sees society rather than technological factors as primary determinants of

outcomes.

Implications of the Research Findings

The following implications are recommendations for maximizing the benefits of

community ICT centers:

1. Effective community ICT centers provide services that have great demand by

the community around them. The community ICT centers must deliver services

by identifying the gap on ICT services demand by community which lies

within the scope of the centers service provision.

2. Effective community ICT centers serve multiple functions for the community.

3. Effective community ICT centers are located at the heart of their user

community. The centers should be easily accessible to provide an ICT access.

4. Effectiveness of community ICT centers are demonstrated in various forms. The

most notable forms of effectiveness are illustrated by economic, educational,

health, and general benefits.

5. Effective community ICT centers are instruments of poverty alleviation by

providing services that influence the economic status of the community.

Affordability & saving, employment, job promotion, general income and agri


169

income are forms of economic benefits of the community ICT centers.

6. Effective community ICT centers demonstrate educational benefits to the

community living around the centers. Educational benefits can be in the form

of computer literacy and skill, scholarship, distance education, foreign

language, and school education support.

7. Effective community ICT centers can bring health benefits to the community.

Health knowledge and skill, health facility, and health improvement are health

benefits of the community ICT centers.

8. Effective community ICT centers provide access and secretarial services to the

community.

9. The effectiveness of the community ICT centers are influenced by geographic

location. The centers in remote and small town settings demonstrate higher

impact of ICT on poverty.

10. The effectiveness of community ICT centers on poverty is the result of

multiple factors.

11. Effective community ICT centers are integrated with development agenda to

influence poverty.

Recommendations for Further Study

Based on the findings of this qualitative multiple case study, the following areas

for further study are recommended:

1. Future research should focus on understanding the percentage of beneficiary as

opposed to users of the center and community nearby.


170

2. Other stakeholders might be interviewed with the same interview instrument to

determine if the benefits recognized are similar from other users’ point of view.

3. Since possible reasons for diverse perception of ICT benefits emerged in the

research, an interesting study could be designed to examine the level of

influence of the reasons in the role of ICT on poverty.

4. Future research should include more community ICT centers in different

environmental settings. One such study might be to look at the benefits of ICT

in community ICT centers serving farmers. Would there be similar benefits to

the findings of this research? Would the findings be different had the research

been conducted in private ICT centers?

5. As remote community ICT centers demonstrate higher impact on poverty,

researches that give special emphasis for rural community ICT centers must be

encouraged and given high priority.

6. Finally, results of the present study imply that some benefits of the community

ICT centers were more important than others. A quantitative method can be

used to conduct a survey to rank the level of importance of the community ICT

center benefits. In addition, analysis could be conducted to determine whether

there is correlation between ICT and poverty alleviation intervention.

Reflections of the Researcher

As an instrument of data collection in this multiple case study the researcher was

also a participant in the research process. From this perspective it was necessary for the

researcher to isolate personal feelings, biases, and interpretations during data collection


171

and analysis. A researcher’s observation note was maintained for this purpose. By virtue

of the researcher’s managerial postion, the researcher had a keen curiosity in the theory of

ICT for development and particularly as it relates to poverty allevation. This interest

stems from at least five years of working in high managerial positions of ICT

departments.

In addition, the researcher brought the following assumptions to the study (a) that

data collection will be confined to the individuals and community ICT centers identified

in the study; and (b) the respondents might not provide the correct information which

would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings.

These assumptions remained important through the duration of the study as the

researcher made every effort to ensure the benfits of the cmmunity ICT centers was

adequatedly captured. Furthermore, the hope of the researcher is that the assumptions

possible effect was mitigated through the process of triangulating multiple sources of data

(Creswell, 1998; Yin, 2003).

During the course of this study, the researcher arrived at the realization that the

benefits of ICT are much more dependent on various factors. The analysis of the data for

these five cases made this abundantly clear to the researcher. In view of geographic

positions, community ICT centers located in remote areas had greately affected the life of

users. In addition, the community ICT centers’ success in benefiting the community is not

entirely dependent on the quality of service provided by the centers but it also depends on

computer skill, demography, and status of employment.


172

In a nut shell, the research results of this study support the findings of other

scholars such as Heeks (2002) and Benbunan-Fich et al. (2005), who wrote that ICTs’

impact is influenced by other environmental and institutional factors. Moreover, when

viewed through the lens of Heeks’s ICT model, although the centers exhibited varied

effect, this research showed that the analysis of benefit perceptions of all five centers

demonstrated that ICT can have a role on poverty.

In conclusion, the results of this study will help other researchers study the effects

of ICT on poverty as demonstrated by five community ICT centers. Those who undertake

community ICT centers development program need to know how the centers could turn

to a great resource that have an impact on attacking poverty.

173

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2007). Mobile phones and economic development: Evidence from the

fishing industry in India. Information Technologies & International Development, 4(1), 5–17.

Aichholzer, G. (2004). Scenarios of e-Government in 2010 and implications for strategy

design. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(1), 1–10. Retrieved from

http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idIssue=4

Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information

society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 2(3), 4–

22. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=196

Ashraf, M., Swatman, P., & Hanisch, J. (2008, June). An extended framework to investigate ICT impact on development at the micro (community) level. Paper

presented at 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland.

Badshah, A., Khan, S., & Garrido, M. (Eds.). (2005). Connected for development: Information kiosks and sustainability (ICT Task Force Series 4). New York, NY:

Secretariat of the United Nations ICT Task Force.

Bailey, A. (2009). Issues affecting the social sustainability of telecentres in developing

contexts: A field study of sixteen telecentres in Jamaica. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 36(4), 1–18.

