Debretsion doctor of philosophy

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF USERS OF COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS
ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ICT ON POVERTY IN ETHIOPIA:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY
by
Debretsion Gebremichael
JELENA VUCETIC, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
JOSE M. NIEVES, PhD, Committee Member
CYNTHIA CALONGNE, PhD, Committee Member
William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
March 2011

UMI Number: 3445224
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3445224
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Abstract
The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as
a development tool have raised divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.
The purpose of this qualitative multiple-case study was to explore the role ICT plays in
addressing poverty in the context of the impact of community ICT centers on the user
community. Serving as the theoretical framework for the study were the input-process-
output contingency model of R. Benbunan-Fich, S. R. Hiltz, and L. Harasim (2005); the
innovation diffusion theory of E. M. Rogers (1983); the integral and systematic view of
ICT developed by R. Heeks (2002); and ICT and development of M. Torero and J. von
Braun (2006). In addition, the maximum variation strategy was used to select five
community ICT centers. Qualitative data were collected from focus group discussions,
interviews, observations, and documents to answer three research questions related to the
perception of users on the community ICT centers. Constant comparative analysis was
used to analyze individual cases, and cross case analysis was conducted. The findings
suggest that each community ICT center has demonstrated the benefits of using the center
and these benefits have an influence on the daily life of the users. However, the benefits
for individual centers were influenced by factors that were unique to each of the centers.
Insights from the study have important implications on effective utilization of community
ICT centers in addressing poverty. It is imperative to link community ICT centers with
the development program of the community to effectively use ICT to alleviate poverty.

iii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my fallen heroes of the war to topple
the military regime of Ethiopia who are my role models I can aspire to attain the level of
commitment I needed to continue my studies. They were sources of a constant
encouragement and inspiration to me as they posses abundant supply of commitment and
sense of fulfilling.
To my daughters, Rahwa and Retie who supported me in my entire journey.
Thank you for understanding the situation I was in and for possessing an unending
patience and support. To all other family members and friends who encouraged and
provided me unlimited support. I appreciate and give value to your backing.

iv
Acknowledgments
There are so many to acknowledge and it should be noted up front that these
acknowledgments are not made in any order of significance. All who are recognized here,
and those whom I inadvertently forget to acknowledge, made their valuable contributions
to me as I made my journey through this process. To each and every one of you I shall
always be sincerely grateful.
I want to extend my gratitude to my faculty mentor and chair, Dr. Jelena Vucetic,
for inspiring me with her concerns, timely guidance, and expertise. I felt privileged to
have been mentored by Dr. Jelena who made this dissertation a truly wonderful journey
and experience. I also want to thank my committee members Dr. Cynthia Calongne and
Dr. Jose M. Nieves for their contributions of knowledge and experience.
I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Ato Teferra Waluwa for
encouraging me to continue my studies and providing support when I needed it. I would
like to thank Mr. Bobak for encouraging and supporting my interest to study. Ato
Tessema Geda, deserve special thanks for all the support you extended during my studies
and most of all volunteered to facilitate the field visit and data collection.
Last, but not least, I would like to express my appreciation to the management and
all research participants of the five community ICT centers where this study was
conducted, I acknowledge your contributions to this study. I admire your interest and
passion for the development of ICT. I gratefully acknowledge and appreciate your
encouragement and cooperation with this research.

v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Rationale 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 7
Assumptions and Limitations 10
Conceptual Framework 10
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Introduction to ICT and Development 13
Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction 15
Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty 22
Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty 28
Telecentre Models in Africa 35
Theoretical Framework for Telecenters 36

vi
Impact Assessment of Telecenters 39
Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters 45
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 49
Research Design 50
Sample 56
Setting 57
Instrumentation 57
Data Collection 58
Data Analysis 62
Validity and Reliability 67
Ethical Considerations 69
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 71
Introduction 71
Overview of the ICT Community Centers 72
Sources of Qualitative Data and Demographic Data of Research Participants 76
Data Analysis and Interpretation 81
Findings 87
Research Question 1 88
Themes 89
Economic Benefits 91
Educational Benefits 99
Health Benefits 109
General Benefit of the Community ICT Centers 117

vii
Common Benefits Perceived by Individuals 125
Difference Between Individuals’ Perceptions 145
Cross Case Analysis 147
Summary of the Findings 153
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 157
Introduction 157
Summary 158
Findings and Related Conclusions 159
Summary of Thematic Groups 161
Conclusions 166
Implications of the Research Findings 168
Recommendations for Further Study 169
Reflections of the Researcher 170
REFERENCES 173
APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH 187
APPENDIX B. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 188
APPENDIX C. QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (AMHARIC
VERSION) 189
APPENDIX D. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT 190
APPENDIX E. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICT CENTER 193
APPENDIX F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 197

viii
APPENDIX G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-USER OF ICT CENTER 199
APPENDIX H. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ICT CENTERS AND USAGE
CHARACTERISICS 202
APPENDIX I. EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPTS 206
APPENDIX J. EXCERPTS OF QDA MINER 3.2 CODING 210
APPENDIX K. RESULT OF AUTO-CODING BY WORDSTAT 6.1 214
APPENDIX L. FREQUENCY COUNTS FOR SUBCATEGORIES 215
APPENDIX M. RESPONSE ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS 217
APPENDIX N. RESPONSE ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS 218
APPENDIX O. RESPONSE ON HEALTH BENEFITS 219
APPENDIX P. RESPONSE ON GENERAL BENEFITS 220
APPENDIX Q. RESPONSE ON UNCOMMON BENEFITS 221

ix
List of Tables
Table 1. ICT Performance Measures 44
Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy 50
Table 3. Relationship of Research, Focus Group, and Interview Questions 82
Table 4. Initial Manual Codes Developed and Used by QDA Miner 3.2 Qualitative
Analysis Software 83
Table 5. Final Codes After Combination and Refinement of Manual and Auto-coding 85
Table 6. Frequency Counts for Categories 86
Table 7. Frequency Counts for Subcategories 126
Table H-1. Objectives of the Five Community ICT Centers 202
Table H-2. Services Offered and Number of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203
Table H-3. Demography of Users (July 2009-June 2010) 203
Table H-4. No. of User and Non-User Research Participants 204
Table H-5. Educational Background of Participants 204
Table Q-1. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Economic Benefits
221
Table Q-2. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Educational
Benefits 221
Table Q-3. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon Health Benefits
221
Table Q-4. Table of Analysis of Research Participants on Uncommon General Benefits
222

x
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 11
Figure 2. Heeks’s integral and systematic view of ICT. 17
Figure 3. Torero and von Braun’s ICT and development: A conceptual base. 18
Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. 20
Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. 24
Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid. 41
Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. 55
Figure 8. Explanatory data display. 56
Figure 9. Template for coding study of ICT community centers (CITC). 64
Figure 10. Sample descriptive data display. 65
Figure 11. Age of interviewed participants of the study. 77
Figure 12. Frequency distribution of gender. 78
Figure 13. Educational background of participants. 79
Figure 14. Work status of participants. 80
Figure 15. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 89
Figure 16. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of LA community ICT center. 91
Figure 17. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of KY community ICT center 94
Figure 18. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of DH community ICT center. 95
Figure 19. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of TK community ICT center. 97
Figure 20. Analysis of responses to economic benefits of YY community ICT center. 98
Figure 21. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of LA community ICT center.
100

xi
Figure 22. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of KY community ICT center.
102
Figure 23. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of DH community ICT center.
104
Figure 24. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of TK community ICT center.
106
Figure 25. Analysis of responses to educational benefits of YY community ICT center.
108
Figure 26. Analysis of responses to health benefits of LA community ICT center. 110
Figure 27. Analysis of responses to health benefits of KY community ICT center. 111
Figure 28. Analysis of responses to health benefits of DH community ICT center. 113
Figure 29. Analysis of responses to health benefits of TK community ICT center. 115
Figure 30. Analysis of responses to health benefits of YY community ICT center. 116
Figure 31. Analysis of responses to general benefits of LA community ICT center. 118
Figure 32. Analysis of responses to general benefits of KY community ICT center. 120
Figure 33. Analysis of responses to general benefits of DH community ICT center. 121
Figure 34. Analysis of responses to general benefits of TK community ICT center. 123
Figure 35. Analysis of responses to general benefits of YY community ICT center. 124
Figure 36. Analysis of responses against common economic benefits. 127
Figure 37. Analysis of responses against common educational benefits. 129
Figure 38. Analysis of responses against common health benefits. 130
Figure 39. Analysis of responses against common general benefit. 131
Figure 40. Aggregated response of important services. 133
Figure 41. Response of important services against community ICT centers. 134
Figure 42. Aggregated response of second important services. 135
Figure 43. Response of second important service by community ICT centers. 136

xii
Figure 44. Aggregated response of most valued IT. 137
Figure 45. Response of most valued IT against community ICT centers. 138
Figure 46. Aggregated response of second important IT. 139
Figure 47. Response of the second important IT against community ICT centers. 139
Figure 48. Aggregated response of less important services. 140
Figure 49. Response of less important service by community ICT centers 141
Figure 50. Aggregated response of less important IT. 142
Figure 51. Response of less important IT by community ICT centers. 143
Figure 52. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on economic benefits. 148
Figure 53. Cross case comparison of community ICT centers on educational benefits. 149
Figure 54. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on health benefits. 151
Figure 55. Cross case comparison of the community ICT centers on general benefits. 152
Figure 56. Clustering of benefits into thematic groupings. 161
Figure H-1. Educational background of participants. 205

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Information and communication technology (ICT) was a basis for globalization
and now is one of the features or a prerequisite for development. The progress a country
registers depends on how much the socio-economic development is assisted by ICT. ICT
diffusion, development and sell are a measure of the development level of a nation. For
countries like Ethiopia, who are left behind in the global development, ICT, in addition,
is a weapon by which they can narrow the digital divide and thereby the development gap
between the developed and the developing countries.
Several researches have been conducted to understand the relation between ICT
and poverty. Although agreements are reached on the importance of ICT to development,
there are divergent views on the relation between ICT and poverty.
One of the common denominators observed in the literature is that in some aspect
of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed
areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of
economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor, Scott, & Woolnough,
2005). The World Bank (2000b) declared that information and communication
technologies hold the promise of enormous positive influence on countries' economic and
social development.

