productivity, collaboration, the internet, and reagency in distant lands marcus ynalvez, ricardo...

Productivity, Collaboration, the Internet, and Reagency

in Distant Lands

Marcus Ynalvez, Ricardo Duque & Wesley Shrum

Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University

Presented by Matt Bietz

The Plan

• I am not Marcus, Ricardo, or Wes– They are in Africa (I am not)

• But I will pretend to be– But without the Elvis costume

• I will first present their paper as I understand it– Try to be faithful to the authors’ spirit &

meaning

• Then I will become a discussant– Respond and draw connections to other ideas

we’ve discussed

Overview of the Paper

• Problematizing “Development”

• Introducing “Reagency”

• Results from study of ICT usage among scientists in Kenya, Ghana, and India

Introduction

• Globalization of science– Intertwined with innovations in ICTs

• Must attend to what’s going on not only at the core of science, but also at the periphery

• How will new ICTs change the nature and structure of knowledge production in the developing world?

3 Views of Internet & Development

1. Elixir• Free developing world from isolation

2. Affliction• Exacerbate global inequality

3. Teething• Problems at first, but can be

incorporated over time

Our* View

• Internet can “reagentize” science in developing areas more effectively than prior development initiatives.• Comes from the ability to maintain

on-line interaction

• But link between Internet & productivity is problematic

*Our = Marcus, Ricardo & Wes

Science in Developing World

• Traditional approaches treat developed world science as either• Standard model for how science should

work• Or, “exploitative, imperialistic residue that

should be rejected in favor of indigenous knowledge”

• Focus on publication, with little depth of understanding for collaboration– Data from co-authorship

Development

• Initiatives... with consequences for actors in the developing world.

• One-way, top-down approach– Periphery will become developed

when it adopts the institutions, modes or organization, practices, cultures, and technologies of the core

Problematizing Development

• Development framework does not capture emerging social realities

• Change and innovation can – Emanate from different places and identities– Travel through multi-way channels in

unpredictable directions

• “Development” forces us into dichotomy of “developed” and “developing”

An Alternative: “Reagency”

• Bringing about a reaction– But not necessarily one that can be

controlled

• Allow us to understand the interaction of “agency” and the contexts of identity and place

• Better describes “what happens when organizational representatives from afar enter countries with agendas and initiatives.”

Place & Identity

• Most development initiatives have ignored place and identity– Example: “ideal” technology transfer

• Exactly the same[process/product/datum]regardless of who or where

• But laboratories are important places characterized by strong identities– Identities (people) give the place meaning

Reagency & the Internet

• Internet is reagentive– Opens pathways for interaction– Impacts not readily predicted– Trajectory conditioned by places and

identities

• Not simply elixir or affliction• Instead, an increasingly essential

technology in generating, producing, and disseminating scientific knowledge

Reagency, Internet & Science

• Internet can aid scientists by providing– Links to colleagues, information, and

databases– Opportunities for sharing results– Opportunities for building personal

and organizational networks• Access to material and non-material

resources

Reports from the Field

Ghana Kenya KeralaDevelopment (Scientific & Socioeconomic)

Low Medium High

Per capita gross national income

$270 $360 $480

Aid per capita $33 $15 $2

Illiteracy 26.2% 15.7% 41.2%

Internet users / 1000 people

1.9 16.0 6.8

PCs / 1000 people 3.3 5.6 5.8

Survey n (scientists, 2000-2002)

300 315 303

Data & Method

• 1994 survey of ~300 scientists• 2000-2002 survey

– Based on 1994 survey with additional questions about ICTs

• Variety of research fields• Government research institutes &

university faculties• Mostly urban• Almost 200 questions

Internet Adoption (1)

• Level of development & org. setting play a role

• Most PCs are shared (>7 scientists on average)– Usually not in personal offices

• 9/10 consider themselves “internet users”, only 6/10 report actual access

Internet Adoption (2)

• Gender a factor (men have higher use)

• Education correlated to adoption– Especially if trained in US or Europe in

the past 10 years

Internet & Productivity

• No consistent effect of the Internet on scientific productivity– Conditioned by both location and

organizational setting

• E.g. In African locations, academic scientists more productive than govt., but reverse is true in Indian locations

Collaboration & Productivity

• At scientific core, collaboration associated with productivity (Lee & Bozeman 2005)

• No clear relationship for knowledge production sites at the periphery– “There is not one general model that can

adequately capture the essence of the relationship between place, identities, collaboration, and productivity.”

Summary

• Internet is reagentive– Initiatives have unpredictable effects– Must place in context of locations and

identities

• Different outcomes for “core” and “periphery”– We can’t assume that science practice that

is successful in US/Europe will work in “developing” world

Discussion of

Productivity, Collaboration, the Internet, and Reagency

in Distant LandsYnalvez, Duque & Shrum

Matt Bietz

Things I Like

• Reframing from “development” to “reagency”

• Importance of place and identity• Recognition that what we know

about scientific core may not generalize to the periphery

• Mmmmm....... Data........!

Connections

• IARC/HPP Case• What does it mean to be successful?• Potential to transform science

– But we can’t necessarily predict how

• Thinking about how these technologies change our access to social networks & resources

• Stakeholders and agency in initiatives

Comments for the Authors

• Make language more accessible– May be too domain specific (e.g.

jargon) for audience of SOC book

• Show Me the Data!– Seems like great stuff there – I want

to see more

• Not always clear how data relate to reagency framework

Bigger Questions

• Are we seeing “teething?”– E.g. Can we expect that ratio of PCs to

scientists will change?

• Are success measures different in developing countries?– If initiatives will play out differently, will

success also look different

• Is reagency specific to distant lands?– E.g. NSF & NEES