Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER THREE INTERVENTION THROUGH ICT PUBLIC ACCESS CENTRES 3.1
Introduction
Studies on the use of ICT‟s through public access centres fall under a broad subject category commonly referred to as Community Informatics which is defined as research on the use of ICT‟s for community development efforts (O‟Neil 2002:76). This includes studies on a wide range of issues on ICTs and social inclusion. Some topical areas within this thematic area embrace issues of community development; information relevance and the provision of the needed ICTs (Walker 2008:1). Within community informatics there is consensus that ICT public access centres are a cheap and effective way to offer disadvantaged communities (especially rural communities) opportunities to access and use telecommunications and information resources (Davison et.al. 2000:4; Oestmann & Dymond 2001:3; Mutula 2008: 481; Evusa 2005:67; Akinsola, Herselman & Jacobs 2005: 37; Elijah & Ogunlade 2006:55).
Community informatics, or even specifically the provision of ICT‟s through public access centres, is a broad area that cannot be adequately covered in a single study of this nature. The focus in this case is narrowed down to how rural communities access and use of ICTs that are available through public access centres. As noted in the previous chapter, strategies to bridge the digital divide are mostly discussed in terms of broad thematic areas of technological and socio-economic issues of ICTs. It is within this vein that ICT public access centres are commonly defined in terms of the nature of the technologies in the centre, location of the centre, management of the centre and the demographics of either the hosting community or the user community.
This chapter presents the different definitions, interpretations and categorizations of ICT public access centres. Although the chapter does not present any authoritative definition or characteristics of public access centres, it assembles salient themes in this area. The discussion brings up thematic research areas like factors of access and usage of the centres; how the centres are managed and the types of centres. The chapter then concludes with a highlight of the observed gaps in the literature and how the present research fits into the already existing literature.
What is an ICT public access centre?
The first two chapters of this study showed the digital divide has two broad trends: the gap resulting from the absence of the technologies in the community; and the difference or gap in how the community uses or fails to use the available ICTs. It is from these two divergent observations that the ongoing debates within community informatics call for services that do not only offer disadvantaged communities access to the technologies but also impart skills needed to use ICTs for educational, personal and socio-economic development (Latchem & Walker 2001:3;Evusa 2005:123; Jacobs & Herselman 2005:58). These public access centres are therefore expected to offer communities access to ICTs so as “to take control of their educational, social and financial interest” (Hernandez-Limon 2009:37; Evusa 2005:25).
The history of the provision of ICTs through public centres dates back to the 1980‟s in the Scandinavian countries and, with facilitation of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), it grew into a global concept characterised by broad thematic interpretations (Latchem& Walker 2001:3). Although there is no definitive definition, ICT public access centres share common characteristics as a physical space that serves a community‟s needs for access and use of integrated ICT services. The description is commonly presented in reference to issues of access in terms of availability, affordability, relevance of both the technology and information. Public access centres are viewed as a strategy towards inclusion of all communities into the ICT led information society. Discussions of the varied themes on access and use of ICTs through public access centres inadvertently bring into focus concerns on the centre‟s history, management, infrastructure, funding and services. Any discussion of the centres also calls in the need to find out more about the users and the non users in the community.
The diverse, complex and broad elements in the fluid definition of ICT public access centres leave the concept with diverse names in different contexts. For example, O‟Neil‟s (2002) review of over thirty USA based community informatics related projects between 1994 and 2001 identified names like community technology centres, community access centre or tele-centre. In some quarters the centres are called community service centre, community information centre, community resource centre, community computer centre (Jacobs & Herselman 2005:58) or Public Internet Access Points (Talbot, 2004:4). In the fourteen Common Wealth of Learning case studies, compiled and edited by Latchem and Walker (2001), the names that feature include tele-cottages, info-centres, digital clubhouses, phone shops and some in native languages. These case studies present valuable lessons on the use of ICT public access centres in supporting both education and community development in Commonwealth countries.
With all due respect to these varied names, this study prefers to address these centres as ICT public access centres. In this case the centres are viewed as shared premises where the public can access and use ICT‟s for free or on payment basis. The present study purposely avoids appending the word community because the centres need not be owned by the community; and usage is not only restricted to members of any given community. The name is also cognisant of the fact that centres can be used by the general public, including people on transit or short term visitors who may not necessarily be considered as part of the Letlhakeng community. This definition is also in line with the UN–ICT Task Force, which was set in 2001 to serve as a catalyst in generating global ideas and partnerships towards an information society (UN-ICT 2005).
