In their analysis of cell phone use among resource-constrained communities in Cape Town, Donner, Gitau, and Marsden (2009) argue that there is “no fixed thing called a cell phone” but rather a process by which technologies and communities influence one another. —Chenxing Han, “South African Perspectives on Mobile Phones: Challenging the Optimistic Narrative of Mobiles for Development,” 2071.
Until this week’s readings on mobile telephony—Chenxing
Han’s article on “South African Perspectives on Mobile Phones: Challenging the
Optimistic Narrative of Mobiles for Development” published in the International
Journal of Communication and Araba Sey’s article on “'We use it different,
different': Making sense of trends in mobile phone use in Ghana” published in
New Media & Society—I had not had much exposure to studies problematizing
the “mobiles for development” (M4D) initiatives taking place in developing
countries around the world.
When I think of information and communication technologies
for development (ICT4D) and mobile phones, Iqbal Quadir and his work on
GrameenPhone come to mind. Here he is in a 2005 TED talk video discussing how
he came to realize that “connectivity is productivity,” whether it’s in a
modern office or an underdeveloped village. His work supports the idea that the
poor can be customers. He discovered
that they are not just recipients of aid, but they can be resources as well, given that they are “eager learners” and capable
of surviving many types of hardships.
Sey concludes “high levels of mobile phone adoption do not
guarantee particular development outcomes, especially if other elements in the
livelihoods environment (e.g. vulnerability context, livelihood assets,
transforming institutions and structures, livelihood strategies) are not
appropriately aligned. Even if they are, specific outcomes are still not
guaranteed” (387). This is because different users have different use for
mobile phones and other technologies. Users will uniquely “manipulate technological
systems to pursue diverse livelihood goals” (387). People’s purpose for using
cell phones in developing countries vary. Some may be for work-related
purposes, as Sey uncovered with Wofa, a Ghanaian fisherman who fielded
work-related calls. Other may be for social and familial purposes; Osei the
farmer, when asked, replied that he does not use his phone for discussing
farming or work-related information. Instead, he uses it to communicate with
his sister living in Accra.
While mobile phones connect people, compressing the reality
of time and space, there are also a number of downsides, as Han points out when
she highlights the dangers of blindly advocating for M4D with optimistic
narratives without exploring the ways in which it can first be problematized.
Mobile phones in South Africa are not as affordable as advocates often claim,
Han notes. Moreover, the use of M4D to help prevent HIV/AIDS may actually be
undermined by the fact that “women may chose to engage in transactional sex to
afford cell phones” (2065). There is also concern that teens communicating on
mobile chat rooms may also be at risk for sexual predation (2066). These
factors, along with security risks associated with violent phone theft, are
real and must be considered, Han writes.
“Instead of fixating on the positive influences of mobile
phones with “missionary zeal,” mobile enthusiasts must consider negative or
neutral outcomes. Future academic
research must consider more critical and skeptical perspectives to address the
“epistemological shortcomings” of the current literature…(2070).” Han’s
admonishment reinforces the need for continual awareness of the need of
contextualization in our field of research.
