a critical discourse analysis of the ict strategies of the center for innovation, provincial...

Session 4b, 19 May 2010 IST-Africa 2010

A Critical Discourse Analysis of the ICT Strategies of the Center for Innovation, Provincial Government

of the Western Cape

Steve Vosloo

University of Cape Town

South Africa


Motivation, problem area

Enter ICTs → tools to support development (ICT4D)• Recurrent themes:

– Uncriticality (not enough research)– Causality between ICTs and development (without evidence)– Disconnect between discourse (ICT4D) and implementation (failure)– Technological determinism (access = development)– “Leapfrog”



“governmental, political and technological attempts that focus almost exclusively on providing access to digital communication technologies … expect 'development' naturally to flow from that” (Roode et al., 2004)



• SA in support of ICT4D, information society, knowledge economy, e.g. National e-Strategy (2007) and provincial strategies, policies, frameworks, etc.

• This discourse of ICT4D is very important• “Technocentric approach” (technological determinism)

shown to be the cause of many ICT4D failures• ICT4D policies need to be exposed to critical discourse

analysis



CDA is based on “assumptions of disharmony, conflict, and power differentials between populations and groups, and on the assumption that language use reflects, reproduces, and changes these social phenomena” (Frantz, 2003)


Research Objectives

• Considering key ICT strategic documents, were there invalid claims or “distortions” in the texts?

• If yes, what were these distortions?• Remember: Distortions decrease the chance of successful

implementation


Research approach, Methodology

• Applied to:– 5 strategic documents of the Centre for e-Innovation, PGWC:

background, framework, strategy and planning – CeI driving e-govt and information society in the WC, becoming a

“change agent” to achieve developmental goals through ICTs– Documents published April 2004 to January 2006

• Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action (1984) reveals underlying assumptions and ideologies in texts

• Expose distortions, but also help undistort• Communication in an “ideal speech situation” meets four

validity claims



Claim Question If valid If invalid

Truth Is the discourse true?

Knowledge Misrepresentation

Clarity Is the discourse clear or does it use jargon that is not understood?

Comprehension Confusion

Sincerity Is there a hidden agenda in the discourse?

Trust False assurances

Legitimacy What is assumed in the discourse?

Consent Illegitimacy



• Operationalised by Cukier et al. (2004, 2003)• Guiding questions by Cukier et al. (2004, 2003) and Stahl et

al. (2005)• 97 pages to analyse• Needed second pass through analysis to regroup/redefine

claims


Major Outcomes/Results

Truth: Argumentation and evidence• What is said about the technology?

• Are the issues and options clearly defined?

• What costs (financial and claimed negative effects) and benefits (claimed positive effects) have been identified and assessed?

• What evidence has been provided to support these arguments?

• Has the relevant information been communicated without distortion or omission?

• Are there ideological claims which are unexamined?



Truth

Level 2 (Truth) No. of claims

Description 250

Benefit 231

Disadvantage 3

Evidence 10

Distortion 29

Omission 13

Faulty analogy/logic/cause 5

Problem 84

Ideology 15

Total 640



Sincerity: Metaphors and descriptors• Are metaphors used, e.g. ICT revolution?

• Do metaphors and connotative words promote or suppress understanding?

• Do metaphors and connotative words create false assurances?

• Positive associations: new, innovative, pioneering

• Negative associations: expensive, insufficient



Sincerity• ICT as “enabler” (28 times)• ICT plays a “critical role” (42 times)• “Participation” (5 times)

“[T]he ICT revolution can provide powerful new tools both for addressing people's basic needs and for enriching the lives of poor people and communities in unprecedented ways” [AR1]



Clarity• Is there use of jargon?

• Are there terms that are not explained?

• Is there evidence of obfuscation?

• Difficult standard to apply (Cukier et al., 2003)

• Fallacy of jargon (Michalos, 1986) occurs when a claim is made through technical or uncommon terms that make it seem more important or valuable than what it is, e.g. “The Centre for e-Innovation has the digital ecosystem of the entire Province as its concern” [AR1]



Legitimacy: How is it achieved? In whose interests?• Who is speaking, who is silent, what are their interests?

“Selective silence” (Cukier et al., 2004)

• What is privileged? What is not said about the technology?

• What is assumed or implied?

• How are the decisions legitimised?

• Who is cited, who is not?



Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 No. of claims Total

Legitimacy Assumption (General) 3 54

ICTs have inherent value 1

Technological determinism 30

Techno-optimism 20

Legitimation Government developmental strategies

11 53

Other means of legitimation 24

Other PGWC documents 18

Non-speaker 8 8

Speaker 7 7

Total 122



Legitimacy• Example of technological determinism:

“The digital world is a world united by one language of ones and zeros; a world where people across continents (or across the passageway) share information with one another and work together to build ideas and projects. Through collaboration, more voluminous and accurate information is generated and accumulated, and distributed in a twinkling to an audience that understands exactly what was said. This in turn allows the recipients of the information to use it for their own purposes, to create new ideas and redistribute them. The result is progress.” [AR1]



Legitimacy• Example of techno-optimism:

“production in the knowledge economy can be fine-tuned in ways heretofore undreamed of” [AR1]


Discussion

• Inherited distortions: – Global → national → provincial → local– ICTs have served sustainable development → WSIS/MDGs →

ASGiSA– CeI forced to promulgate these distortions

• CeI itself:– Battle for budget allocation– Self-justification– The “sell” is sometimes necessary (but could be more balanced)

• Also undistorted claims:– Holistic view: relevant content, training and partnerships– ICTs alone cannot solve all problems


Conclusion and outlook

• Balanced viewpoints (minority)• Yes, distortions (majority)• Need more balance• Ask questions:

– Do ICTs serve developmental needs? Not How do ICTs serve ...?– Real costs of ICTs?– ROI?

• A “critical perspective may reduce the chances of technology being oversold, and thereby, ironically, enhance its diffusion” (Cukier et al., 2003)


Questions

• Has anything changed since 2006?• Have policies and strategies matured?• Swapping old distortions for new ones?• What is todays “leapfrogging”?• Watch Kentaro Toyama's talk at TEDx Tokyo on the "myth

of scale" http://is.gd/ccEWb


Credits

Steve Vosloo: [email protected]

Dr Wallace Chigona: [email protected]

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0

a critical discourse analysis of the ict strategies of the center for innovation, provincial...

Technology