1

Richard Heeksrichard.heeks@manchester.ac.ukDevelopment InformaticsGroupInstitute for DevelopmentPolicy and ManagementSchool of Environment andDevelopmentUniversity of ManchesterManchester, United Kingdom

Theorizing ICT4D Research HEEKS

Theorizing ICT4D ResearchThe aim of this special issue is to show how theoretical ideas from the so-cial sciences can be applied to researching ICTs and socioeconomic devel-opment.

Why should this be needed? Because the explosion of work on ICTs fordevelopment (ICT4D) has (unconsciously) followed Marx’s dictum: “Thephilosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, tochange it.” There has been a bias to action, not a bias to knowledge. Weare changing the world without interpreting or understanding it. Most ofthe ICT4D research being produced is therefore descriptive not analytical.It might make some interesting points but it lacks sufªcient rigor to makeits ªndings credible and it can often be repetitive of earlier work. It has aclose-to-zero shelf life. The pictorial analogy of such work is that of stonesbeing thrown into a pond, each one making a ripple but then sinkingwithout trace.

Instead, it would be better if each “stone” was placed on a cairn,building on what has come before and acting as a foundation for futurework. Such a contribution is generally possible only where the researchdraws on some preexisting conceptual framework.

Of course, there are existing and ongoing research foundations forICT4D work, which we can ªnd particularly in various factions of“informatics”:

• The I of ICT4D—work drawing from library and informationsciences.

• The C of ICT4D—work drawing from communication studies.

• The T of ICT4D—work drawing from information systems.

Very little work to date has drawn from the D of ICT4D—linking conceptsin development studies to this research domain.

However, the base created from these foundations has some limita-tions. First, much of the research undertaken has based itself on modelsor on schema of categorization but has not generally provided the solidityof a true theoretical foundation. Second, where work has been based ontheory, it mainly emerges in academic journal articles. In such articles, theexplanation of the theory used tends to be relatively brief, because themain focus of the article is the case application of the theory rather thanthe theory itself. Similarly, any reºections within such articles tend to beon the object of study not on the theory.

The result is that ICT4D researchers looking for guidance on how to applytheory in their work have only a partial basis for assistance. This problembecame the basis for an ongoing project of the University of Manchester’sDevelopment Informatics Group: to develop a set of publications thatwould draw on a range of theoretical ideas and explain to ICT4D re-searchers what those ideas were and how they could be applied to devel-

© 2007 The Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyInformation Technologies and International Development

Volume 3, Number 3, Spring 2006, 1–4

opment informatics research. (Weprefer the term “development in-formatics” to “ICT4D” becausethe former is less technocentricand allows an equal focus on in-formation, knowledge, and infor-mation systems as well as on ICTs.Recognizing the widespread us-age of the latter, though, we willuse both terms interchangeably.)

All papers developed withinthe “Theorizing Development In-formatics” project follow a consistent four-part for-mat that we believe will be of particular assistanceto those undertaking ICT4D research, ranging fromacademic and graduate/postgraduate researchersthrough to consultants, donor staff, and other“reºective practitioners” seeking to add greaterrigor, validity, and longevity to their work:

• following a brief overview introduction,the paper describes an issue of current interestin development informatics and identiªes aparticular focal topic that will be addressed.

• a description is provided of a theorythat could be helpful in addressing the focalICT4D issue. This description aims to be as fullas possible and to avoid any assumptions ofpreknowledge or prereading: a “theory 101,”of sorts.

• an illustration of how to apply thetheory to the issue, usually through analysis ofa speciªc ªeld project or country. Brief ªndingsare presented.

• reºection on what thecase application and other literature tells usabout using the theory. Alongside highlightingpositive values of the theory, this might alsoidentify shortcomings or modiªcations to thetheory required to make it more appropriatelyapplicable. Finally, in this section, we aim toprovide some broader guidance on otherICT4D issues to which the theory might beapplied and summarize its likely research app-licability according to two models, shown inFigure 1. This ªrst identiªes which parts of theinformatics lifecycle the theory might best beapplied to: research on the initial development/invention of ICT innovations and/or research onthe diffusion and adoption of those innova-

tions in developing countries (which would in-clude issues of ICT policy) and/or research onissues related to the use of ICTs and/or researchon the impact of ICTs, including their relationto development goals. Second, the ªgureidentiªes what level of analysis the theory bestapplies to: from research at the meta level of aglobal perspective down to the level of re-search on individuals. This is intended to helpresearchers with a particular issue in mind iden-tify whether a given theory might be appropri-ate to their needs.