Effectiveness of ICT on Poverty
2
But the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to the
other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing ―opinion
camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that
claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction‖ (p. 82). Bedi (1999) added to this
view, expressed differently as, ―The role and impact of these technologies are still
obscure‖ (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen lies in between the previous two
views.
When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty
alleviation mentions Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income
inequality if conditions are not right. Alampay (2006), on the other hand, grouped the
views on the role of ICT in addressing poverty into three: optimist, pessimist, and
middle-ground.
This research, therefore, explores the link between ICTs, and poverty in
developing countries. The primary focus of this research is on the exchange of
information in the rural areas which is instrumental in improving their lively hood. In
addition, examination of the current scenario is conducted to identify or develop ICT
based on reliability, affordability and effectiveness to the rural communities.
To limit the scope, the study is conducted in the context of usage of ICT
community centers in Ethiopia which could facilitate in addressing or settling the gap
observed.

3
Background of the Study
The potential and deployment of information and communication technologies
(ICT) as a development tool have raised various views. The role ICT plays in addressing
poverty varies from one literature to the other. In the preliminary literature review, at
least two broad different camps were observed: those who declare that ICT is the panacea
of poverty (Talero & Gaudette, 1995) and those that argue that ICT has no significant
role in addressing poverty (Rodgers as cited in Bedi, 1999). In fact, there are few who
also argue that ICT can even widen the gap of income inequality. Alampay (2006), on the
other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.
According to Talero and Gaudette (1995), the use of information technologies is
enhancing change in the development of economies and societies. On a more skeptical
note, Rodgers (as cited in Bedi, 1999) pointed out that access to the new technologies is a
function of the existing income, education, and wealth distributions. It is argued that
both, the inability to access due to limited education or inappropriate language skills and
the prevalence of inequalities in access will tend to exacerbate information gaps and thus
increase inter-personal and inter-regional income inequality in developing countries.
Haseloff (2005) also underlined that the availability of ICT does not necessarily
guarantee that people are benefiting from it, confirming Gurstein’s (2003) concept of
effective use.
The variety of views expressed suggests that the role played by information and
communication technologies is still inconclusive and that the discussion concerning it
suffers from a lack of adequate evidence and information. The result of this research will

4
lay a good ground for future research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT
plays in addressing poverty. In addition, the result is expected to support in designing and
promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation programs and may contribute in developing a
comprehensive perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
Statement of the Problem
Several research studies showed the existence of relationship of ICT,
development and poverty alleviation (Batchelor et al., 2005; Miller, 2006). The outcome
of the research undertaken however varies in describing the role of ICT in poverty
alleviation (Bedi, 1999; Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). Therefore,
further research on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could
facilitate in addressing or settling the gap observed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention will be considered as applied to
community ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user
community. The result is expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled
poverty alleviation programs and will contribute in developing a comprehensive
perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
The general objective of this research is to examine different ICTs deployed in
varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by
extension to other developing countries.

5
Rationale
Researches differ in the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation (Bedi, 1999;
Kelles-Viitanen, 2003; Talero & Gaudette, 1995). As a result, conducting further research
on this issue in the context of usage of ICT community centers could facilitate in
addressing or settling the gap observed.
Other motivation for the study was that few years back the Government and the
World Bank have committed substantial amount of finance to develop ICT infrastructure
and applications to change the life of the poor. Public investment in ICT infrastructure
and services have increased substantially from a paltry US$29 million in 2002 to US$300
million in 2004 and US $1.5 billion in 2007-2008 (Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, 2009). Specific among the projects financed by government and World Bank
was the establishment of community ICT centers. Increases in investment have resulted
in improvements in ICT infrastructure but the provision of services introduced at the
community ICT centers have yet to be examined whether they benefit the community.
In addition, to countries like Ethiopia where more than 80% of the citizens are
rural habitants, exploring the relationship between ICT and poverty can bring a great
contribution in transforming the country (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
2008).
On the other hand, the findings of the study will lay a good ground for future
research by analyzing multiple-cases to discern the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
By studying the various scenarios of the multiple-cases, developers and users of ICT can
explore for ways to maximize the benefit of ICT deployment. In addition, the result is

6
expected to support in designing and promoting ICT enabled poverty alleviation
programs. Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive
perspective on the role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
Research Questions
The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and
Schindler’s (2003) hierarchy of questions.
Top Research Question: What is the relationship between ICT intervention and
poverty alleviation in the context of poor communities?
Sub-questions:
1. What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community ICT
centers in addressing poverty?
2. Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most important in
addressing poverty?
3. What is the difference between individual’s perception on the use and benefits
of community ICT centers in addressing poverty?
Answers to these research questions were not conducted on Ethiopian ICT
community centers prior to this study. Moreover, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) indicated that more convincing empirical evidence is required on
the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochrú & Girard, 2005). More clarity concerning
which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how they were used is needed.
Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of poverty ICTs are capable of
reducing most is also necessary to know. Therefore, overall there is a lack of knowledge

7
on the role of ICT on poverty and in particular in the context of ICT community centers
in Ethiopia.
Significance of the Study
The study lays foundation for further research that will show the relationship of
ICT and poverty alleviation. By understanding the factors that influence the use of ICT,
models could be developed that assist for improving the deployment and the benefit of
ICT. This will contribute in maximizing the return of ICT investment on development.
Furthermore, the study will contribute in developing a comprehensive perspective on the
role of ICT on poverty alleviation and development.
In addition, by understanding the reasons and factors that determine the
effectiveness of ICT on development, stakeholders will improve the way ICT is
deployed. Although many models are proposed, there is no full agreement on the role of
ICT on development. With better depth of understanding the factors, existing models and
approaches could be refined or new approaches could also evolve that guide ICT
deployment. An immediate outcome of the study is the ability of stakeholders to
influence the effective deployment of ICT.
Definition of Terms
ICT. The term information and communication technology (ICT) has many
definitions and two of the closely similar definitions related to the purpose of the
literature review are that of Torero and von Braun (2006) and Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1998) member countries.

8
Torero and von Braun (2006) defined ICT to encompass both equipment and
services that facilitate the electronic capture, processing, display, and transmission of
information. Broadly this includes ―the computing industry, electronic data processing
and display, telecommunication and related services, and audiovisual equipment and
services‖ (p. 3). Related to the definition of Torero and von Braun’s, in 1998, OECD
member countries agreed to define the ICT sector as ―a combination of manufacturing
and services industries that capture, transmit and display data and information
electronically‖ (p. 19). In addition, in 2001, the Commission of the European
Communities stated that ICTs denote ―a wide range of services, applications, and
technologies, using various types of equipment and software, often running over telecom
networks‖ (p. 3).
The definitions make a useful distinction between the equipment or
manufacturing and service dimensions of the ICT which clears way for understanding the
scope and breadth of ICT.
Poverty. Definition of poverty was developed by development economist Sen
(1999) and institutions such as the World Bank (2000b) and the Commission of the
European Communities (2001). Absolute poverty, as reflected by Wolfensohn and
Bourguignon (2004), is seen ―as the inability to achieve basic standards in nutrition,
health, education, the environment, and a voice in the decisions affecting poor people’s
lives‖ (p. 8). Any individual who earns less than 1.25 USD/day is defined to be under
absolute poverty. Globally, the World Bank and the UN has developed a plan that will be
executed by countries to cut in half the number of poor people by 2015 (UNDP, n.d.). To

9
reach that goal, several development programs on agriculture, health, education, etc has
been outlined which will affect income and the standard of living of the poor. ICT is one
of the technologies that have a contribution in this endeavor.
Poverty, as discussed by Kelles- Viitanen (2003), is a highly complex socioeconomic
problem that should be tackled concurrently in various aspects. As a result, addressing
poverty requires the synergy of combined efforts that produces the most sustainable
results.
Community ICT center/Telecenter. There are several definitions of telecenter, two
among them are: one is the definition specified by Kanfi and Tulus (1998) of
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) as a site with facilities to provide
diverse information-based goods and services, and in addition supports social or local
economic development. The second definition is the one given by Doshi and Gollakota
(n.d.), who underlined that the basic element of a telecenter is a place that houses one or
more computers with internet access, printer and often has webcam.
According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects are identified.
The first type of telecenter initiative includes smal1 phone shops which have covered
parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The second type of telecenter initiative offers
greater scope to support socio-economic development by providing a wide variety of
public and private information-based goods and services to rural communities. These
telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters) are designed to offer
communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related subjects, and to serve as
local hubs for government information and services and for commercial activity.