Bailur, S. (2007). Using stakeholder theory to analyze telecenter projects. Information Technologies & International Development, 3(3), 61–80.

Batchelor, S., Scott, N., & Woolnough, D. (2005). Good practice paper on ICTs for

economic growth and poverty reduction. Journal of Development Assistance Committee, 6(3), 27–95.

Beardon, H. (with Munyampeta, F., Rout, S., & Williams, G. M.). (2005). ICT for development: Empowerment or exploitation? London, England: Action Aid.

Retrieved from http://www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/ICTpo.pdf

Bedi, A. S. (1999). The role of information and communication technologies in economic development (ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 7). Retrieved

from http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/downloads/zef_dp/zef_dp7-99.pdf


174

Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning

model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. In S. R. Hiltz

& R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Benjamin, P. (2000). Telecentre 2000 report: Literature review. Johannesburg, South

Africa: University of Witswatersrand.

Best, M., Kolko, B., Thakur, D., & Aitieva, M. (2007). Assessment of economic growth impacts of the eCenters Project in Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved from

http://mikeb.inta.gatech.edu/uploads/papers/Kyrgyzstan.eCenters.pdf

Best, M., & Kumar, R. (2008). Sustainability failures of rural telecenters: Challenges

from Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) Project. Information Technologies and International Development, 4(4), 31–45.

Best, M., & Maclay, C. (2002). Community Internet access in rural areas: Solving the

economic sustainability puzzle. In The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the networked world. Cambridge, MA: Centre for

International Development, Harvard University.

Best, M., & Maier, S. (2007). Gender and ICT use in rural South India. Gender Technology and Development, 11(2), 137–155.

Bjärhov, M. (2006). Mobile against poverty. Telecommunications [International Ed.],

40(11), 34–36.

Colle, R. D. (2005). Memo to telecentre planners. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 21(1), 1–13.

Colle, R. D., & Roman, R. (2001). Telecenters for rural development: Critical

perspectives and visions for the future. Journal of Development Communications, 12(2).

Colle, R. D., & Roman, R. (2002). Handbook for telecenter staffs. Retrieved from

http://ip.cals.cornell.edu/commdev/handbook.cfm

Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Information and communication technologies in development: The role of ICTs in EC development policy

(Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European

Parliament). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/

com2001_0770en01_en.pdf

Conradie, D. P., & Jacobs, S. J. (2003, February). Challenges encountered when using

ICTs in support of development in rural African communities. Engineering Management, 30–33.


175

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department for International Development (DFID). (2001). Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets. London, England: Author.

Department for International Development (DFID). (2002). The significance of information and communication technologies for reducing poverty. Retrieved

from http://www.digitale-chancen.de/transfer/downloads/MD369.pdf

Dhingra, A., & Misra, D. C. (2005). Information needs assessment model (INAM) for

identifying the information needs of rural communities. Information Technologies and International Development, 2(2), 77-78.

Donner, J. (2007). The use of mobile phones by microentrepreneurs in Kigali, Rwanda:

Changes to social and business networks. Information Technologies & International Development, 3(2), 3–19.

Doshi, K., & Gollakota, K. (n.d.). Diffusion of technological innovation in rural areas.

Retrieved from http://worldbenefit.case.edu/global-forum/file/Doshi/Doshi%20

Gollakota.pdf

Duncombe, R. A. (2001). Information, technology, and small, medium and micro enterprise development in Botswana. Doctoral dissertation, Institute for

Development Policy and Management, Botswana, Malawi.

Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. England: Oxford

University Press.

Engels, P. (1997). The social organization of innovation: A focus on stakeholder interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute.


176

Ernberg, J., & International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (1998, October).

Integrated rural development and universal access—Towards a framework for evaluation of multipurpose community telecentre pilot projects implemented by ITU and its partners. Paper presented at Partnerships and Participation in

Telecommunications for Rural Development: Exploring What Works and Why

Conference, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Ethiopian Information and Communication Technology Development Agency (EICTDA)

(2009). Community ICT centers in Ethiopia: ICT assisted development project management unit (PMU). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.

Etta, F. E., & Parvyn-Wamahiu, S. (2003). The experience with community telecentres (Information and Communication Technologies for Development in Africa, Vol.

2). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2008). Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census. New York, NY: United Nations Population

Fund.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2009). National information and communication technology policy and strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Author.

Fedotova, E. (2008). E‐skills: Catalyst to opportunity. Baltic IT&T Review, 3. Retrieved

from http://www.ebaltics.com/00705601

Fillip, B., & Dennis, F. (2007). Making the connection: Scaling telecenters for development. Retrieved from http://connection.aed.org/index.htm

Franklin, M. (2006). Suggested best practice for pursuing development and poverty

reduction through national ICT strategies. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 31(4), 85–104.

Fuchs, R. (1997). If you have a lemon, make lemonade: A guide to the start-up of the African multipurpose community telecentre pilot projects. Retrieved from

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/15772/10848007181If_you_have_a_lemon_ma

ke_a_lemonade.pdf/If%2Byou%2Bhave%2Ba%2Blemon%2Bmake%2Ba%2Ble

monade.pdf

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction

(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gomez, R., & Hunt, P. (1999). Telecentre evaluation: A global perspective. Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/univ_access/telecentres/papers/guelph.html



http://connection.aed.org/index.htm


177

Gomez, R., Hunt, P., & Lamoureux, E. (1999). Focus on telecentres: How can they

contribute to social development? Latin American Review of Communication, 1,

1–8.