Overall, then, we try to provide a “one-stop shop”guide for development informatics researchers con-sidering use of a particular theory: not just an appli-cation of that theory, but also an explanation of itand pointers to the issues that arise in its use for re-search into ICT4D topics.

What theories can be used in ICT4D research? Wecategorized in two ways: ªrst in terms of depth; sec-ond in terms of discipline.

Relating to depth, what counts as “theory”? Toavoid many hours of unproductive, introspectivenavel-gazing on that question, we adopted a fairlyrough-and-ready continuum of the frameworks ofknowledge used in development informaticsresearch:

• Theory-based work: this makes clear use of anidentiªed theory, either applying or testing thattheory and referring to “theory.” An examplemight be structuration theory.

• Framework-based work: this makes use of aframework that explicitly derives itself from abody of theoretical work. For example, a

2 Information Technologies and International Development

THEORIZING ICT4D RESEARCH

Figure 1. Applying theory in development informatics research.

framework of different perspectives on ICT reg-ulation, based on ideas from theories in politi-cal science.

• Model-based work: this makes use of a modelthat is presented without reference to anydeeper framework of knowledge. An examplewould be some variant on the four-part “Webstage” model (e.g., information–interaction–transaction–transformation).

• Schema-based work: this uses a schema oftechniques or a technical architecture forICT4D, such as a data architecture.

• Concept-based work: this uses a particular con-cept, such as “sustainable development.”

• Category-based work: this presents a set ofcategories, or a list of factors, such as successfactors in telecenter projects.

• Nonframework-based work: this makes no useof any discernible framework of knowledge; itmerely provides a set of data and ideas.

We decided that only the ªrst two would be admis-sible, recognizing that the distinction between atheory and a framework is probably quite murky butthat we were looking for foundations around whicha body of conceptual work already existed.

What, then, about discipline? We set the wholeof social sciences as our boundary and then created

a rough map from which our the-ories were likely to be drawn (seeFigure 2). This shows not just therange of disciplines that can bedrawn on, but also the typical dif-fusion paths that conceptualideas have taken to date. It in-cludes, in the dashed lines, pathsthat have generally not yet beentaken such as the lack of use ofdevelopment studies theorieswithin development informaticsresearch. In drawing from thewhole pool of indicated disci-plines, we were therefore makinga deliberate attempt to move be-yond the information science,communication studies, and in-formation systems concentrationsthat have dominated ICT4D re-search to date.

For this particular special issue, we have selectedfour papers:

• My own paper looks at competitive advantagetheory, based on Porter’s work and the well-known “diamond of determinants,” appliedto study of the IT sector in developing coun-tries.

• Carolyne Stanforth makes use of actor-networktheory, drawing particularly from material byCallon and Law, applying it to the trajectoriesof e-government-for-development projects.

• Savita Bailur presents stakeholder theory andthe technique of stakeholder analysis, review-ing their application to telecenters.

• Richard Duncombe discusses the livelihoodsframework, which is widely used in develop-ment circles, and investigates its use for theanalysis of microenterprise and poverty reduc-tion.

Our selection was based on two main criteria. Interms of depth, we drew concepts that are arguablyaround the interface of theory and framework: notso deep (as, say, structuration theory) that practicallessons may be hard to ªnd; not so shallow thatthey are really just models without a deeper under-

Volume 3, Number 3, Spring 2006 3

HEEKS

Figure 2. Disciplinary foundations for development informatics researchtheories.

pinning. Although three are called “theory,” as willbe seen in the papers, this label can be questioned.

In terms of discipline, we decided to select fromfour different disciplines to illustrate the range oftheoretical ideas than can be applied to develop-ment informatics research. Competitive advantagetheory comes from economics (though may be seenas having strayed into business studies); actor-network theory was developed from science/tech-nology studies (though has arguably backtracked tobecome a sociological theory); stakeholder theory isrooted in organization/management studies; and the

livelihoods framework is a tool of developmentstudies.

In addition, our selections ensured that at leasttwo theories were applicable to research at eachstage of the informatics lifecycle and at each re-search level (see Figure 1).

What is presented here should be seen as just aªrst tranche of outputs. The Theorizing Develop-ment Informatics project is ongoing, and we wel-come general feedback on the aims of the projectand speciªc contributions of new papers. ■

4 Information Technologies and International Development

THEORIZING ICT4D RESEARCH