10
Assumptions and Limitations
One of the limitations expected is that of data collection which will be confined to
the individuals and community ICT centers identified in the study. Second major
limitation might be due to some perception, the respondents might not have provided the
correct information which would affect both the credibility and validity of the findings.
Among the various limitations that are perceived in the study, the participants’ biased
response might be the most serious one.
Conceptual Framework
The research is an exploratory study that employs a qualitative multiple-case
study approach. The main area of focus will be on the effectiveness of using information
and communication technology in helping poor communities in getting information that
improves their standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis
will be the relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. As a result the key
variable under investigation is the user perceived benefits of using ICT.
The conceptual Framework developed to comprehend the scenario is depicted on
Figure 1. This conceptual framework was developed as a synthesis of existing
frameworks from literature. Community ICT centers are designed to provide technology-
based services to communities that did not have an opportunity to access computer
technology. As shown in Figure 1, the ICT community centers could not exist without
appropriate ICT policy, investment, and the necessary support for the operation of the
centers. Users and communities will benefit out of the center by accessing the services of
the community ICT center to achieve personal and business goals. Since the outcomes of

11
all these issues are contingent upon various contextual and environmental factors, aspects
of the input-process-output contingency model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005) served as the
theoretical framework for the study.
Factors Activities Outcomes
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Effectiveness of information and communication
technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers
The focus of the case study was on 5 community ICT centers located in several
parts of Ethiopia that have been operational for at least a year. Users of the ICT
community centers were interviewed on the benefits they got after the establishment of
the centers. Focus of the benefit was on utilizing the ICT centers for accessing
information that has brought benefit to the community. This was the bases for analyzing
whether ICT can support communities in improving their standard of living.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2 provides a review of related literature, beginning with literatures related
to ICT, development, and poverty. The review continues with literatures that discuss the
impact of telecenter as related to community development. It concludes with an
assessment of the current literature. Chapter 3 presents the research methodology chosen
ICT Policy
ICT investment
oCommunity
ICT centers
ICT support
Increased
economic
activity
oMarketing
informatio
n
Services
Economic
benefit
Social benefits
oBenefits to
communit
y

12
to answer the research questions, a justification for employing multiple-case qualitative
methodology, the purposeful sampling plan, plans for data collection, analysis, and
reporting, and concerns with reliability and validity. Chapter 4 presents the data collected
from participants in the study and analysis of the data in light of the research questions.
Chapter 5 briefly summarizes the purpose of the study, the research methodology, the key
findings, and provides conclusions from the analyzed data found in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
also contains recommendations for further research.

13
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to ICT and Development
The potential and deployment of information technology as a development tool
could be taken as a universally accepted view. The 2001 United Nation's Human
Development Report underscored that technological innovation is essential for achieving
the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP, 2001) and recognized ICT as a technology
that can play a key role in development. In addition, the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS, 2004) underscored the role of ICT in supporting rural
development by helping to participate in global markets; transform the provision of basic
services; and increase opportunities for local development. Furthermore, Heeks (1999)
underlined that hundreds of billions of dollars per year are spent on ICTs, reflecting a
powerful global belief in the transformatory potential of these new technologies.
According to Best and Maier (2007), there is a great promise on the effects of
ICTs on development and poverty reduction in the global South. In addition, Pade,
Mallinson, and Lannon (2005) stressed that ICTs play a significant role in social and
economic development in developing countries. Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009)
noted that ICTs are widely acknowledged as important resources for socioeconomic
advancement in both developed and developing countries.
The 2002 report of Department for International Development (DFID) discussed
the roles of ICTs in regards to achieving the MDGs of eradicating extreme poverty and

14
hunger, and noted that ICT increases access to market information and lower transaction
costs for poor farmers and traders and enhance ability of developing countries to
participate in the global economy. In addition, the World Bank (2003) underscored that
ICTs can help to alleviate poverty by: stimulating macroeconomic growth; making
markets more efficient; improving social inclusion; and facilitating political involvement.
However, according to Franklin (2006), although there is a growing body of
evidence linking investment in ICTs to economic growth, but little convincing evidence
on the links to pro-poor growth. As a result several studies have been conducted to
examine the link between ICT and poverty. As stated by Munyua (2000), some studies
have focused on information systems serving rural communities on specific sectors such
as agriculture or health, instead of covering the rural community needs in a holistic
manner.
Several studies showed that the effects of ICT on poverty are treated in various
forms from conceptual to micro investigation of the issue. It was found that poverty is a
social phenomenon with a multitude of dimensions and likewise the publications
examined the effects of ICT on poverty from various facets. Just as poverty had several
manifestations, so was the mix of researches undertaken in studying the effect of ICT on
poverty.

15
Conceptual Models that Link ICT to Development and Poverty Reduction
The relationship of ICT and poverty could be expressed in various ways. But the
most important of all is a relationship conceptualized by theory, model or framework.
This provides a coherent understanding of the relationship that exists. E. M. Rogers
(1983) and Harris (2002) have contributed on conceptual researches on the effect of ICT
on poverty. In particular, E. M. Rogers (1983) developed the base for innovation
diffusion theory. The theory was applicable in diverse environments of innovations that
also include the use of ICTs. It is therefore imperative in understanding the spread and
use of ICTs in communities. Harris, on the other hand, developed a model that
demonstrate the relationship between ICTs and development which addressed the digital
divide in greater depth. This model was developed to facilitate implementation targeting
community development that empowered the community to develop their own agenda for
ICT-assisted development before deploying technology.
As the relationship of ICT, development, and poverty was studied by researchers
from several disciplines, they utilized various conceptual frameworks, approaches and
models to study the subject matter. Few among them are socio-technical (Walsham,
1997); rural livelihoods framework (Ellis, 2000); design-reality gap (Heeks, 2003);
capability approach (Alampay, 2006; Sen, 1999); the knowledge and information systems
perspective (Engels, 1997); the sustainable livelihood framework (DFID, 2001); social
construction of technology (SCOT) and actor-network theory (Kline & Pinch, 1990); and
diffusion theory (Doshi & Gollakota, n.d.; E. M. Rogers, 1983).

16
However, in this section, two conceptual models are considered and discussed.
One is the model developed by Heeks (2002) and the second is model developed by
Torero and von Braun (2006).
Heeks (1999) conducted research which provides a theoretical framework for
empirical studies in this area. He underlined the role of ICT as communication
technology to be more pronounced than information processing or production
technology. Further, Heeks (2002) developed an integral and systemic model of ICTs to
facilitate a contextual view of technology in order to understand it. The conceptual model
of Heeks (2002) is an information-centered approach with ICTs sitting alongside other
information-handling technologies, as an integral part of an overall factoral and
institutional environment that will significantly shape ICT-related impacts. This model is
depicted on Figure 2.

17
Figure 2. Heeks’s integral and systematic view of ICT. From ―i-development not e-
development: special issue on ICTs and development,‖ by R. Heeks, 2002, Journal of
International Development, 14(1), 1–11. Copyright 2002 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Reprinted with permission.
On the other hand, Torero and von Braun’s (2006) framework of ICT for poverty
alleviation directly addressed poverty and ICT. Torero and von Braun’s broad conceptual
framework examines the driving forces affecting the supply and demand for ICT. It also
identifies economic and social benefits in general and poverty outcomes in particular, as
summarized in the following simplified chart (Figure 3).

18
Figure 3. Torero and von Braun’s ICT and development: A conceptual base.
From ―Information and Communication Technologies for Development and Poverty
Reduction. The Potential of Telecommunications,‖ by M. Torero & J. von Braun (2006).
Reprinted with permission.
In conclusion, both models perceive ICT beyond technology in the context of
broad factors. This view has strong ground as the development of ICT arguably has to
encompass broad arrays of factors beyond technology. It is noted that most of the factors
listed by Torero and von Braun’s (2006) are incorporated in Heeks’s (2002) model but
not vice versa. The institutional factors of Heeks’s are not part of the broad context of
Torero and von Braun. Whereas Heeks’s put the factors as influencing, Torero and von
Braun’s define them as driving forces. Hence, both models have differences in what the
factors are and their role in ICT for poverty.
According to Kuriyan, Ray, and Toyama (2008), the model for ICTs for
development (ICT4D) is based on increasing the well-being of the poor through market-
based solutions, and by using low-cost but advanced technologies. Recognizing the role

19
of ICT for development, Harris (2002), however, argued that for ICT to contribute in
poverty alleviation effort, the application of ICTs should always begin with a
development strategy. Subsequently, an information plan can be articulated that will be
followed by a technology plan. As noted by Labelle (2005), encouraging public policies
are necessary to make technologies tools for progress, but also make them socially
inclusive. Furthermore, UNDP has indicated that ICT is most effective when embedded
with already effective strategies for poverty reduction (Siochrú & Girard, 2005). This
approach is depicted on Figure 4.