Gomez, R., & Martinez, J. (2001). The Internet . . .Why? And what for? Thoughts on information and communication technologies for development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development

Research Centre & Fundacion Accesso.

Gomez, R., & Reilly, K. (2002). Comparing approaches: Telecentre evaluation

experiences in Asia and Latin America. International Information and Library Review, 34(1), 57–78.

Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital

divide. First Monday, 8(12).

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods (Qualitative Research

Methods Series, Vol. 32). London, England: Sage.

Harris, R. W. (2002). A framework for poverty alleviation with ICTs. Retrieved from


Harris, R. W. (2004). Information and communication technologies for poverty alleviation. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP)–Asian-Pacific Development Information Program (APDIP).

Hartono, E., Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., & Zhuang, Y. (2003). Key predictors of the

implementation of strategic information systems plans. Special Interest Group of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) on Management Information Systems (SIGMIS) Database, 34(3), 41–53.

Haseloff, A. M. (2005). Cybercafés and their potential as community development tools

in India. The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(3), 53–64.

Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Heeks, R. (1999). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development (Development Informatics Working Paper Series No. 5). Retrieved

from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/

UNPAN015539.pdf

Heeks, R. (2002). i-development not e-development: Special issue on ICTs and

development. Journal of International Development, 14(1), 1–11.


178

Heeks, R. (2003). Most e-government-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced? (iGovernment Working Paper Series No. 14). Retrieved from

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN01548

8.pdf

Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international

development. Computer, 41(6), 26–33.

Heeks, R., & Bhatnagar, S. C. (1999). Understanding success and failure in information

age reform. In R. Heeks (Ed.), Reinventing government in the Information Age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform (pp. 49–74). London,

England: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~subhash/pdfs/

ReinventingGovInInfoAge.pdf

Hudson, H. (2001). Telecentre evaluation: Issues and strategies. In C. Latchem & D.

Walker (Eds.), Telecentres: Case studies and key issues. Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.col.

org/telecentres

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). (1999). Internet for all: The promise of telecentres in Africa (IDRC Briefing 3). Retrieved from http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/

dspace/bitstream/10625/30940/1/114393.pdf

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (1998). World telecommunication development report. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2009). Telecentres. Retrieved from

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/telecentre/index.html

Jacobs, S. J., & Herselman, M. E. (2006). Information access for development: A case

study at a rural community centre in South Africa. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 295–306.Retrieved from http://informingscience.

org/proceedings/InSITE2006/IISITJaco113.pdf

James, J. (2005). Information technology and development. London, England: Routledge.

Jensen, M., & Esterhuysen, A. (2001). The community telecentre cookbook for Africa: Recipes for self-sustainability: How to establish a multipurpose community telecentre in Africa (Report No. CI-2001/W/S/2). Paris, France: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Kanfi, S., & Tulus, F. (1998). Telecentres. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International

Development Research Centre.

Kelles-Viitanen, A. (2003). The role of ICT in poverty reduction. Retrieved from

http://www.etla.fi/files/895_FES_03_1_role_of_ict.pdf


179

Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1990). The social construction of technology. In D. MacKenzie &

J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp.113–115). Philadelphia,

PA: Open University Press.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus group interviews: A practical guide for applied research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups (Focus Group Kit 3).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kumar, R. (2004). eChoupals: A study on the financial sustainability of village Internet

centers in rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies and International Development, 1(3), 45–73.

Kumar, R., & Best, M. (2006). Social impact and diffusion of telecenter use: A study

from the sustainable access in rural India project. The Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3, Special Iss.). Available from http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/

en/Publication.3544.html

Kuriyan, R., Ray, I., & Toyama, K. (2008). Information and communication technologies

for development: The bottom of the pyramid model in practice. The Information Society, 24(2), 93–104.

Kuriyan, R., & Toyama, K. (2007). Review of research on rural PC kiosks. Retrieved

from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/india/projects/ruralkiosks/

Kiosks%20Research.doc

Kuriyan, R., Toyama, K., & Ray, I. (2005). Integrating social development and financial sustainability: The social and political challenges of kiosks. Available at

http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Publication.3541.html

Labelle, R. (2005). ICT policy formulation and e-strategy development: A comprehensive guidebook (UNDP-APDIP ICT4D Series). New Delhi, India: Elsevier.

Latchem, C., & Walker, D. (2001). Perspectives on distance education: Telecentres: Case studies and key issues. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:

Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/

PublicationDocuments/pub_PS_Telecentres_complete.pdf

Lengyel, G., Eranusz, E., Füleki, D., Lőrincz, L., & Siklós, V. (2006). The Cserénfa

experiment: On the attempt to deploy computers and Internet in a small

Hungarian village. The Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3, Special Iss.).

Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2008). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. London, England: Sage.


180

Madon, S. (2005). Governance lessons from the experience of telecenters in Kerala.

European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 401–416.

Mahan, A., & Misnikov, Y. (2004). Introduction: Basic principles from lessons learned. In A. Mahan (Ed.), How to build open information societies: A collection of best practices and know-how. Bratislava, Slovak Republic: United Nations

Development Programme & Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent

States.

Malloy, T. K. (2005). Cybercafes from Cyberia to the Phlegmatic Dog. World and I, 20(1).

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th

ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marshall, S., Taylor, W., & Yu, X. (2003). Closing the digital divide: Transforming regional economies and communities with information technology. London,

England: Praeger.

