This semester I've felt the presence of technology and the drive to solve problems with technological solutions stronger than ever. We often use the phrase "There's an app for that!" as a joke, but to be really honest, it really does feel like that sometimes. Especially after taking my mobile health technology class this semester, I feel that the options are pretty much are limitless when trying to design an innovative solution with technology for underserved communities, both locally and globally. As a 20-something going to school in the Bay Area, with the hub of technological innovation in my backyard, I get extremely excited when I hear about the latest app or mobile health solution that rolls out. So you can imagine how thrilled I was when my group for our class project decided to work on a sexual health SMS text service for local youth. But when pitching our idea in class in a small group discussion, Professor Talwalker brought up the very important question of how participatory these innovations can be.
Technology has permeated markets everywhere. From 2010 to 2011 alone, there was an increase in mobile-cellular subscriptions by 600 million users, with most of these in developing-country markets (http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ICTOI-2012-SUM-PDF-E.pdf). And as of 2012, 85% of US adults were reported to own a cell phone (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Mobile-Health/Key-Findings.aspx). And that's just looking at mobile phones. Internet, tablets and other forms of technology are also being utilized. And the development projects they are being incorporated in range from health, emergency and disaster relief, community organizing, education and so much more.
It's not that difficult to see the pull of using technological solutions. Interventionists can quite literally put aid in the hands of beneficiary communities anywhere or connect people to resources or people that they otherwise would not have access to. Disaster struck areas can be 'crowd-mapped' (www.crowdmap.com) to map out areas in crisis where resources are needed or even available to make the relief efforts more efficient and coordinated. Health screenings can be automatically administered through IVR (interactive voice response) where women are called and asked questions through an automatic voice service and women respond back by pressing keys on their phone (http://instedd.org/baby-monitor/). Cool, right?
But what about the drawbacks to information giving and resource connecting through these means? They can be extremely impersonal and there are accompanying issues of ownership, ethics and, of course, participation. Technology use hasn't permeated global markets enough for these solutions to be introduced and implemented at a grassroots level. They're made by coders and developers of privilege and power. They make assumptions about technology use, uptake and learning curves. They even can pose a risk to the people that use them (i.e. putting these products in the hands of poorer communities can put users' safety at risk; widening existing disparities).
There are design methods nowadays that have been formalized and are very thorough. Human-centered design (HCD) and participatory design processes are popular strategies that help innovators come up with solutions by listening to and learning from the communities in need. HCD helps balance the need, as voiced by the beneficiary community, feasibility and viability. Participatory design actively involves stakeholders in the development process. (Basically, HCD: designing FOR users and participatory design: designing WITH users.)
But is that enough?
Thinking about this issue took me back to our discussion of the Munro and Butt piece on 'rendering technical' in which we talked about interventions being too practical and generalized, often ignoring the nuances of the beneficiary community. All development projects and interventions as we have been discussing have recommendations and guidelines to make them more participatory and culturally sensitive, because as we all know by now, this is a never-ending struggle. With time, technology use will be even more prevalent and these issues I have discussed could be a thing of the past. But for the time being, are there extra measures we can take to make these more participatory?
Even with the potential dangers and drawbacks that you raise about technology and poverty action, I am still excited about the group work project that you have designed with your group. From what I can remember, you are targeting a younger age population (whom typically are the most tech savvy of all ages) and are dealing with a sensitive topic that many are happy to see being anonymous. This provides an opportunity for increased discussion and education about a theme that many young people, regardless of socioeconomic background, are undereducated about yet need to know about. This is particularly true when they feel that they do not know where to go or who to talk to that would respect their privacy. What we can learn from the specific example of the group work project that your group are two general observations about the use of technology in the realm of poverty interaction: first, that there are certain human aspects to poverty action that cannot be replaced by technology, and second, that there may likely be certain contexts and populations that are better suited for technology than others.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by there are certain human aspects to poverty action that cannot be replaced by technology is that this poverty work is always going to be dynamic, personalized, and context-specific, which makes it hard for an app to address all issues that it aims to. In the context of providing sexual health information to youth, it would likely be important for there to be an actual advice nurse that youth could call if they felt that the information that they were given through the automated system was not correct or did not answer all of their questions. Also, just because the app exists does not mean that youth are going to start using it immediately. There would need to be a fairly aggressive marketing campaign and community partnership, such as with local school districts, in order to make this app gain a reputation and social prevalence. To take it to an extreme, you talk about how technology use has not permeated global markets enough for these solutions to be introduced and implemented at a grassroots level. This caution underscores that we should not view technology as an end-all to the problems associated with poverty. It is a tool that ultimately must be modified and utilized by humans. When it does not mesh well with the population that is being targeted, we must turn back to human solutions.
Moving on, it is clear that certain populations will be better suited to the technical nature of poverty interventions like mobile apps. While sometimes technology may seem impersonal, occasionally this may be precisely the type of poverty intervention that a person desires. For example, it is not the case that in providing information and connecting the poor to resources that an app necessarily lacks participation. Even though a youth can be perceived as a passive receiver of sexual health information, you could also consider that they have been very active in seeking out this information. They become empowered to put this education to use, such as by modifying their behavior accordingly or by seeking a clinic appointment. They may even go so far as to teach their partner the importance of what they have learned or start a dialogue. Thus, as we move into the future and try and make technology more participatory and culturally sensitive, we must keep in mind that as long as there is still some human outlet and control over technology we should take advantage of the growing tolerance for impersonal technology and use it to increase access to poverty-fighting services.