20
Figure 4. The relationship between development, information, and ICTs. From ―A
Framework for Poverty Alleviation With ICTs,‖ by R. Harris, 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.communities.org.ru/ci-text/harris.doc

21
The approach followed by Harris (2002) could be taken as an approach that
operationalizes the model discussed earlier. In the model, ICT development was viewed
in the perspective of broad contextual factors for its implementation and Harris is
prescribing the need of development strategy before the information plan which in effect
calls for the need of addressing the contextual factors for implementing ICT.
Furthermore, Harris (2002) declared that according to the International Labor
Union (ILO), although investments in ICT are not sufficient cause for development, ICTs
can have a significant effect on socio-economic development. Martin and McKeown as
quoted by Harris (2002) suggest that the use of ICT is not adequate to address problems
of rural areas without an integrated rural development. It is noted that unless there is
minimal infrastructural development in at least transport, health, and education, it is
improbable that investments from ICT alone will change rural life. Similarly, Bedi (1999)
suggested that a minimum base of ICT penetration was required in order for these
technologies to influence and show impact on growth.
According to Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.), information gaps are one of the
problems associated with rural poverty. Jacobs and Herselman (2006), on the other hand,
underlined that information is critical to development; thus ICTs as tools of exchanging
information are not simply a connection between people, but a linking bridge in the chain
of the development process itself. Specifically, it has been argued that ICTs are used to
reduce poverty (Duncombe, 2001), and open window of opportunities for economic
development (World Bank, 1998). Access to information provides people with the

22
opportunity to support production, access markets, and engage in communication with
other people (Ellis, 2000).
Furthermore, Wims and Lawler (2007) stated that ICT-enabled access to
information can empower the poor as the hardest obstacle to sustainable development is
information poverty. According to Abraham (2007), ICTs can help in improving
information flows, reducing search costs and generally contributing to market efficiency.
In addition, Waverman, Meschi, and Fuss (n.d.) comprehensively examined the impact of
mobile telephony on economic growth in Africa. They found that usage of mobile
telephony has an encouraging result and impact on economic growth. Thus, Jacobs and
Herselman (2006) concluded that ICT can contribute to development process by
improving efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. However, Beardon (2005) argued that the
impact of ICT-based projects has generally fallen well below the optimistic expectations.
From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that for ICT to have effect on
development some conditions have to be satisfied. The first one is the recognition of ICT
development as part and parcel of broad development strategy. Hence, the need of
integrating ICT in the development strategy is essential. The second issue for ICT
development is the requirement of minimum development bases on infrastructure and
education. Unless these two factors are considered and put into effect, ICT deployment
might end up in failure.
Assessment of Current Literature on the Effects of IT on Poverty
Research evidence indicates that public access to ICT use has led to increase in IT
knowledge and aspirations (Bailey, 2009; Best, Kolko, Thakur, & Aitieva, 2007;

23
Fedotova, 2008; Lengyel, Eranusz, Füleki, Lőrincz, & Siklós, 2006; Mercer, 2006). In
addition, Kumar and Best (2006) have found that the availability of e-government
services at public access facilities leads to lower levels of corruption in service delivery.
While some researchers have found limited evidence of employment-related
benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008; Parkinson &
Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area. Fedotova (2008) found that
participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT skills they had acquired
would help in their job search, and some felt it would help them to gain a promotion.
Moreover, Best et al. (2007) reported that eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of
the skills they gained at the computer center.
Overall, Alampay (2006) noted that there are disagreements on whether ICTs are
crucial to development. Three different views categorized as optimist, pessimist, and
middle-ground have emerged in the research conducted on the effects of ICT on poverty.
Optimists are those who uphold the view that access and use of ICTs facilitates
sustainable development (McNamara, 2000).
On the other hand, an opposing view underlines that ICT can and will increase the
current inequalities (Nulens, 2000). Some of the international development community
argues that African governments should focus on building schools, delivering basic
health care, electricity and clean water rather than on the building of costly ICT
infrastructure with their limited financial resources (Mahan & Misnikov, 2004;
Ngwenyama, Andoh-Baidoo, Bollou, & Morawczynski, 2006).

24
The view from the middle-ground considers that if ICTs are applied appropriately,
it can play a role in the development of a nation (Soeftestad & Sein, 2003). Furthermore,
there is anecdotal evidence that indicate access to ICT can have a significant effect on
changing the standard of life of the rural poor.
Heeks (2002) further provided a useful framework for comparing different views
about the expected impacts of ICTs in development, which is reproduced in Figure 5.
Optimism (―It will be good.‖)
Neutrality (―It will be good
and bad.‖)
Pessimism (―It will be bad.‖)
Technological Contingency Social Determinism
Determinism (―It depends…‖) (―People cause…‖)
(―Computers cause…‖)
Figure 5. Framework for analyzing different views about ICTs and their impacts. From
―i-development not e-development: special issue on ICTs and development,‖ by R.
Heeks, 2002, Journal of International Development, 14(1), 1–11. Copyright 2002 John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
Position A on Heeks’s (2002) framework, optimistic technological determinism,
is the view that Heeks recognized as characterizing most development organizations.
Heeks advocates is B, which views the types of impacts associated with technological
change as both good and bad, and which sees society rather than technological factors as
primary determinants of outcomes.
According to Alampay (2006) more field study is necessary to help determine the
validity of pessimistic, optimistic, or middle ground arguments. Although more cases are
being studied, empirical evidence on the impact of such interventions is very limited in
A
B

25
developing countries (Bedi 1999; O’Farrell, Norrish, & Scott, n.d.). According to Heeks
(1999), there are questions on the real contribution of ICTs on national development.
Hence, more research is needed to determine the users of ICT and the level of benefit
distribution (Bedi, 1999). Furthermore, UNDP indicated that more convincing empirical
evidence is required on the role ICTs play in reducing poverty (Siochrú & Girard, 2005).
More clarity concerning which ICTs have been effective in reducing poverty and how
they were used is needed. Better understanding of which of the many dimensions of
poverty ICTs are capable of reducing most is also necessary to know.
One of the common denominator observed in the literatures is that in some aspect
of the relationship of ICT and development, it seems there is a consensus. The agreed
areas are: the fact that ICT is not a goal but a tool, the recognition of ICT as a driver of
economic growth; and ICT as a tool to attack poverty (Batchelor et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, Kelles-Viitanen (2003) tabled fundamental questions on the link
between ICT, development, and poverty alleviation. She argued whether economic
growth together with the ICTs alone will reduce poverty. She further declared that
economic growth is necessary but not sufficient factor to poverty reduction. She went
further to ask,
If poor people do not have access to basic education, how will they take
advantage of employment and income opportunities created by economic growth?
If there is discrimination and social exclusion, how will the discriminated and
excluded people take advantage of the expanded economic activities and share the
benefits of the economic growth? (p. 7)
However, the role ICT plays in addressing poverty varies from one literature to
the other. According to Kelles-Viitanen (2003), there are at least two opposing ―opinion
camps: those that consider ICT to be the panacea for poverty reduction and those that

26
claim that has no reasonable role in poverty reduction‖ (p. 82). Bedi (1999) also added to
this view, expressed differently as, ―The role and impact of these technologies are still
obscure‖ (p. 3). The declared position of Kelles-Viitanen which lies in between the
previous two adds other perspective to the role of ICT on poverty. Alampay (2006), on
the other hand, grouped the views into three: optimist, pessimist, and middle-ground.
Similarly, Heeks (2002), although from different perspective, categorized three different
positions regarding the role of ICT.
When Bedi (1999) addressed the different positions in respect to ICT and poverty
alleviation cited Rodgers, who argued that ICT can even widen the gap of income
inequality if conditions are not right. Moreover, E. M. Rogers (1995) underscored that
researches undertaken in developing countries has indicated that the diffusion of
innovations has contributed in widening the socioeconomic gap among the higher and
lower strata of a community.
As a result, an observation has been made on the different positions and views of
scholars in the role ICT can have on poverty alleviation. There are some authors who
believe ICT can address poverty. Torero and von Braun’s (2006) book essentially
addresses the linkage between ICT and poverty alleviation. Some case studies done in
Africa were also in support to this side. Opiyo and K’Akumu (2006) argued that ICT can
help informal sector to develop. Bjärhov (2006) supplemented this view by referring to
experience of Tanzania and Kenya that shows mobile opening up business that can
promote their standard of living.

