IFIP 9.4 BLOG

A collaborative blog post to celebrate the IFIP 9.4 Conference on the Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development, which took place in Cape Town, South Africa, on 20-22 May 2024. Big thanks to the organisers, and to all contributors!

Community is the flesh of IFIP 9.4. I am beyond grateful to the organisers for having put together an inclusive, interactive event, which illuminated how topics of surveillance studies, AI at work and data justice, among others, have massive relevance for ICT4D. My personal highlight was serving, for the first time, as a mentor in the Doctoral Consortium, where I met students whose ideas – and ambitious, well-articulated research plans – served as a splendid reminder of the beauty of doing this job. Big thanks, organisers! (Silvia Masiero, University of Oslo)

Dialogue is essential for reshaping an unequal world using digital technologies. For me, the highlight of the conference was our panel on AI and the Global South where many people contributed to the dialogue. Our community is so diverse and open-minded and we were able to challenge and discuss three major questions: 1) AI and culture; 2) AI and religion; and 3) AI and policy. Beyond the intellectual stimulation, the conference offered an opportunity to reconnect with colleagues I hadn’t seen in person for years. Cape Town with its beauty and vibrant spirit, provided a perfect backdrop for these meaningful exchanges. (Suzana Brown, SUNY Korea).

As a student of ICT4D, the conference had so much content that I could easily relate to. Beyond the publications, the panel discussions and keynote addresses were particularly informative. Addressing the potential for AI to amplify the existing shortcomings of society was especially moving. It somehow felt like a continuation of the “incompleteness” keynote by Prof. Nyamnjoh. I eventually concurred with the thought that it is unrealistic to expect perfect technologies from imperfect societies. Addressing inequalities has to, therefore, happen deliberately. Thanks to the organizing committee for a commendable job. The conference was very informative. (Masoud Mahundi, University of Dar es Salaam)

For me, one of the highlights of the IFIP 9.4 2024 conference was the Doctoral Consortium where I had the opportunity to discuss my PhD research on digital financial inclusion and receive invaluable feedback from senior scholars and doctorate student colleagues. In my first visit to South Africa, I found out that Cape Town is very similar in many aspects to Rio de Janeiro, my home town in Brazil. It makes me reflect about the need of increasingly relevant ICT4D studies on the Global South to show how digital technologies can help us to fight the social inequalities we face day to day in our countries. Looking forward to seeing this incredible group of ICT4D researchers engaged again at IFIP 9.4 2026 in Nepal!  (Rogerio Melo, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro – Graduate School of Business Administration – UFRJ/COPPEAD)

One reason I attend this conference is the principles it embodies: collegiality, collaboration, and compassion, rather than a focus on the “publish or perish” culture. It fosters a sense of family and community. Our focus is on using academic knowledge to understand and resolve issues, striving to create a better world and maintain hope. A particularly special experience for me has been engaging with the Beautiful Mind in the doctoral consortium. Seeing curious minds, eyes full of questions and confusion, eagerly searching for ways to improve the world is incredibly rewarding. These interactions are invaluable and deeply inspiring. At least I think they will remember ‘Tango’. 🤣 (Devinder Thapa, University of Agder, Norway)

Doctoral Consortium, IFIP 9.4 Conference, Cape Town

Great opportunity to interact with like-minded academics who have a passion for ICT4D. It was an honour to host the conference in Cape Town and have the community interact with African ICT4D academics and students who are engaged in meaningful research in the global south. (Adheesh Budree, University of Cape Town)

As a PhD research student, I found the 18th IFIP WG9.4 conference an enlightening experience and an overarching community of academics willing to support young generational academics.  My key takeaways included the importance of cybersecurity in protecting sensitive data, the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing decision-making processes and ethical considerations, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to drive innovation in ICT4D research. The networking opportunities provided invaluable connections with experts and peers, fostering knowledge exchange and future collaboration. I admire the beauty and cleanliness of Cape Town and have had the opportunity to tour historic sites, including Table Mountain, Sea Site, and Robben Island. (Yazidu Salihurerite, University of Salford Manchester, UK).