McNamara, K. S. (2000, March/April). Why be wired? The importance of access to

ICTs. TechKnowLogia. Retrieved from http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_

Articles/PDF/87.pdf

McNamara, K. S. (2003). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development: Learning from experience. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/

en/Document.17.PDF

Mercer, C. (2006). Telecentres and transformations: Modernizing Tanzania through the

Internet. African Affairs,105(419), 243–264.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. (2006). The unpredictable mobile phone. BT Technology Journal, 24(3), 41–

48.

Mncube, S. S. (2003). The role of information in development. Midrand, South Africa: Development Bank of Southern Africa.


181

Moodley, S. (2005). The promise of e-development? A critical assessment of the state

ICT for poverty reduction discourse in South Africa. Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, 4(1), 1–26.

Mukerji, M. (2008). Telecentres in rural India: Emergence and a typology. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 35, 1–13.

Munyua, H. (2000). Information and communication technologies for rural development

and food security: Lessons from field experiences in developing countries. CAB

International, Africa Regional Centre.

Ngwenyama, O., Andoh-Baidoo, F. K., Bollou, F., & Morawczynski, O. (2006). Is there

a relationship between ICT, health, education and development? An empirical

analysis of five West African countries from 1997-2003. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 23, 1–11.

Nulens, G. (2000). Information technology in Africa: The policy of the World Bank. In

C. Avgerou & G. Walsham (Eds.), Information technology in context: Studies from the perspective of developing countries (pp. 61, 451–471). Aldershot,

England: Ashgate.

O’Farrell, C., Norrish, P., & Scott, A. (n.d.). Information and communication technologies for sustainable livelihoods: Preliminary study, April–Nov 1999.

Retrieved from http://www.reading.ac.uk/idc/researchfiles/ICTBreifingDoc%20

Mar00.PDF

Opiyo, R. O., & K’Akumu, O. A. (2006). ICT application in the informal sector: The

case of the Kariokor market MSE cluster in Nairobi. Urban Forum, 17(3), 241–

261.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1998). The OECD definition of the ICT sector. Paris, France: Author.

Pade, C., Mallinson, B., & Lannon, J. (2005). The use of information and communication

technologies for rural development and poverty alleviation in developing

countries: An investigation of gender specific agricultural development. The Southern African Journal of Information and Communication, 6, 4–21.

Panos. (2002). Panos mini-briefings on ICTs-enabled communication strategies for social change. London, England: Author.

Parkinson, S., & Lauzon, A. C. (2008). The impact of the Internet on local social equity:

A study of a telecenter in Aguablanca, Colombia. Information Technologies & International Development, 4(3), 21–38.


182

Parkinson, S., & Ramirez, R. (2006). Using a sustainable livelihoods approach to

assessing the impact of ICTs in development. The Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3), 116–127.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London,

England: Sage.

Pedrelli, M. (2001). Developing countries and the ICT revolution: Final study. Retrieved

from http://www.euresearch.ch/media/IST_STOA_Dev_Countries_en_2000.pdf

Pott, A. (2003). Rural development and the flow of information: Do ICTs have a role?

Master’s thesis, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, England.

Proenza, F. J. (n.d.). Telecentre sustainability—Myths and opportunities. Retrieved from

http://www.e-forall.org/pdf/TelecenterSustainability.pdf

Proenza, F. J., Bastidas-Buch, R., & Montero, G. (2001). Telecenters for socioeconomic and rural development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC:

Inter-American Development Bank.

Rajalekshmi, K. G. (2007). E-governance services through telecenters: The role of human

intermediary and issues of trust. Information Technologies & International Development, 4(1), 19–35.

Ramirez, R., & Richardson, D. (2005). Measuring the impact of telecommunication

services on rural and remote communities. Telecommunications Policy, 29(4),

297–319.

Rangaswamy, N., & Toyama, K. (2005, July). Sociology of ICT: The myth of the hibernating village. Presentation at the 11th Conference on Human-Computer

Interaction, Las Vegas, NV.

Rao, S. S. (2008). Social development in Indian rural communities: Adoption of

telecentres. International Journal of Information Management, 28(6), 474–482.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, H. (2007, July). Telecenter evaluation in the Malaysian context. Presentation at

the Fifth International Conference on Information Technology in Asia, Kuching,

Sarawak, Malaysia.

http://www.euresearch.ch/media/IST_STOA_Dev_Countries_en_2000.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com.library.capella.edu/science/journal/03085961

http://www.sciencedirect.com.library.capella.edu/science/journal/02684012


183

Roman, R. (2003). Diffusion of innovations as a theoretical framework for telecenters.

Information Technologies & International Development, 1(2), 53–66.

Roman, R., & Blattman, C. (2001). Research for telecenter development: Obstacles and

opportunities. Journal of Development Communication, 12(2), 110–123.

Rothenberg-Aalami, J., & Pal, J. (2005). Rural telecenter impact assessments and the political economy of ICT for development (ICT4D) (BRIE Working Paper 164).

Retrieved from http://brie.berkeley.edu/publications/WP%20164revised.pdf

Rubin, H. B., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salvador, T., Sherry, J. W., & Urrutia, A. E. (2005). Less cyber, more café: Enhancing

existing small businesses across the digital divide with ICTs. Information Technology for Development, 11(1), 77–95.

Sebusang, S. E. M., & Masupe, S. (2003). ICT development in Botswana: Connectivity

for rural communities. The Southern African Journal of Information and Communication, 4, 41–51.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. England: Oxford University Press.