27
There are now considerable evidences that telecommunications contributes to
socioeconomic development (Conradie & Jacobs, 2003; Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Mncube,
2003); studies have shown that access to information through telecommunications can
facilitate many development activities including agriculture, commerce, tourism,
education, health care and social services (Gomez & Hunt, 1999; Sebusang & Masupe,
2003). Ngwenyama et al. (2006) showed that complementary investments in ICT, health
and education can significantly increase development.
Based on the analysis of researches addressed in this research, an observation was
also noted that the researches on the effects of IT on poverty has several characteristics
(a) researchers have diversified disciplines (b) poverty is a multi-dimensional
phenomenon illustrated in various forms; so is the researches; (c) the level of analysis
was diversified ranging from conceptual to micro level of investigation; and (d) the
researches conducted employed diversified approaches and methods to study poverty. In
conclusion, analyses suggest that the types of researches conducted on the effect of IT on
poverty reflect the interdisciplinary nature of research, drawing upon a number of fields
and researchers.
In summary, in the literature review conducted there is a consensus on many areas
of ICT’s role in development; however, the role played by ICT in poverty alleviation
could be taken as unsettled issue. As noted by Abraham (2007), there is considerable
speculation about the correlation between investments in telecommunications and
economic development. Yet, there has been very little research on whether there is a
connection between ICTs and economic growth. In addition, Ramirez and Richardson

28
(2005) asserted that the potential benefits that telecommunication services bring to rural
and remote communities are generally perceived as beneficial though their actual impact
is difficult to ascertain. In relation to this, Gurstein (2003) came with a notion of effective
use to address the extent to which people have access to the infrastructure and can put it
to work in practical ways.
Furthermore, Sey and Fellows (2009) stressed that despite the fairly long history
of the deployment of public access ICTs around the world, there is still no definitive
word on the utility of this approach. H. Rogers (2007) put this point as, ―Projects that
promote ICTs for poverty alleviation are mostly innovations that are in the early stages‖
(p. 31), which confirms that there is no consensus. Therefore, further research on this
issue could facilitate in addressing the gap observed.
Role of ICT Community Centers in Addressing Poverty
According to a UNDP report developed by Siochrú and Girard (2005), the
majority of poor across the globe are still beyond affordable reach of ICTs. Furthermore,
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU, 2009) identified lack of connectivity
and the cost of access as obstacles to access to information for the developing world. To
address these challenges and assist developing countries bridge the digital divide, ITU
underlined the need of creating public access centers such as telecenters.
ICT community centers, usually called telecenters, are mushrooming in
developing countries with the aim of bringing the benefits of ICT to the rural poor
(Roman, 2003). Since different types of telecenters are being implemented around the
world, there are various synonyms for 'telecenters'. Some examples are telecottages,

29
teleports, Information Kiosks, Information Centres, Multipurpose Community
Telecenters (MCTs), infocommues, Community Technology Centres (CTC), etc. Due to
this situation, there is not a universally accepted definition for 'telecenters' and no single
definition is claimed to be completely accurate. However, a general concept or broad
working definition of 'telecenters' is attempted by different groups.
Telecenter is defined as a community centre that offers shared access to ICTs for
the purpose of community level development and poverty reduction (Gomez & Martinez,
2001; UNDP, 2007); and as public places where community members can access a
variety of ICTs and related services (Colle & Roman, 2002; Parkinson & Lauzon, 2008;
Proenza, n.d.).
According to Gomez, Hunt, and Lamoureux (1999), telecenters around the world
share a common characteristic; they are recognized as centers used for public ICT access
to achieve several development purposes. Telecenters were generally agreed to be tools
and not ends in themselves. As described by the World Bank (2000a), the telecenter is a
promising new model for deployment of service to communities. The view of the World
Bank is shared by many other researchers, including Harris (2004) and Fuchs (1997).
When applying ICTs for development, Harris emphasized the importance to target
disadvantaged and marginalized groups. In addition, Fuchs proposed telecenters as a
method of access to ICTs and as a solution to access difficulties in rural areas and in
regions mainly occupied by the poor.
Telecenters provide an alternative to the model of one-to-one individual access to
a computer that predominates in the developed world. According to Jensen and

30
Esterhuysen (2001), to meet the challenges caused by low penetration rates of new
information technology, public access to communication and information services are
being established through public and private programs across the developing nations. As
a result, telecenters are quickly growing as a means of providing universal access in
places where universal household ownership of a computer and telephone line is clearly
unrealistic (Fuchs, 1997; IDRC, 1999; Proenza, Bastidas-Buch, & Montero, 2001).
Parkinson and Lauzon (2008) noted that globally telecenters have become an accepted
model for creating greater and more equitable access to ICTs, with the understanding that
such access will in turn lead to development.
According to Heeks (2008), given that poverty concentrates in rural areas, the
model that fell into everyone’s lap was the rural telecenter. Toyama et al. (2005) also
added that rural PC kiosks are one manifestation of various attempts to apply ICT for
socio-economic development. Furthermore, Soriano (2007) expressed telecenters as
catalysts for information and knowledge that can create opportunities and choices for
rural communities.
As explained by Whyte (2000) telecenters are looked at as fast and cost effective
ways to provide marginalized communities with access to telecommunications and
information resources. Telecenters are also a viable approach to reducing poverty,
ranging from job creation, providing ICT skills, providing community with access to
information on social, educational, medical and other programs (Jensen & Esterhuysen,
2001). However, Pott (2003) argued that in order to contribute to development, the

31
creation of telecenters had to be connected to the existing community organizations and
initiatives.
Kumar (2004) underscored that stemming from a movement in Europe in the
1980s; telecenters are now arguably the most common type of ICT4D project. According
to Etta and Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003), the telecenter idea was born in 1985 in Velmdalen,
a small farming village in Sweden. In the decade that followed, cybercafés and similar
Netsurfing locales proliferated everywhere imaginable—ranging from the Casa Del
Corrigedor in Puno, Peru, to the Phlegmatic Dog in Moscow (Malloy, 2005). Fillip and
Dennis (2007) noted that the increase of telecenter popularity has occurred as the use of
lCT as a development tool has increased acceptance by governments, the private sector,
and NGOs.
According to Madon (2005), two main types of telecenter projects can be
identified from the literature. The small phone shops which have a good coverage in
Africa, Asia and Latin America are the first type of telecenter projects. These centers
have been successful in becoming source of revenue by offering basic telephone services,
fax and Internet services. However, the majority of these types of telecenters are in the
main cities and towns of the developing world and there is usually no explicit
commitment to wider developmental goals.
The second type of telecenter initiative offers greater scope to support socio-
economic development by facilitating the provision of a wide variety of public and
private information-based goods and services to rural communities. As remarked by
Madon (2005), these telecenters (sometimes called multipurpose community telecenters)

32
are designed to offer communication facilities, training on IT- and non-IT-related
subjects, and to serve as local hubs for government information and services and for
commercial activity. In addition, Van Belle and Trusler (2006) defined multipurpose
community telecenters as centers established to support and aid a disadvantaged group.
Roman (2003) underscored that the basic objective of telecenter is to provide
demand-driven communication and information services for community development.
Moodley (2005) added that telecenters are usually designed to provide a combination of
ICT services, ranging from email to full Internet and World Wide Web connectivity.
Furthermore, Rajalekshmi (2007) stated that telecenters function as multipurpose
community ICT access centers by providing e-commerce, e-governance, and other ICT
services. James (2005) added that while facilities and usage vary across telecenters, all
reflect the intention to address the issues of access by providing technology, develop
human capacity and encourage social and economic development. According to Rao
(2008), telecenters have evolved dramatically over the years in providing services from
access to computers and basic ICTs to include a wide variety of communications, content
and community development services. Furthermore, Best and Kumar (2008) stated that
these centers provide shared public access to ICTs and services via computers and the
internet.
Zongo (2001) noted that telecommunication and information services at
telecenters aim at a range of developmental objectives. Whyte (2000) provided a detailed
explanation of telecenters as potentially including basic communication such as phone,
fax, e-mail, Internet access, etc.; public and quasi-public sector services such as tele-

33
medicine, distance education, e-government, etc.; and access to information on markets,
transportation, price, and much more. Furthermore, many supporters of the telecenter
movement classify the services provided by telecenters as a kind of community
development, and often refer to them as community telecenters (IDRC, 1999).
Rao (2008), on the other hand, outlined the main category of services provided by
telecenters as (a) providing access to communication facilities and IT equipment; (b)
providing training in use of communication facilities and IT equipment; and (c) providing
on-demand ICTs for development services.
As stated by Rajalekshmi (2007), multipurpose community telecenters (MCTs)
have drawn attention from development agencies and other actors in the development
community, as potential vehicles for providing several social and development services,
much more than expanding access to ICTs. As a result, Colle (2005) noted that among
the most prominent driving forces behind the spread of ICTs and telecenters are the
Millennium Development Goals.
In the developing countries these centers were quickly linked to economic and
social development efforts at community level. As a result, proponents of telecenters
argue that telecenters are vitally necessary if the poor and marginalized are not to be left
behind (Gomez & Martinez, 2001; UNDP, 2001). Furthermore, H. Rogers (2007) stated
that telecenters generally claim to deliver benefits in the areas of health, education,
enterprise development, and agricultural improvement. He further asserted that access to
the abundant information sources and exchanges that the Internet facilitates is said to
empower communities towards development activities that will lift them out of poverty.