Research on access and use of ICT’s through public access points
Research on ICT public access centres broadly covers what Walker (2008) rightfully terms the “socio- technical interaction” issues of access and use of the technologies. A picture emerging from the discourse presents the centres as enabling the community access to the technologies, while also promoting delivery of other social services (e.g. health, education or civic engagement); job searches and skills development (Talbot 2004: 20; Hernandez-Limon 2009:46; Kozma & Wagner.2006:4).These services differ within and between communities in line with prevailing demographic and socio-economic conditions.
Although different research outputs meticulously present a global acclamation on the positive impacts of such public access centres (Davison et.al. 2000:6; O‟Neil 2002: 94; Evusa, 2005:67; Akinsola, Herselman & Jacobs 2005: 37; Elijah & Ogunlade 2006: 55) there is a concern that there is not sufficient empirical evidence to support the suppositions. For example, Duncombe & Heeks (2002: 66) note that there is lack of empirical evidence to support the assumption that Botswana‟s rural entrepreneurs have economic benefits from telephone usage. Elijah & Ogunlade (2006:55) also observe the paucity of research that proves the “great potentials of ICTs as tools for enhancing people‟s daily lives”. There is also a worrisome observation that there is lack of a comprehensive body of empirical research that analyses performance and adoption of ICTs public access centres (Prado 2009:12; Elijah & Ogunlade 2006:55; Duncombe & Heeks 2002: 66). These authors rightly point out that if these centres are to become sustainable development vehicles, then the research community is challenged to document progress so as to inform policy and practice.
Even though the present study does not solely focus on economic benefits of such centres, the endeavour to establish how the Letlhakeng community uses the technologies would serve as a good foundation for any future study on possible economic benefits of such centres. Assessing the usage patterns is deemed as good ground breaking research especially in Africa where the assumed or actual benefits are still more subjective and less demonstrable (Latchem & Walker 2001:4; Evusa 2005: 125).These authors attribute the observed paucity to the fact that the concept is relatively new in Africa. Not withstanding the observed paucity, the emerging research trends point to global thematic areas related to management, financial aspects, services provided, structure of the centre demographics of users and other community related factors (O‟Neil 2002:84; Jacobs & Herselman 2005: 58).
The present researcher is however concerned that, seemingly in the bid to bridge the just noted knowledge gap, some of the emerging research output on this subject at times fails to meet the scholarly criteria of evaluative studies. The reports or studies then tend to be not as informative as one would expect. For example, the compilation of different case studies by Latchem and Walker‟s (2001) and the UN–ICT Task Force (2005) emerge as more of organizational reports than scholarly works with adequate empirical evidence. It it is also imperative that research in this area meets scholarly criteria so as to yield objective findings. O‟Neil (2002: 94) further stresses the need for quantification and use of indices like ICT Development Index (ITU 2009); the synthetic index (Corrocher & Ordanini 2002) and even the simple Standardized Media Index as presented by Norris (2001).
Despite the noted limitations that most of the reviewed case studies were not very scholarly, they are worth being reviewed for this study as they present critical insight into ICT public access centres. For example, it emerges from the literature that the assessment of most strategies to bridge the digital divide, including ICT public access centres, is mostly in terms of accessibility, affordability and quality of services. The scope, method and intent of assessment may vary with the researcher‟s perspective on the definitions, causes and impacts of the digital divide (Roman & Blattman 2001). For example, in the review of thirty different literary items on community informatics, O‟Neil (2002: 94) identified surveys, focus groups, document reviews, content analysis, electronic discussion, ethnographic filed work, case study, stakeholders analysis, site visits, participant observation, help desk log, usage statistics, existing publications, pre and post-testing‟s. Sitawa-Ogutu & Rege (2010:1318) express the concern that, it is this wide range of assessment criteria that maybe blamed for the fact that the exact nature of the concept is contextual and debatable. One may also repeal this argument and posit that the fact that the concept is contextual calls for varied assessment criteria.
The examined literature also shows prominent featuring of varied case studies that are characterised by interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks and varied research methods. Within these studies the research methods and findings vary according to the researcher‟s intent and scope. For example, Chatman (1996); Roman & Blattman (2001) and Duncombe and Heeks (2002) began their different but related studies with gathering qualitative knowledge on the community‟s information needs and community‟s information patterns. Hernandez-Limon (2009) also set the scene by a participatory observation of a centre for Latino women (Little Sisters of Assumption Community Technology Centre) in New York. The observation was a research strategy to gather information about the centre. Data collection at this centre was then narrowed down to only eight information rich cases that were further observed and interviewed. A similar trend of building an understanding of the community that is being studied may also be seen in the case of Duncombe and Heeks (2002) who began with categorising the rural entrepreneurs in Botswana before in depth data collection. Kozmar and Wagner‟s (2006: 2) study also started with the identification of different types of school drop outs before delving into how ICTs can be used to reach out to these disadvantaged young people.