Sey, A., & Fellows, M. (2009). Literature review on the impact of public access to ICTs

(CIS Working Paper No. 6). Retrieved from http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/

bitstream/10625/45566/1/132029.pdf

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Siochrú, S. Ó., & Girard, B. (2005). Community‐based networks and innovative technologies: New models to serve and empower the poor. Retrieved from

http://www.propoor-ict.net/content/pdfs/Community_Nets.pdf

Soeftestad, L. T., & Sein, M. K. (2003). ICT and development: East is east and west is

west and the twain may yet meet. In S. Krishna & S. Madon (Eds.), The digital challenge: Information technology in the development context (pp. 63–82).

Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Retrieved from http://www.supras.biz/pdf/supras_

048_ictanddev.pdf

Soriano, C. R. R. (2007). Exploring the ICT and rural poverty reduction link: Community

telecenters and rural livelihoods in Wu’an, China. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 32, 1–15.


184

Stoll, K., Menou, M., Camacho, K., & Khelladi, Y. (2002). Draft: Learning about ICTs’

role in development: A framework toward a participatory, transparent, and continuous process. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International Development

Research Centre.

Talero, E., & Gaudette, P. (1996). Harnessing information for development: A proposal for a World Bank Group strategy (World Bank Discussion Paper No. 313).

Washington, DC: World Bank.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2).

Torero, M., & von Braun, J. (2006). Information and communication technologies for development and poverty reduction: The potential of telecommunications.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Toyama, K., Kiri, K., Menon, D., Pal, J., Sethi, S., & Srinivasan, J. (2005). PC kiosk

trends in rural India. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(3), 317–324.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative validity. Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2007). Information Economy Report 2007-2008: Science and technology for development: The new paradigm of ICT. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2001). Human development report 2001. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/completenew1.pdf

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2007). Telecenter 2.0: Beyond piloting telecenters (Asian-Pacific Development Information Program [APDIP] e-

Note 14). Retrieved from http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/14.pdf

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (n.d.). Tracking the millennium development goals. Retrieved from http://www.mdgmonitor.org/goal1.cfm

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) & Virtual

System Processing. (2006). The socio-economic impacts of ICTs in rural Iran.

Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001497/149778e.pdf

Van Belle, J. P., & Trusler, J. (2006). An interpretivist case study of a South African rural

multipurpose community centre. The Journal of Community Informatics,1(2), 140–157.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/wobadi/313.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/wobadi/313.html


185

Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future

prospects. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 466–480). London, England: Chapman & Hall.

Waverman, L., Meschi, M., & Fuss, M. (n.d.). The impact of telecoms on economic growth in developing countries: The impact of mobile phones. Retrieved from

http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2005/450/L%20Waverman-

%20Telecoms%20Growth%20in%20Dev.%20Countries.pdf

Whyte, A. (2000). Assessing community telecenters: Guidelines for researchers. Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada: International Development Research Center.

Wims, P., & Lawler, M. (2007). Investing in ICTs in educational institutions in

developing countries: An evaluation of their impact in Kenya. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 3(1), 5–22.

Wolfensohn, J., & Bourguignon, F. (2004). Development and poverty reduction: Looking back, looking ahead. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/

Resources/84797-1104785060319/lookingbacklookingahead.pdf

World Bank. (1998). World Bank report. Washington, DC: Author.

World Bank. (2000a). Best practice review of telecentre operations. Washington, DC:

Author.

World Bank. (2000b). World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

World Bank. (2003). ICT and MDGs: A World Bank Group perspective. Retrieved from

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/

2004/09/15/000090341_20040915091312/Rendered/PDF/278770ICT010mdgs0C

omplete.pdf

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2004). Report of the Geneva phase of the World Summit on the Information Society. Retrieved from

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsis/doc/S03-WSIS-DOC-

0009!R1!PDF-E.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:

CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/index.php






186

Zongo, G. (2001). Information and communication technologies for development in Africa: Trends and overview. Turin, Italy: United Nations System Staff College.

187

APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH

Community

ICT Center

TK

Community

ICT Center DH

Community

ICT Center

YY

Community

ICT Center

LA

Community

ICT Center

KY

Type of

Community

Youth Youth, Elders Youth Pastoralists Youth, Elders

Location

within

community

Center Center Center Very close Center

Hours

available to

public

Weekdays 8

AM- 6 PM +

Saturday 8

AM- 12:00

AM

Weekdays 8

AM- 7 PM +

Saturday 8

AM- 12:00 AM

Weekdays 8

AM- 6 PM +

Saturday 8

AM- 12:00

AM

Weekdays 8

AM- 6 PM +

Saturday 8

AM- 12:00

AM

Weekdays 8

AM- 6 PM +

Saturday 8

AM- 12:00

AM

Activity and

Service

Components

Computer

training

Services:

Internet,

email, &

secretarial

services

Computer

training

Services:

internet, email,

& secretarial

services

Computer

training

Services:

Internet,

email, &

secretarial

services

Computer

training

Services:

Internet,

email, &

secretarial

service

Computer

training

Services:

Internet,

email, &

secretarial

services

188

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

1. What is your experience of using the community ICT center services?

2. What is the most valuable service to the community from the services offered by the

community ICT center?

3. What is the most important ICT to the community from the ICTs available in the

community ICT center?

4. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic development of the

community?

5. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational development of the

community?

6. What effect has the community ICT center on the health development of the

community?

189

APPENDIX C. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

(AMHARIC VERSION)

190

APPENDIX D. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT

CENTER USER

Research topic: Effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on

poverty: Exploring the perception of users of community ICT centers in Ethiopia on the

effectiveness of the centers in addressing poverty alleviation: A qualitative study

Community ICT center:

Time of interview:

Date:

Place:

Research: The purpose of the study is to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.