34
As discussed by Ashraf, Swatman, and Hanisch (2008), a telecenter project in
Bangladesh indicates that through public access to ICTs, community members gained
knowledge on basic hygiene practices. Moreover, Best et al. (2007), in their evaluation of
the eCenter project in Kyrgyzstan, underscored that social and economic development
impacts have been observed primarily through provision of necessary business and
communication services. On another similar research, Soriano (2007) concluded the
study by indicating positive implications of telecenters on economic, social, and human
aspects of rural poverty.
Furthermore, the 1998 World Bank report underscored that a telecenter ―provides
access to the rural poor‖ (p. 158). Moreover, the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (2007) stated that telecenters all have a common goal: to serve the
community and support local development.
ITU’s World Telecommunications Development Report of 1998 stated that
telecenters could play an important role in national strategies for universal access in view
of the fact that full universal service (a phone in every home) is not a realistic goal for
developing countries.
To summarize, the role of telecenters on development, the European parliament’s
document on developing countries and the ICT revolution (Pedrelli, 2001) stated that
Telecenters are today considered one of the most - successful means to promote
ICT diffusion in the developing countries. They increase the access of people to
ICT, particularly the poor and people living in remote rural areas. The telecenters
help local communities improve their business performance: they allow the local
enterprises to gain access to accurate market and pricing information. Through the
Internet and other information transmission systems they can become aware of
new market opportunities and also benefit from the training and access to the
knowledge network provided by the telecenters. Farmers can also access current

35
meteorological reports, information about the spread of animal and plant diseases,
pests and their control. (p.54)
Modley (2005) underscored that given the novelty of access to ICT and the
shortage of guidelines for establishing and operating community telecenters, many
research questions remain open as to how this type of innovation can bring equitable
access to information resources that will contribute to sustainable development among
the most disadvantaged sections of the population. As remarked by researchers (Dhingra
& Misra, 2005; Rangaswamy & Toyama, 2005), often, solutions are designed without
adequate consultation with the rural end-user, leading to a design-reality gap. However,
despite the attention, Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) underlined that much remains
unknown about these centers and rigorous studies that lead to generalisable conclusions
are scarce. In addition, research conducted by Toyama et al. (2005) are skeptical of the
long-term value of these centers.
Telecenter Models in Africa
Since the telecenter strategy was recognized by international development
institutions around the world in the middle of the 1990s, pilot telecenter projects have
been implemented in developing countries. According to Jensen and Esterhuysen (2001),
in the last few years, many telecenter projects have sprung up throughout Africa in an
effort to provide access to telephony and other ICTs to areas with the lowest access to
these systems. Whyte (2000) named four distinctive telecenter models in Africa: basic
telecenter, private telephone shops driven by smaller demand, cyber-cafes, and externally
funded larger community multipurpose centers. These models all aim at stimulating and

36
responding to the demand for information and communication services that provide
access to telephones, faxes, photocopying machines, email and Internet services in-order
to strengthen the personnel and professional needs of the community as well as for
community development.
Theoretical Framework for Telecenters
Rogers’s Diffusion Theory
Roman (2003) argued that telecenter research spans different cross-linked
conceptual levels of analysis and cannot be entirely framed within the bounds of a single
theoretical perspective. However, diffusion theory provides a general framework to
identify relevant research areas that may integrate other theoretical perspectives.
Diffusion of innovations theory (E. M. Rogers, 1983) represents an attractive point of
departure for telecenter practitioners and researchers. Diffusion of Innovations is believed
to be an appropriate theoretical framework for telecenters for at least three reasons: (a)
the predictive potential of diffusion theory makes it important for telecenter planning and
design, (b) diffusion theory offers a favorable incentive to drive telecenter research which
can contribute to develop the theory, and (c) diffusion theory is versatile and flexible to
suit the needs of multidisciplinary inquiry (Roman, 2003).
As identified by Roman (2003), there are three aspects of diffusion theory that are
relevant to telecenter application: the perceived attributes of innovations, the
communication aspects of the diffusion process, and the consequences of innovation
adoption.

37
Perceived attributes of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the three most
essential attributes of innovations in telecenters are relative advantage, compatibility, and
complexity. While relative advantage indicates the costs and benefits associated with the
adoption of an innovation, compatibility shows the perceived match of the innovation
with the value system and social norms of the potential adopters, and complexity
demonstrates the perceived degree of difficulty of the innovations in their understanding
and use.
Communication of innovation. E. M. Rogers (2003) noted that communication
is the exchange of information by which new ideas are shared between individuals. As
underscored by Best and Kumar (2008), communication is ―the very essence of diffusion
of innovations‖ (p. 13). Further, Best and Kumar noted that media and interpersonal
communication are the two most useful means by which ideas are communicated. Roman
(2003) suggested that while interpersonal communication is more important for the final
decision to adopt, mass media are best for conveying the value of innovations.
Furthermore, E. M. Rogers (2003) suggested that diffusion is associated with the
existing community networks and that the concept of homophily is very important in the
communication of new ideas. Homophily is similarity in socio-economic position,
educational levels, etc. among individuals. According to E. M. Rogers (2003), diffusion
most probably takes place more effectively in a community where individuals are similar
in their socio-economic status, educational levels, beliefs, etc.
Consequences of innovations. According to Roman (2003), the study of the
consequences of innovations is a theoretically less developed subject probably because it

38
is conceptually separated from the rest of diffusion theory. Also, the subject is more
unequivocally connected to evaluation concerns. E. M. Rogers (1983) stated that research
on innovation consequences is admittedly challenging. The theory demonstrated how the
socio-structural environment influences innovation diffusion and adoption. Diffusion of
innovations, especially in the context of developing countries, tends to widen the
socioeconomic gap between the higher and lower status segments of a social system (E.
M. Rogers, 1983).
As this research examines the effect of ICT on poverty in the context of ICT
community centers, the research will focus on the consequence of adoption of diffusion
theory.
According to Salvador, Sherry, and Urrutia (2005), Agar (as cited in Salvador et
al., 2005) discussed a networked approach in contrast to that of E. M. Rogers (as cited in
Salvador et al., 2005), in which adoption happens as a result of a network of associations
embedded in the daily life of the participants. In the E. M. Rogers model, which is
labeled as top-down-diffusion model by Salvador et al., the ―technology‖ is diffused and
the perspective from the point of diffusion is assumed to be sufficient. As discussed by
Salvador et al., this assumption is, by definition, an outsider's view and the ―technology‖
is imbued with that view.
Theory of Communication Effects Gap
Roman (2003) underlined that the application of the theoretical body of the
communication effects gap to understand the impact of telecenter programs makes
particular sense; at least for two reasons. First, there is the concept of differential effects.

39
In many cases, the objective of international development programs--at least of more
people-oriented and grass-roots trends in development practice is to find ways to alleviate
poverty by making sure that people most in need of positive change are reached.
Therefore, many scholars study how to reach lower status groups, so that communication
programs mitigate the already wide knowledge and communication effects gaps existent
in developing countries. Second, the theory of communication effects gap has an
underlying normative and practical value. Although research in this area is prone to bring
about important policy implications, its supporting theoretical body may also help shape
communication strategies. In other words, Roman (2003) noted that communication
effects gap is a kind of normative conceptualization oriented to action, or a practical
theory of communication that can serve as a useful approach to conceptualize and design
telecenter practice and research.
Impact Assessment of Telecenters
Many believe that telecenters provide an opportunity to gain access to the global
economy. Others view is that centers can skew benefits and create unintended
consequences. Hence, Telecenter impact assessments are expected to provide answers to
questions whether ICTs produces benefits to the users and communities they serve or not.
According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), impact assessment is needed to
validate the assumption that technology can and will play a key role in narrowing the
technological gap. Benjamin (2000) described the causal chain by which telecenters can
be theorized to have a positive impact on development as a rather long and tenuous one
expressed as

40
telecenters → access to ICTs → provide services → assist development
Madon (2005) stated that the launching of numerous telecenter initiatives in the
developing world has been paralleled by significant efforts to develop performance
criteria and evaluation frameworks to assess their impact. Early work on this is fairly
recent, including Emberg's (1998) suggestions for an evaluative framework, a guidebook
on the subject by Whyte (2000), and a collaborative effort by Stoll, Menou, Camacho,
and Khelladi (2002) based upon several workshops and online collaborations.
However, Madon (2005) declared that ―while telecenter projects have been
running for several years now, evaluation of their impact has been an enormously eclectic
process, largely devoid of systematic research and planning‖ (p. 413). In addition,
Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) also stated that there is no agreed upon assessment on
the impact of telecenters given the variety of telecenter experiences and communities
served.
Badshah, Khan, and Garrido (2005) underscored that assessing the value of
telecenters must consider several aspects of performance measurement. As shown in the
telecenter performance pyramid (Figure 6), value of the community ICT centers can be
assessed by employing four dimensions of performance measurement: organizational
capacity, operational capacity, strategic impacts and mission impacts (Badshah et al.,
2005).