As will be seen in chapter four of the study, the research processes engaged by the researchers cited in the preceding paragraph guided the adoption of strategies used to gather data on how the Letlhakeng community accesses and uses the technologies that are available through public access centres. In the next chapter of this study, the researcher shows calculated steps (e.g. the preliminary visit) to get to understand the Letlhakeng community before the actual assessment of ICT access and usage patterns. This approach also links to the knowledge management theorists‟ contention that people‟s behaviour is the best frame of reference for understanding both business processes and the related knowledge flows (Newman & Conrad 1999:4).
Some of the case studies that emerge in the reviewed literature are longitudinal, global, cross country or focused on a specific population group or geographic location. For example, Jacobs and Herselman (2005) conducted a two and half-year in-depth case study focusing on “what works” for South Africa using the Ikageng Centre in a rural village of South Africa. Kozmar & Wagner (2006) on the other hand highlight a framework of “what works” best as seen in multiple projects in the provision of ICT‟s to out-of-school youth in OECD countries. The time frames for different projects in the later compilation are as such varied.
Still in the quest to find out “what works”, Akinsola, Herselman and Jacobs (2005) present a comparative case study of South Africa and Nigeria while Duncombe and Heeks‟s (2002) focus on rural entrepreneurs in Botswana. Yu‟s (2006) study of “what works” instead differs from the just noted cases because it is not presenting learning curves from a specific case study as is the case with other studies. It is a desk study aimed at identifying “what works” as argued by scholars from the information divide and the digital divide camps.
It also emerges in the literature reviewed that the focus of the case study may be on a specific population or an observed thematic area. For example, Hernandez-Limon (2009) presents experiences of disadvantaged Latino women in specific geographic location in New York. Another population specific case study is that of young people at the Kawampe Youth Centre in Kampala, Uganda (EIFL 2012). This study assessed how these young people learned ICT applications and other abilities like entrepreneurship and finance skills. Latchem and Walker‟s (2001) also present a summary of the experiences of such public access centres with a thematic focus on distance education. In the latter example there is no geographic concentration like the ones discussed before.
The reviewed literature had a wide range of case studies with diverse and enlightening presentation styles. For example, the UN-ICT task force publication grouped cases according to thematic groupings or learning curves. The compilation has a section that shares commendable lessons on how to set up an ICT public access centre. There is also a section that focuses on case studies that highlight common characteristics of an ICT public access centre while the other section discusses issues related to the evaluation of such centres. Latchem and Walker‟s (2001) presentation is also very commendable because the assessed variables are presented in the same order for all the cases in the compilation. This approach gives a holistic picture of the assessed centre and eases systematic comparison. O‟Neil (2002: 84) applauds such a systematic presentation as it is more of benchmarking so as to improve operations of ICT public access centres. Walker (2008) also presents very informative thematic areas as a guide for field work conducted as part of Practical Design for Social Action Project (PDSA). This project, under the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, sought to “develop digital design practices in civil society settings”. The presentations from these varied cases also afforded the present researcher with good insight on thematic areas that are worthy of detailed analysis. For example, what issues emerge in setting up of the ICT public access centres in Letlhakeng? What are the common characteristics of the centres in the village? And most importantly how do these affects access and use of the ICT‟s in these centres?
It however comes out in the disparate research approaches that are used to assess and categorize public access centres are guided by a common principle of „Universal Access” (UNDP 2005:54, Alampay 2006:8; Mutula 2008:475) or the “Real Access/Real Impact” (Bridges 2005) or “real benefits for real people” (O‟Neil 2002: 78). Despite the researcher‟s or the assessor‟s ideological variances, most assessments focus on the service‟s inclusiveness and if there is equitable access to the technologies. This echoes the knowledge management theorists‟ advocacy for social inclusion in information society (Castells & Himanen 2004:3).
