Walsham (2020) "South-South and triangular cooperation in ICT4D" offers a starting point for consideration.
Walsham cites the UNDP definition of South-South cooperation (SSC), as well as "triangular cooperation" (TC) which is considered "Southern-driven partnerships between two or more developing countries, supported by a developed country(ies) or multilateral organization(s), to implement cooperation programmes and practices" (cited in Walsham, 2020).
What kinds of opportunities exist for TC in an ICT4D context? Walsham (2020) in surveying the various themes from the IFIP Working Group 9.4 conference in Dar-es-Salaam, highlights three areas of opportunities for ICT4D researchers engaging in SSC and TC projects:
- digital platforms: "despite their significant presence in the Global South, the developmental implications of digital platforms remain largely understudied" (see Koskinen, Bonina, Eaton, 2019).
- indigenous ICT4D: "models of innovation from the Global North are often applied uncritically in the Global South" (see Jimenez and Roberts, 2019)
- new methods: "the dominance of positivist and interpretivisit paradigms in ICT4D may be viewed as a continuation of colonial sway over the endeavours of the Global South" (see Kreps and Bass, 2019);
- new theory: "Southern theory suggested as a possible route by which researchers in the Global South can reclaim the intellectual territory of ICT4D." Hatakka, et al (2019) "use a framework which is a combination of theories of affordances and that of the capability approach."
Walsham raises three other key considerations with respect to SSC-TC efforts:
we rarely discuss who is the driving force or, more precisly, the nexus of driving forces in a particular [SSC-TC] project
in our case write-ups, should we be required to explicitly analyse who gains from a particular project and, if relevant, who loses?
Why is southern-based research not well represented in "top" journals
Are our methodologies and theories still appropriate in the current world?In conclusion, Walsham suggests that ICT4D researchers need to pay greater attention to the term "cooperation" and what that means in terms of motivations for SSC-TC projects, participation in these projects, the beneficiaries (and losers), as well as the scholarship emerging from SSC-TC research.
The normative goal of SSC-TC efforts, or at least what I take away from Walsham's paper, is to enable authentic involvement and leadership roles for the Southern partners in these projects. How is that achieved in practice?
References
Hatakka, M., Sæbø, Ø. &Thapa, D. (2019). Understanding the role of ICT for human development: Affordances and capability approach. In Nielsen. P. & Kimaro, H. (eds) Information and communication technologies for development: Strengthening southern driven cooperation, as a catalyst for ICT4D, Springer Nature, Switzerland, Part II, 60-71. A later version of this paper is forthcoming in ISJ.
Jimenez, A. & Roberts, T. (2019). Decolonizing neo-liberal innovation: Using the Andean philosophy of ‘Buen Vivir' to reimagine innovation hubs. In Nielsen, P. & Kimaro, H. (eds) Information and communication technologies for development: Strengthening southern driven cooperation, as a catalyst for ICT4D, Springer Nature, Switzerland, Part II, 180-191.
Koskinen, K., Bonina, C., & Eaton, B. (2019). In Nielsen, P. & Kimaro, H. (eds) Information and communication technologies for development: Strengthening southern driven cooperation, as a catalyst for ICT4D, Springer Nature, Switzerland, Part I, 319-330.
Kreps, D. & Bass, J. (2019). Southern theory in ICT4D. In Nielsen. P. & Kimaro, H. (eds) Information and communication technologies for development: Strengthening southern driven cooperation, as a catalyst for ICT4D, Springer Nature, Switzerland, Part II, 3-13.
Walsham, G. South-South and triangular cooperation in ICT4D. (2020). The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, n/a(n/a), e12130. doi:10.1002/isd2.12130 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/isd2.12130