ICT intervention will be considered as applied to community ICT centers in view of

examining the consequence and impact on the user community. The findings of the study

will lay a foundation for future research that will show the relationship of ICT and

poverty alleviation. By understanding the factors that influence the use of ICT, models

could be developed that assist for improving the deployment and the benefit of ICT. In

addition, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive perspective on the role

of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.


191

Section 1: Individual characteristics

1. Residence:__________________________

2. Age: less than 10 years____ 10-20___21-30__31-40___41-50____51-60___over 60

years____

3. Gender: Masculine_____ Feminine____

4. No of family members_______

5. Functionally literate (can you read and write): Yes____ No___ A little___

6. Education level: None____ Pre-primary education___ Primary education____ Lower

secondary____ Upper secondary education_____ Post-secondary____ non-tertiary

education____ First stage of tertiary_____ Second stage of tertiary____

7. Languages: English____ Other(indicate mother tongue)__________

8. Labor force status: Paid employee____ Self-employed____ Unemployed_____

Section 2: Individual use of ICT at the center

1. Describe the facilities/services you used from the community ICT center?

2. What was the purpose of using facilities/services of the community ICT center?

3. In your experience, what benefits did you get from the community ICT center?

4. What would you have done if the community ICT center didn’t exist?

5. Which facilities/services of the community ICT center have the least demand or

unwanted?

6. Before the establishment of the ICT community center, where were you going to get

service of the center?_________ Your means of transport_____ Time required one


192

way_______ Cost of transport (round trip)_____Average time spent away from home on

these trips______

7. How much did you save by using the community ICT center?

Section 3: User perception of Impact

1. In what way has your use of ICT community center changed your life (if at all)?

2. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic activity of the community?

3. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational activity of the

community?

4. What effect has the community ICT center on the health activity of the community?

Thank you for your participation.

193

APPENDIX E. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT CENTER

USER (AMHARIC VERSION)


194


195


196

197

APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER

Section 1: Individual characteristics

1. Residence:__________________________

2. Age: less than 10 years____ 10-20___21-30__31-40___41-50____51-60___over 60

years____

3. Gender: Masculine_____ Feminine____

4. No of family members_______

5. Functionally literate (can you read and write): Yes____ No___ A little___

6. Education level: None____ Pre-primary education___ Primary education____ Lower

secondary____ Upper secondary education_____ Post-secondary____ non-tertiary

education____ First stage of tertiary_____ Second stage of tertiary____

7. Languages: English____ Other(indicate mother tongue)__________

8. Labor force status: Paid employee____ Self-employed____ Unemployed_____

Section 2: Individual view of ICT

1. Have you ever used IT? Yes___ No___ If yes which ICTs were you exposed to?

Telephone Yes___ No___

Fax Yes___ No___

Computer Yes___ No___


198

Internet Yes___ No___

etc

2. What kind of information do you need?

3. What kind of information do you need most? (Could be a follow-up to question no. 2)

4. What kind of information would you like to give to other people?

5. Would you like to learn another language? Yes___ No___ Don’t know___

6. For what purposes do you need ICTs?

7. Do you listen to radio? If yes what do you like most to listen to?

8. If you don’t listen to radio? Why?

9. Do you watch TV? If yes what do you like most to watch?

10. If you don’t why?

11. If you had access to computer what would you use it for?

12. What other sources of information do you use?

13. To which place outside your village do you go most often?

14. Average time spent away from home on these trips?

15. Why do you go there?

16. Would you travel less if you had access to ICTs in your community?

199

APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER

(AMHARIC VERSION)


200


201

202

APPENDIX H. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS

AND USAGE CHARACTERISICS

Table 0-1. Objectives of the Five Community ICT Centers

No

.

Name of the

Center

Objectives of the Center

1 TK

Community

ICT center

Provision of ICT access to the youth and the disadvantaged

Enhance Youth’s involvement on environmental protection

Provision of information on market, Job opportunities,

education, health and environment

2 DH

Community

ICT Center

Enhance access to information about HIV/AIDS and its

impact

Provision of secretarial services, computer training and

ICT services

Provision of reproductive health education and prevention

of the spread of HIV/AIDS

3 YY ICT

Center

Enabling the youth to fill the gap observed in terms of

leisure and entertainment

Enables women to develop their attitude towards the use of

ICT services

Enables the youth to minimize their information gap

thereby facilitate their daily activities

4 LA

Community

ICT Center

Promote agricultural potentials of the cotton plantation

project area

Provide ICT access to the community

Provide access to market information

5 KY Town

Youth

Association

ICT Center

Provide up-to-date information on job opportunity, market,

education and health

Enable the youth be creative and self employed,

Empowering women with the use of ICT

Provide computer training, secretarial and recreational

services


203

Table 0-2. Services Offered and Number of Users (July 2009-June 2010)

No.

Service

Community ICT Centers

DH KY LA Kebena YY

1 Computer

training

80 50 40 80 72

2 Internet

40 31 211

3 Email

43 34 18 43 211

4 Telephone

- 32

5 Photo copy

105 1114 2043 105 1100

6 Typing

55 - 869 55 265

7 Printing

15 484 1106 15 156

8 Binding

58 7 125

9 Scanning

10 212 11 10

10 Lamenting

385

Table 0-3. Demography of Users (July 2009-June 2010)

No. Community ICT Centers

DH KY Kebena YY

1 Gender

Male

146 1302 156 1279

Female

137 1075 142 861

2 Work status

Employed

84 866 90 979

Non-

employed

41 812 42 254

Students

158 699 166 848

Users at the community ICT centers of KY & YYare much higher in number than the

two others. The main reason is that they are the only ICT access in the towns while the


204

other two have other alternatives. LA is also the only unique center at the site but didn’t

have a recorded data of users.