The diverse universal access assessment models have common thematic areas that address demographics of users; types of access point and nature of services provided. Most assessments also include analysis of supportive factors like ICT infrastructure; management of the public access points and government policies (O‟Neil 2002:86). The indicators are also reflected in Green‟s (2003) study on the extent of global gender disparities in access and use of ICTs in public access. Akinsola, Herselman and Jacobs (2005) also feature these indicators in their comparative study on the ICT challenges amongst urban disadvantaged communities in South Africa and Nigeria. The observed thematic indicators also feature in internationally used and recommended models like “The Global Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development”. This model embodies a core list of indicators that guide the comparison of global statistics on the information society (UN 2005).The indicators also feature in the UNESCO‟s meta-survey on the use of technologies in education (UN-ICT 2005). These examples show that, although the approach or focus may differ, the disparate works relate to each other in a developmental way. For example, the indicators used in the cited publications relate well with the ICT Development Index (ITU 2009); the synthetic index (Corrocher & Ordanini 2002) and even the simple Standardized Media Index as presented by Norris (2001). As reflected in the previous chapter, all these indices contend that assessment of any digital divide intervention strategy should construct a framework that considers several variables or factors of digitization.
Interestingly the literature is not prescriptive, or cast on stone to imply “a one size fits all” research method or data presentation. Researchers and practitioners in informatics are primarily concerned with describing workable research approaches in the adoption of public access centres as a means of affording disadvantaged communities‟ access and use of ICTs. None of the described approaches carry a dictating voice. The flexibility in the research approaches is further dictated upon by the fact that there is neither distinctive definition of the digital divide nor a clear cut description of ICT public access centres. As noted earlier in chapter two of this study, researchers in this area acknowledge that the broad factors are also weighted differently for different populations (Latchem & Walker 2001; Evusa 2005 Corrocher & Raineri 2010 and Dintoe 2010). The need for flexibility in research on ICT public access centres is further supported by Barzilai-Nahon (2006) who cautions against complete adoption of “ready to use assessment models with set variable” because the ICT public access centres are governed by an array of interrelated factors which call for wider interrelated and flexible assessment styles.
Community’s demographics influence usage of ICT in public access centres.
As noted in earlier chapters, the interpretation of the nature of the digital divide is very broad and the needed intervention varies from one community to another. The demographics of the community affect ICTs service flows. Alampay (2006:16) presents a very interesting model that shows that the situation in which people find themselves in affect their freedom. Freedom in this case is inclusive of ability and capacity to access and use ICTs. In this context, one‟s situation refers to issues of age, wealth, gender, education and geographic location. Interestingly, these demographic factors of the community at large and that of the user community affect and influence the structure of the centre, how it is managed and the subsequent services that are offered.
Throughout the reviewed literature, there is also a consensus that issues of gender disparities, urban-rural divide, low education and lack of skills levels affect and influence access and usage of these centres. For example, access and usage of ICT‟s is highly uneven with almost no access in rural communities as compared to urban areas (Hernandez-Limon 2009:40).This has been blamed on common rural constraints of poverty, low literacy, poor infrastructure and utility services (Duncombe & Heeks 2002: 63; Akinsola,Herselman & Jacobs 2005; Evusa 2005: 24;Prado 2009:25; AU 2010:7).
There are also disparities in the types of technologies available in rural and urban areas. For example, Elijah and Ogunlade (2006:55) note that in Nigeria telephones and radios are reportedly common amongst the rural poor while computers and Internet are restricted to urban centres. Duncombeand Heeks (2002:63) observe a similar trend in Botswana. The observed patterns resonates with the social and democratic divide as noted by Corrocher and Raineri (2010) and Norris ( 2001) while also bringing to fore the political economy stance as discussed in the previous chapter. it is also observed that in some cases, even if the technologies are made available through public access centres, access and usage still remain low because most members of rural communities are not aware of the professed benefits or lack the skills to use the technologies (Selwyn 2003:100; Talbot 2004:16; Jacobs & Herselman 2005). This shows that the technologies cannot bridge the divide unless they are coupled with appropriate information, education and skills development.
Other pertinent rural challenges include infrastructure, gender differences in education, income and most importantly, cultural norms and practices. The literature shows that due to various factors such as education levels and income inequalities, men are seen to access and use the technologies that are available through public access points more than their female counterparts (Fuchs & Horak 2006:110; Prado 2009:88; Gillwald, Milek & Stork 2010:29). This may be blamed on the existing social structures that are correlated with cultural norms and practices that give men more social and economic power over women (Chatman 1996; Green & Trevor-Deutsch 2002). Gillwald, Milek & Stork (2010:19) observe such gender disparities from the data on ICT access and usage survey conducted across 17 African countries, including Botswana.