41
Education, Social
& Economic
Development
Mission
By user By activity
Strategic Goals
Process Services offered
Operational
Hardware Software Telecom Expertise Financial
Organizational
Figure 6. Telecenter performance pyramid.
Adapted from ―United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.
Information Kiosks and Sustainability,‖ by A. Badshah, S. Khan, and M. Garrido, 2005.
As discussed by Badshah et al. (2005), each level of the performance pyramid is
dependent upon the other level and in line with this the operational processes and services
are dependent upon having reasonable organizational resources. An operational
framework is the basis for fulfilling strategic goals needs and the longer-term mission-
based impacts are driven by the success of the strategic goals. The top two aspects of the
performance pyramid indicated the outcomes of the telecenter. The first outcome is
evaluated in terms of strategic goals impacts which indicate that the accomplishment of
the telecenter project's goals in benefiting communities and having them take advantage

42
of the community ICT center services. The strategic objectives of the telecenter
determines the strategic goals of a telecenter project.
The second outcome is evaluated by taking into account mission impacts which
reflect the ability of the telecenter to impact broader educational, social, and economic
development goals. As mission impacts are less tangible and longer term in nature than
other outcomes, measurement at the mission level is the most difficult. In addition,
several factors influence impacts at the mission level. However, by using the approach
followed in building the performance pyramid, it is possible to show the relationships
between the telecenter and mission impacts.
Problems with evaluation. Measuring the impact of community ICT centers is
challenging and H. Rogers (2007) discussed three critical problems with evaluating
telecenters. Firstly, telecenters commonly vary between entrepreneurial ventures,
community initiatives and development projects. This gives rise to a diversity of assorted
indicators that are required to assess the project; both qualitative and quantitative.
Secondly, telecenter outcomes occur at various levels, from the individual, to community,
national and international levels. Appreciating outcomes at each of these levels presents a
challenge to evaluators whose scope may be restricted by narrow perspectives,
insufficient tools or limited resources. Thirdly, telecenter projects are one type of human
development infrastructure where evaluation is highly dependent on time of deployment
and usage.
Badshah et al. (2005) also underlined that telecenter projects involve various
stakeholders other than the direct users of the telecenters. Also measuring the centers

43
value created on development are much broader than the normal business measures of
profitability and other related measures of financial value.
Measuring Impact of Telecenters
According to Badshah et al. (2005), to properly measure value of telecenters, a
multi-dimensional set of performance measures is required. Furthermore, Badshah et al.
identified internal and external stakeholders of telecenters. While the direct users of the
center directly access the services of the ICT kiosks to achieve personal or business
goals, the external stakeholders of the kiosks are customers that seek the services of the
ICT kiosks, but not directly for themselves.
As a result, these two stakeholders differ in how they evaluated the services of the
community ICT centers. While the social mission of the organization is the motivation
factor for upstream stakeholders, different needs and expectations are the reason for
downstream stakeholders to support community ICT centers. As downstream
stakeholders are the users of the kiosk services, their objectives are more activity-
oriented, and they assess the community ICT centers by how their individual goals are
met; rather than the achievement of broader social goals (Badshah et al., 2005).
According to Badshah et al. (2005), the performance measurement approach
(Table 1) can be used to develop a set of performance measures that are useful in
assessing the impacts of the telecenter. By describing performance, the approach helps to
determine if the community ICT centers have brought value for the stakeholders that
have an interest in the success or failure of these telecenters.

44
Table 1.ICT Performance Measures
Impact measures
Strategic goals Mission
User information Educational development
Size of user community IT literacy
# Users (by relevant demographics) General literacy
% of target population using Increase school capacity
% of local population using Access to information
# new users
# repeat users
Activity information Social development
Average time on-line use Healthier population
Average time off-line use Community safety
# of people taking classes Community building
# sites visited per user Reduced mortality
# look-ups per site
# on-line transactions Economic development
% of time system used Farm productivity
# health consultations Employment
# government correspondence Reduced transaction costs
Software package usage Reduced poverty
Other equipment usage Wealth creation
Adapted from ―United Nations ICTs Task Force. Connected for Development.
Information Kiosks and Sustainability,‖ by A. Badshah, S. Khan, S., and M. Garrido,
2005)
According to Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005), both outputs and impacts are
used to assess social impact. Whereas outputs are the measurable actions that result
directly from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social
problem it was intended to address.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and
Virtual System Processing (2006) also added that impact of telecenters could be
measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts. For measuring social

45
impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken as the main
domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters income,
changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected (UNESCO
& Virtual System Processing, 2006).
Assessment of Current Literature on Telecenters
According to Donner (2007), the most logical source of the research on the
exploration of telecenters is the established literature on ICTs and economic
development. Many advocates for telecenters, however, come from the emerging field of
Community Informatics. Community informatics is the application of ICTs to enable
underserved populations and particularly to support local economic development, social
justice, and political empowerment (S. Marshall, Taylor, & Yu, 2003).
Researches contain at least two broad approaches to the role of ICTs in
development. Some studies emphasize productivity- the ability to do the same or similar
things faster, more frequently, or at lower cost thanks to the introduction or use of ICTs.
Other studies emphasize structural or social change, where new patterns of ICT use are
associated with significant transformations in the availability of information, suppliers, or
customers and in the constitution of communities, networks, or organizations.
Doshi and Gollakota (n.d.) underlined that most prior research has focused on
supply-side factors such as connectivity, poor infrastructure, management of telecenters
and high deployment costs. But demand-side approach is necessary to understand the
needs and preferences of the people. In addition, studying the perception of the user and
ICT use is necessary.

46
Mukerji (2008), on the other hand, underscored that the notion of a telecenter has
closely evolved with the understanding about ICTs and Development from a purely
techno-economic view to that of technology being embedded in the local economic,
political, institutional and sociocultural context.
Overall, the emphasis of telecenter movement over time has shifted from
technology to services geared towards catering all kinds of information and
communication needs of the people. Furthermore, in the context of developing countries
the concept of infomediary or intermediary emerged to overcome barriers of low levels of
literacy and skills (Mukerji, 2008)
As stated by Roman (2003), the use of telecenters for rural development is
attracting the attention of academic and non-academic researchers. At this stage,
telecenters are spread as pilot projects and field experiments. Therefore, the issue of
project evaluation is critical. Above anything else, there is a strong interest in the effects
of these projects on economic and social indicators, as impact evaluation would
presumably have important policy implications.
Kuriyan and Toyama (2007) have conducted an existing summary and assessment
of telecenter research. It has been noted that a majority of ICT for development projects
have failed either totally or partially in achieving their stated objectives. Heeks (2008)
warned that there is danger of design versus reality gaps: mismatch between the
assumptions and requirements built into the design and the on-the-ground realities of
poor communities. As a result, researchers have proposed a number of theoretical
frameworks for understanding the reasons for success or failure of such projects,

47
including the critical success factor model (Heeks & Bhatnagar, 1999); scenario analysis
(Aichholzer, 2004); stakeholder theory (Bailur, 2007); and economic and financial
sustainability models (Best & Maclay, 2002).
According to Soriano (2007), although telecenters are considered as an instrument
of poverty reduction, others argue that resources are better spent on roads, education,
health or food security. Although some researchers have found limited evidence of
employment-related benefits (Lengyel et al., 2006; Mercer, 2006; Parkinson & Lauzon,
2008; Parkinson & Ramirez, 2006), others do identify some impacts in this area.
Fedotova (2008) found that participants in a job skills training course believed that the IT
skills they had acquired would help in their job search. Best et al. (2007) reported that
eCenter users had acquired a job as a result of the skills they gained at the computer
center. Studies have not established a clear link between public access to ICTs and
socioeconomic change/impacts. Because a lot of these are qualitative studies, they are not
associated with indications of size of impacts.
Although there are some guidelines for developing and implementing telecenters,
much work is required to develop a systematic understanding of the potential and
limitations of telecenters as a mechanism for social and economic development (Bailey,
2009; Colle, 2005). Generally, empirical evidence on the impacts of telecenters, and more
broadly, of lCTs on development has generally found to be lacking (Gomez & Martinez,
2001; O’Farrell et al., n.d.; Panos, 2002). As noted by Gomez and Reilly (2002), ―when it
comes to evaluating what kind of benefit or development telecenters bring to a
community, we are only beginning to scrape the surface‖ (p. 1). Furthermore, Kuriyan,

48
Toyama, and Ray (2005) suggested that there should be further empirical research to
explain the link between services provided by rural community telecenters and social
development. According to UNDP (2007), there is little understanding of how telecenters
contribute to development or even skepticism that they are capable of doing so
sustainably.
As a result, telecenters have drawn researchers for the past decade and
consequently, there is an increasing amount of publications on telecenters. Most of the
researches conducted are case studies of relevant telecenter issues (Colle & Roman,
2001; Latchem & Walker, 2001); some are original field research (Proenza et al., 2001).
In addition, there are also a number of publications specifically devoted to telecenter
research (Hudson, 2001; Roman & Blattman, 2001; Whyte, 2000). Furthermore, the
literature growth on information systems has turned to be an important reference for
telecenter researchers in developing countries (Heeks, 2002).
Many of these articles study important aspects of telecenter development but lack
a solid theoretical background. On this line, McNamara (2003) underscored that the lack
of convincing knowledge providing a framework for maximizing the impact of ICT
projects can be partially attributed to the lack of detailed evaluations of ICT projects. In
addition, Roman (2003) underlined that no particular conceptual model seems to guide
telecenter planning, and no specific theory is inspiring research questions either.
Furthermore, Badshah et al. (2005) underscored that telecenter is at preliminary stage of
research and noted the need of intensive research on the subject.