Table 0-4. No. of User and Non-User Research Participants

Community ICT

Centers

User

Participants

Non user

participants

TOTAL

LA

4 4 8

KY

4 4 8

DH

4 4 8

TK

4 4 8

YY

4 4 8

TOTAL

20 20 40

Table 0-5. Educational Background of Participants

VALUE FREQUENCY TOTAL PERCENT

Post-secondary

10 25.00%

First stage of tertiary

8 20.00%

Lower secondary

8 20.00%

Upper secondary

6 15.00%

None

4 10.00%

non-tertiary

2 5.00%

Pre-primary

1 2.50%

Primary

1 2.50%


205

None Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary

Post-secondary non-tertiary First stage of tertiary

ICT CenterLA KY DH TK YY

Cou

nt4

3

2

1

0

Figure 0-1. Educational background of participants.

206

APPENDIX I. EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTS

INTERVIEW OF ICT CENTER USER 1

Section 2: Individual use of ICT at the center

1. Describe the facilities/services you used from the community ICT center?

fax, copier, & secretariat service.

2. What was the purpose of using facilities/services of the community ICT center?

When we deal with sending information to very far places in our office we could

send it quick using these technologies. We do exchange information with people and

offices in Samara about work.

3. In your experience, what benefits did you get from the community ICT center?

Many problems have been solved since the establishment of the center here …for

instance we used to travel long distance all the way up to Samara when we wanted to

get such services and exchange different sorts of information. But now we can simply

exchange information using the fax machine. We can also get writing services within

a short time interval. We can also copy as many papers as we need using photocopy

machine here. So many problems have been solved right now. We are using photo

copy, computer writing and other services …

Fax better than sending a letter. Copier for duplicate papers.

This is the only place in the locality to get IT services. Unique access.


207

4. What would you have done if the community ICT center didn’t exist?

You don’t get any of the services anywhere else it is solving many problems now.

It is not helping us but other people from other districts or words are now using the

service. This worked for instance has got some ten kibbles and the center is providing

service to all the ten kebeles. Had it not been to the establishment of the center, there

would have been many problems in our locality. We used to wait for at least four

days to get transportation service and travel to the place we would like to deliver

information to. We had to travel up to 150 kms to the 3rd

zonal offices to get similar

services. If we want to travel to Samara it about 217 kames from here. Prior to the

establishment of this center we used to travel to all these localities. There were no

such services here prior to the establishment of the center. We had to travel for three

four hours and its costs us sixty seventy birr for a single one way trip. You may also

stay there for two three days there until you finalize your work. It also costs us 35 birr

if we want to travel to Awash that is again for a single one round trip.

5. Which facilities/services of the community ICT center have the least demand or

unwanted?

6. Before the establishment of the ICT community center, where were you going to get

service of the center?

Awash/Samera_ Your means of transport bus Time required one way 3 hrs (150

km)__ Cost of transport (round trip)_70 birr_Average time spent away from home on

these trips_half day_

7. How much did you save by using the community ICT center?


208

-It saves money and energy .All the hardships that we were facing traveling all those

long distances are no more happening now and we are benefiting as a result of that

Section 3: User perception of Impact

1. In what way has your use of ICT community center changed your life (if at all)?

It created great impact in my life .For instance; I am no more facing the hardships

that comes as a result of traveling long distances to get access to the services. We are

simply getting them all. Be it for telephone service, postal service, photo copy and

others, we had to travel long distance. We are now getting the service simply and the

main thing here is the service…it is providing us with a lot of services.

2. What effect has the community ICT center on the economic activity of the community?

It has many economic benefits .All the incidents /activities I was telling you were all

the expenses we used to spend. For instance it is about 117 from here to Semera. You

spend around 140 birr only for transportation. You can use that money for your family

now.

Informant:-Yes many institutions, NGOs, investors are getting different sorts of

information …they are using the fax machine for their daily market needs. It is

creating an opportunity providing up-to-date information on the price of commodities

and other market related activities.

3. What effect has the community ICT center on the educational activity of the

community?

Well about 30 to 40 trainees are getting their certificate from the center at a time and

in this regard the youth are benefiting from the services that the center is providing.


209

Some people who failed to have a chance of getting training due to financial

constraints are now getting the training from the center. It is of great importance

especially to people with lower income. They have now acquired computer training

and adequately equipped with the skills.

4. What effect has the community ICT center on the health activity of the community?

I don’t see any importance for health .I only see its educational importance to the

society.

210

APPENDIX J. EXCERPTS OF QDA MINER 3.2 CODING

Search in: [DOCUMENT]

Codes: [Agri Income;Job promotion]

Add variables: [ICTCENTER;GROUPMEM]

CASE: LA 1

CODE: Agri Income CODER: Admin DATE: 2010/10/5

ICTCENTER: LA

GROUPMEM: Focus Group

[We are benefiting a lot. For instance, our association cultivates cotton and we acquire

the information on the price and other status of the crop at the international market using

the technology of the center mainly the internet. We closely follow up and monitor the

global scenario of the crop and we may either delay the export of the product to get the

best price possible. We will only let the export be done when there is a good price at the

international market. Other investors also acquire the same service. I could therefore say

that the main use of the center is providing information regarding the status of the

international market. agri income].


211

CASE: LA 1


ICTCENTER: LA


[I remember once when the price of one kilo of cotton being around 16 Birr and we

delayed for some time and increased to 19.50 Birr. agri income].