As noted earlier, strategies to bridge the digital divide, especially in rural communities, have to be cognisant of the fact that for such communities, challenges related to technological structures are in most cases worsened by the lack of skills to navigate the available and accessible technologies. The literature recommends and applauds strategies that comprehensively address these challenges. For example, Evusa (2005:24) cites the case of South Africa where telecom operators intervened by promoting telephony and other information projects of reasonable quality in unprofitable areas. Talbot (2004: 8) also reports about a project where Derwenside District Council in North East England intervened in the development of an advanced ICT infrastructure and maximising the benefits of the technologies. This local council provided for the people living in poorer neighbourhoods with the needed technologies so as to ensure the critical mass needed by telecommunication service providers to upgrade the infrastructure. The council also e-trained these community members to access social services online.
The e-Bario project of researchers in Malaysia is also another example of researchers‟ collaboration to help by easing the cost of connectivity to the rural Bario community (Songon et.al. 2008). Another example from Botswana, is the adoption of the rural electrification programme (Mutula 2004:148; IST-Africa 2014) and the provision of technologies in the homes through the Connecting Communities Programme (BNLS/ACHAP 2009:45). By easing the costs associated with the structures needed to access the technologies, these operators, researchers and administrators acknowledge the fact that the market fails to meet demand in rural and deprived areas. The projects may also be viewed as influenced by what was discussed in the previous chapter as an ethical theoretical stance to bridge the digital divide (Alampay 2006:8). These examples show intervention that is cognisant of the unique demographic challenges in rural communities. It demonstrates commitment to address inter-related and interdependent demographic factors. Talbot (2004:20) commends such strategic collaborations because they bridge both the digital divide and the social exclusion.
Management of ICT’s public access centres
Discussions on management of ICT public access centres brings in broad issues that are related to the physical structure of the centre; funding of the centre and the varied demographic characteristics of the community being served. The management can be addressed in terms of how the services are organized or it could focus on a specific time frame in the “project life”. For example, the e-Bario project (Songan et.al. 2008: 86) demonstrates how a team of researchers in Malaysia engaged and empowered different stakeholders in the village from the conception of the idea to the actual running and sustenance of the ICT access centre.
Research on management of community informatics projects is also likely to differ from one project to the other. For example, although Hernandez-Limon‟s (2009) case study and the e-Bario project were both participatory studies, they differ in terms of scope; data collection techniques and the research output. The e-Bario project was set up as a pilot project to demonstrate the socio-economic challenges of setting up and managing a sustainable ICT access centre. The researchers, who were also project implementers, focused on management issues relevant to their course. This differs from Hernandez-Limon‟s (2009) case study where the focus on management was more in line with how management supported Latino women and the data was gathered from the selected Latino women. The latter researcher participated as a user while in e-Bario case the researchers were project managers.
Narayan and Nerurkar (2006: 46) also illustrate a unique management style in the case of Bhoom online record system in the state of Kamakata, India. These authors use this case to demonstrate application of their proposed multi-staged model for the development and management of e-government service provision to rural communities. One of the components of the model, the enabling phase, includes provision of ICTs through public access centres. This case study therefore emphasises the role of the government as both the source of the service and the manager at all the phases of the model. This echoes the call for intervention strategies guided by an ethical and social responsibility that is underpinned by the social justice principle of information as a public good (Yu 2006:235). The Kamakata case study therefore shows the government‟s roles in management from the stage of providing access to the usage phase. The management style proposed by Narayan and Nerurkar (2006) also tallies with O‟Neil‟s (2002: 78) observation that some of the cases that are analysed emphasise strong democracy and individual empowerment because it calls for government intervention in the provision of the technologies and ensuring that the community is equipped with the needed skills. Alampay (2006: 7) also points out that governments should play a leading role in providing “universal access/ universal services” that is defined and based on the three pillars of accessibility, affordability and quality of services.
Despite the observed differences on how ICT public access centres are managed; and the varied research on how the centres are managed, there is a general condemnation of the “techno-centric approach” that is commonly associated with the drive for economic gains by those who provide the technologies (Duncombe & Heeks 2002; (Akinsola, Herselman &Jacobs 2005:20; Selwyn 2003:110; Fuchs & Horak 2006:113). Such an approach is condemned because it focuses on providing technology to disadvantaged communities, with less consideration of the social issues that surround the technology divide.