49
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Review of the Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to explore the role ICT plays in addressing poverty.
To limit the scope of the study, ICT intervention was considered as applied to community
ICT centers in view of examining the consequence and impact on the user community.
The research used a qualitative multiple-case study approach to tackle the puzzle.
The general objective of this research was to examine different ICTs deployed in
varied conditions for their suitability for addressing poverty in Ethiopia and possibly by
extension to other developing countries.
Research Questions
The hierarchy of the research questions was developed based on Cooper and
Schindler’s (2003) hierarchy of questions. The hierarchy starts with an observed business
dilemma that, in turn, stimulates a management question. The management question
spawns research questions. As underlined by Yin (2008), in case study ―questions are
posed to you, the investigator, not to an interviewee‖ (p. 86). In addition, Yin noted that
the potentially relevant questions for case study research can occur at any five levels.
However, in relation to the levels, Yin advised to ―concentrate heavily on level 2‖ (p. 87)
for a case study research. As a result of this approach, the research questions developed
are level 2 questions which will be answered by the researcher.

50
The research method is chosen to answer the research questions, which answers
the management question. Table 2 shows the research question hierarchy.
Table 2. Research Question Hierarchy
Question or Statement
Business Dilemma Deployment of ICT to address poverty has a mixed outcome. Some
interventions are failing to achieve the desired result and as a consequence
meager resources and efforts are wasted.
Management
Question
How can ICT be effectively utilized to address poverty?
Research Questions 1.What is the perception of individuals on the benefits of community
ICT centers in addressing poverty?
What are the common benefits perceived by individuals
using the community ICT centers?
2.Which services and ICTs of the community ICT centers are most
important in addressing poverty?
2.1Which services and ICTs are considered as the most
2.2Which services and ICTs are considered as the least
3.What is the difference between individual’s perception on the use
and benefits of community ICT center in addressing poverty?
3.1Which benefits identified by individuals are not
commonly listed as benefits of community?
3.2Why is there a difference between individual’s
perceptions on the use and benefits of community ICT
centers?
Research Design
The study in this dissertation was designed to determine the effectiveness of using
ICT in helping poor communities in getting information and services that improve their

51
standard of living. Based on the perception of users, the center of analysis was the
relationship of ICT deployment and poverty alleviation. Therefore, the research is an
exploratory study as opposed to confirmatory theory-testing study (Creswell, 2003).
According to Creswell (2003), exploratory studies are most advantageous when
―not much has been written about the topic or the population being studied‖ (p. 30). As
an exploratory study it requires a holistic and a flexible methodology. With the objective
of collecting experiences of telecenter users the research requires an in depth study with
inputs of varying perspectives and experiences from users of the community center. Thus
the characteristic of this research requires the selection of a qualitative methodological
approach. According to Patton (2002), qualitative methods produce a wealth of detailed
information about a small number of people and cases, which increase the depth of
understanding of the cases and situations studied. As a result to answer the questions
developed, a qualitative multiple case study was conducted to determine the effectiveness
of ICT on poverty based on users’ perception. In-depth interviews provided the necessary
flexibility and each interview was built upon the previous one to generate and pursue a
new set of inquiries.
Appropriateness of Approach
Exploratory Qualitative Multiple Case Study Method
Any research method has to be examined in the context of the scope and depth of
the study. As every area of research has its own best method, there is no ―one size fits all‖
best method for all scenarios. However, this research employed a qualitative multiple
case study method. The case study methodology is used because as stated by Yin (2003)

52
as well as Hamel, Dufour, and Fortin (1993), it satisfies the three tenets of qualitative
method: describing, understanding, and explaining. According to Merriam (1998), a case
study is used to uncover the phenomenon under study & related views of users and other
actors. Yin (2008) further defined case study as ―an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident‖ (p.18). According
to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003), ―Researchers generally do case studies for one of three
purposes: to produce detailed descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible
explanations of it, or to evaluate the phenomenon‖ (p. 439).
Yin (2008) noted that the evidence of multiple-case designs is often considered
more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust. Yin
(2008) further added that if you want a high degree of certainty you may take five, six, or
more replications. He stated that the rationale for multiple-case designs derives directly
from the understanding of literal and theoretical replications. Literal replication is used to
replicate a similar result of a case study while theoretical replication is used when there
are contrasting theories (Yin, 2008). Thus, this research employ a qualitative multiple
case study method to attain the purpose of the research.
The multiple case study used two levels of sampling: sampling at the site level
and at the participant level. The sampling strategy used for this study was maximum
variation (Creswell, 2007). ICT community centers and users of the centers were selected
on certain criteria using maximum variation strategy which allowed the representation of
diverse cases and to fully describe multiple perspectives about the cases. The maximum

53
variation strategy (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2002), the process of seeking the greatest
range of diversity, or variation, in the selection of participants is a strategy that promotes
validity and reliability in a study. The maximum variation strategy was applied in the
selection of the telecenters and participants. Each telecenter was as different as possible
in characteristics such as region, ethnic diversity, and demographics. In effect the
selection of the telecenters was based on a purposeful sampling to get maximum relevant
information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling ―will
intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the
research problem under examination‖ (p. 118). Furthermore, Patton (2002) noted that
―the purpose of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will
illuminate the questions under study‖ (p. 46).
Patton (2002) stated that ―qualitative findings grow out of three kinds of data
collection‖ (p. 4). In-depth, open-ended interviews; direct observation; and written
documents were the three kinds of qualitative data identified by Patton.
The study used questions from prior recognized researches to address validity and
reliability. However, the most important factor in obtaining valid and reliable results
using questionnaire is ensuring that the questions used for the interview adequately
represent the research question under examination. Furthermore, after the development of
the questionnaire, field test was conducted to test and improve the validity and reliability
of the interview.
In addition to interview, data was collected in the form of field notes gathered
through direct observation. That means observation tends to eliminate the inaccuracy and

54
bias of some data. In the study various documents were also collected and analyzed. The
documents were an invaluable addition to the data stream that serves to corroborate and
augment evidence gathered from other sources. Furthermore, triangulating information
obtained from the multiple sources was used so as to ensure data currency and validity.
Yin (2008) argued that with data triangulation, the potential problems of construct
validity can be addressed because the multiple sources of evidence essentially provide
multiple measures of the same phenomenon.
Hierarchies of Criteria in Evaluating Telecenters Impacts
UNESCO and Virtual System Processing (2006) underlined that impact of
telecenters could be measured by focusing on the resulting social and economic impacts.
Economic and social impacts of telecenters are measured using several indicators. For
measuring social impacts of telecenter on communities, health and education were taken
as the main domains of social impact and for measuring economic impacts of telecenters
income, changes in occupational pattern, and employment were the domains selected
(UNESCO & Virtual System Processing, 2006).
Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005) indicated that social impact is comprised of
both outputs and impacts. While outputs are the measurable actions that result directly
from the program operations, impact are the effects of the program on the social problem
it was intended to address.
As a result, Figure 7 is developed to evaluate telecenter impact.

55
Impact of Telecenter
Economic Social
General
Income
Agricultural
income
Employment
Distance
Learning
Computer basic
skills
Education Health
Health
facilities
Health
Improvement
Foreign
languages
Figure 7. Hierarchies of criteria in evaluating telecenters impacts. From ―The
Social-Economic Impacts of ICTs in Rural Iran,‖ by UNESCO & Virtual System
Processing (2006). .
The variables involved in addressing the role of ICT on poverty are represented
by Figure 8.
.

56
Figure 8. Explanatory data display. Effectiveness of information and communication
technology (ICT) on poverty in the context of community ICT centers
Sample
The study was essentially a multiple case study which used two levels of
sampling: sampling at the site level and at the participant level and the sampling strategy
used for this study was maximum variation (Creswell, 2007, p. 126). ICT community
centers and users of the centers were selected on certain criteria using maximum variation
strategy which allowed the representation of diverse cases and to fully describe multiple
perspectives about the cases. In effect it was a purposeful sampling to get maximum
relevant information for the study. As stated by Creswell (2007), purposeful sampling
―will intentionally sample a group of people that can best inform the researcher about the
research problem under examination‖ (p. 118). According to Patton (2002), purposeful
sampling refers to selecting information-rich cases, from which one can learn a great deal
about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research. The purposive sampling

Debretsion doctor of philosophy

Debretsion doctor of philosophy

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (6)

Semelhante a Debretsion doctor of philosophy

Semelhante a Debretsion doctor of philosophy (20)

Mais de TekueWoldemariam1

Mais de TekueWoldemariam1 (9)

Último

Último (20)

Debretsion doctor of philosophy