CASE: LA 1


ICTCENTER: LA


[We do sell to the international market .We do export products .We do have close contact

with the exporters. agri income].

CASE: KY 15

CODE: Job promotion CODER: Admin DATE: 2010/10/5

ICTCENTER: KY

GROUPMEM: User Group

[Since I was introduced to technology, after competing with 20 for a position, I got

promotion. computer skill].

CASE: KY 15


ICTCENTER: KY

GROUPMEM: User Group

[Due to my promotion, I already got 12,000 birr. saving].


212

CASE: DH 23


ICTCENTER: DH


[I know some health practitioners who took the training here and get the{ promotion}

when they submit their training certificate. There is also a woman I know who works as a

manager in a certain institute and the training she took from this center is greatly assisting

her. So the training is very crucial in someone's life mainly in the efforts geared towards

promotion in your work.].

CASE: DH 23


ICTCENTER: DH


[For instance Genet is a computer professional and she got the promotion or scale up her

career after business process reengineering is introduced in her organization. computer

skill].

CASE: DH 23


ICTCENTER: DH


[In any case most people who get the training here have either get the promotion or are

hired in a new job.].


213

CASE: DH 30


ICTCENTER: DH

GROUPMEM: Non User Group

[I have a farm land and I gather agricultural information like how to use irrigations and

the likes from the radios and Television programs. They are my information sources of

agriculture. information about economy, agri income].

214

APPENDIX K. RESULT OF AUTO-CODING BY WORDSTAT 6.1

Table of Codes Developed by Employing Auto Coding Feature of WordStat

Category Code/Subcategory Number of sub- subcategories

Economy Agri Income

26

Employment

14

General Income

1

Promotion

6

Saving

9

Education Computer skill

7

Distance Education

3

Foreign language

2

Scholarship

5


36

Health Health facility

19

Health Improvement

14

Knowledge and Skill

18

Other

Benefit

Access

9

Communication

8

secretarial services

1

215

APPENDIX L. FREQUENCY COUNTS FOR SUBCATEGORIES

SUBCATEGORIES FREQUENCY NO. CASES % CASES

ACCESS

88 43 86.00%

SAVING

96 37 74.00%

COMMUNICATION

67 35 70.00%

COMPUTER SKILL

142 33 66.00%

EMPLOYMENT

55 31 62.00%

KNOWLEDGE_AND_SKILL

37 29 58.00%

SCHOOL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT

66 27 54.00%

SECRETARIAL_SERVICES

30 20 40.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_ECONOMY

41 17 34.00%

GENERAL INCOME

33 17 34.00%

SEEK_INFORMATION

24 17 34.00%

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

26 16 32.00%

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

16 16 32.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_EDUCATION

28 15 30.00%

AGRI INCOME

26 13 26.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_HEALTH

21 11 22.00%

INFORMATION_FROM_FRIENDS

11 11 22.00%

TRAVEL_TO_GETACCESS

17 10 20.00%

SCHOLARSHIP

17 9 18.00%

PRIVATE_CENTERS 11 7 14.00%


216

Appendix L Continued

SUBCATEGORIES FREQUENCY NO. CASES % CASES

HEALTH FACILITY

8 7 14.00%

PROMOTION

14 6 12.00%

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

7 6 12.00%

DISTANCE EDUCATION

6 4 8.00%

MARKET_NEEDS

6 4 8.00%

SEEK_TREATMENT

2 2 4.00%

217

APPENDIX M. RESPONSE ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Agri Income Employment General Income Job promotion

Saving information about economy


No

of R

espo

nden

ts

4

3

2

1

0

218

APPENDIX N. RESPONSE ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

Computer skill Distance Education General Knowledge

Scholarship School Education Improvement information about education


No

of R

espo

nden

ts

4

3

2

1

0

219

APPENDIX O. RESPONSE ON HEALTH BENEFITS

Knowledge and Skill Health Improvement Health facility information about health


No

of R

espo

nden

ts

4

3

2

1

0

220

APPENDIX P. RESPONSE ON GENERAL BENEFITS

travel to get access access communication secretarial services seek information

private centers


No

of re

spon

dent

s

4

3

2

1

0

221

APPENDIX Q. RESPONSE ON UNCOMMON BENEFITS

Table Q-1. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Economic Benefits

Table Q-2. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Educational

Benefits

Table Q-3. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Health Benefits

Uncommon Economic Benefits % of

Users

% of Non-users % of Focus

groups

AGRI INCOME

20.00% 25.00% 40.00%

JOB PROMOTION

15.00% 30.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_ECONOMY

10.00% 75.00%

MARKET_NEEDS

20.00%

Uncommon Educational Benefits % of

Users

% of Non-users % of Focus

groups

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

40.00% 25.00% 30.00%

DISTANCE EDUCATION

10.00% 20.00%

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

80.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_EDUCATION

70.00%

Uncommon Health Benefits % of Users % of Non-users % of Focus

groups

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

20.00% 5.00% 10.00%

INFORMATION_ABOUT_HEALTH

5.00% 50.00%

SEEK_TREATMENT 10.00%


222

Table Q-4. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon General Benefits

Uncommon General Benefits % of Users % of Non-users % of Focus

groups

PRIVATE_CENTERS

35.00%

SEEK_INFORMATION

25.00% 60.00%

INFORMATION_FROM_FRIENDS

55.00%

debretsion paper

Documents

role ict

effectiveness of ict

user community

systematic view of ict

individual centers

qualitative study

perception of users

development tool