The management style characterised by the “techno centric approach” is seen as more of “dumping” of technology on the recipient community. It is also blamed for the emergence of what Selwyn (2003: 111) views as “theoretical access” as opposed to “meaningful access” of ICTs. This author defines “theoretical access” as one that makes technologies available, but fails to consider the broad range of contextual constraints that hinder the community to fruitfully or meaningfully access and utilise the technologies. Evusa (2005:126) cites a Uganda baseline survey of public access centres which revealed that in some cases access and usage of the centres was almost none because the community was not well informed of the services. The survey also notes that in some cases the community failed to use the services because they were discouraged by the lack of local information at the centres. These examples are also viewed as demonstrating poor management of how the concept of ICT public access centre was introduced to the community. It shows that poor management at the introduction phase creates what has earlier on been referred to as theoretical access. Such a challenge can be mitigated by in-depth contextual research on communities‟ needs.
As Akinsola, Herselman and Jacobs (2005:23) notes, researchers, policy makers and practitioners in community informatics have to avoid speculating about the community‟s needs. The authors strongly condemn such speculations because they are bound to yield interventions that are not grounded on the actual information flows and use of the community. Duncombe & Heeks (2002; 64) and Akinsola, Herselman and Jacobs (2005:22) further observe that both the management of ICT public access centres and the related research have to adopt a broader systematic approach that looks at processes or systems of providing the technologies. These authors‟ line of thought stems from the understanding that the ICTs support information processes and practices that have always been within a given community. The management of the centres therefore has to be aligned with the already existing information or knowledge management systems.
The factors that motivate the conception of the ICT public access centre also have a bearing on how both the centre is managed and how e-ICTs in public access centre are used. O‟Neil (2002: 77) particularly stresses that researchers need to understand the history surrounding the advent of such services in the community being studied. This observation is further stressed by Jacobs and Herselam (2005: 90) who note that the mix of services that a given centre offers is highly influenced by the factors that motivated the establishment of the centre. Benjamin (2001) also shows how the historical background interrelates with funding and management of the Gaseleke centre, South Africa, which was initiated by respected bodies in the ruling party in the post apartheid South Africa, the .African National Congress. The centre is hosted and managed by this politically affiliated community group. In addition to bridging the digital divide, the managing body is also concerned with bridging the democratic gap created by the apartheid system. These historical issues, especially racial poverty and disparities in structural developments between urban–rural areas, influence the management and the continued growth of the services.
Traces of historical influences also emerge in Jacobs and Herselman‟s (2005) and Kozmar and Waganer‟s (2006) guidelines on “what works” for ICT public access centres as presented in the South African; The United States and OECD countries respectively. Both guidelines stress the need for a comprehensive policy that involves good management of the processes within the multiple arenas in the community.
Narayan and Nerurkar (2006:35) present a model that shows how community participation in the management processes at the conception and delivery of an ICT project affect use. The model, which is built from processes of e-government adoption in India, has two key sequential stages called “time–to–public” and “time-in-public” phases. The former refers to processes and procedures carried out from the point of conceptualising and planning to the actual implementation of the e-government services. According to this model, the “time-in–public” phase is the stage when the services are already offered. The “time-in-public” will be characterised by high diffusion if the community was involved in the management of the “time-to-public” stage. Such a high sense of ownership by the users emerges as a good factor in reducing the “theoretical access” that was referred to earlier. Although the model is specific to e-government projects it can be applicable in assessing “time-to-public” and “time-in-public” phases of an ICT public access centre. These management phases are inevitably bound to differ with type of public access centre in question. The Malaysian e-Bario project ( Songan et.al. 2008) presents a management case at both the “time –to – public” and the “time-in –public phases” because it discusses activities from conception of the project up to how the centre functioned and continued to evolve as more needs from the community kept on growing.
Some management style may focus more on provision of service specific user population in the community. For example, most call centres in Nigeria are predominantly operated by young women so as to empower them (Elijah & Ogunlade 2006). These women therefore manage the centre with intent to make profit for themselves. A similar trend is observed in Ghana, where the community learning centres appointed women as managers (Fontaine 2001:143). In India young men have a franchise from the state to access and distribute daily crop prices and the commonly needed state records for a small fee (Oestmann & Dymond 2001:12). Talbot (2004:8) also reports that some access centres attract youth by running home work clubs, installing game machines, training them in web design and digital photography, which in turn helps in building a vibrant website for the centre. In these examples, the researchers then made concerted efforts to assess the management of the centres in promoting these special target groups.