Attending the IFIP 9.4 conference at Cape Town, South Africa was a very enlightening (and rejuvenating) experience for me. After attending the conference, I felt more charged to continue with a research path that is characterized by qualitative, and developmental orientation. The best part of the conference for me was to observe that the conference attendees were helpful, supportive and sensitive towards the issues faced by developing countries. It was also nice to see that the attendees were open to discuss issues such as decolonization, and the “epistemic” domination of the western/European theories in ICT4D research. Such openness begets trust amongst the community members and high levels of trust bring in lots of psychological benefits. I also met many wonderful people at the conference who were very friendly. Though these people were highly esteemed members of the IFIP 9.4 community (occupying very high positions in their Universities/Institutions), they were also very humble and nice human beings. Thus attending the conference made me happier and psychologically more satisfied. There is one thought that comes to mind when I reflect on the conference, and that is what kind of impact will attending this conference have on the self-esteem of the local community? For example, after attending the conference, will the local community (as well as the people from the developing countries) feel higher levels of self-esteem? Or will see themselves as “under-developed”. I had read somewhere that “stigmatized people start behaving in a stigmatized manner”. Therefore, one important consideration is the impact a development oriented conference has on the local population. Typifying a country as a “developing or under developing country” is like stigmatizing them and I hope that the conference yields a higher sense of self-esteem amongst the local population. (Ranjan Vaidya, Department of Management Technology and Organization, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)          

Welcome by organiser Pitso Tsibolane, opening reception

The 18th IFIP WG 9.4 conference was particularly delightful for me, especially the Doctoral Consortium. As a PhD student, I found it incredibly meaningful. The feedback from senior academics and fellow students was invaluable and of great significance. Above all, it was a fantastic opportunity to learn from researchers in the ICT4D community and witness their dedication to supporting young researchers. Their welcoming hands to listen and guide students is much appreciated. The conference serves as a platform  for creating more great scholars and keeping the research spirit  unperished. Many thanks also to the organization committee for their great work and systematic arrangements. It was a great experience. (Merina Marcelino, University of Oslo)

A few things stood out for me. Firstly, the open session on ethics and AI, i.e. responsible computing, was both informative and fun. The speakers were entertaining, and the crowd was responsive and active in participation. Actually, this leads to the second impression: I found the to and from with the audience in talks as well. There was one session I attended where the entire talk was a conversation with the audience as the speaker traversed the slide deck. I liked the support, the camaraderie, seeing old friends/colleagues and making new ones. Lastly, I like the size of the conference in terms of the number of attendees. That made it possible for these stimulating interactions to occur. This was my second IFIP WG 9.4 conference attendance, and I enjoyed this one as much as the first. (Bill Tucker, Stellenbosch University)

Being my first IFIP WG 9.4 conference, my mind was bustling with excitement and the opportunity to learn from some of the best researchers in the world. As a PhD student I had read some of the research on ICT4D, meeting and interacting with some of the great authors like Richard Heeks was incredibly enlightening. The keynote from Prof. Francis Nyamnjoh on embracing incompleteness and its interplay with technology was incredibly revealing. The conference was very well organized, fun and the breathtaking beauty of Cape town was fantastic. Big thank you to the organizers! (Eric Munyambabazi, University of Oslo)

My highlight from the IFIP 9.4 conference in Cape Town was undoubtedly the doctoral consortium. It provided a unique platform to present insights from my PhD research and receive invaluable feedback from esteemed professors and colleagues. Engaging with such a knowledgeable audience was both enriching and inspiring. Additionally, Professor Devinder Thapa’s presentation on the Tango concept was particularly memorable, as it underscored the critical importance of the philosophy of science in research. This experience has profoundly influenced my academic journey and research approach. (Billy Mashele, University of Cape Town)

The IFIP 9.4 conference 2024 in Cape Town, was engaging, collegial and enlightening. The diversity of the presentations from students and scholars was refreshing and provided participants with multiple perspectives informed by different contexts. The Africa Digital Rights Network session was very informative, the AI panelists provided comprehensive review of AI and thought provoking insights, and the keynote on embracing incompleteness was very interesting and informative. Beyond academic activities and research this was an opportunity to expand my professional network. The plenaries and speakers were relevant and very insightful on topical issues. This was an opportunity to interact and build bridges. (Reuben Dlamini, Wits University)

The 18th IFIP WG 9.4 2024 conference was a success and greatly helped me.  As a PhD student, the conference presented me with a rare opportunity to present my research before the international community of the information systems industry and academic leaders who were able to provide me with ample feedback on my work in progress.  Through the doctoral consortium (DC), I could understand my research even more and better, and beyond what I had before.  DC participants were introduced to key philosophical principles and theorizing in information systems research; and Prof. D. Thapa and Prof. A. Diaz-Andrade (both professors from the University of Adger, Norway) made this exercise exciting and easy to grasp.  My participation in this conference shall remain one of the most fulfilling adventures in my academic career. (Kopano Moeketsi, University of Cape Town)  

When my iPhone refuses to offer its services because “I am holding it too close to my eyes”, I now wonder – “who is in control here?” This benign resistance movement in my relationship with technology, and for example my description of a new phone setting as an attempt to “domesticate technology” 🙂, did not exist until I listened to Prof. Francis Nyamnjoh’s keynote about embracing incompleteness as we interact with technology. Then I shared this slide of Marlon Parker’s keynote on WhatsApp status … 

Marlon Parker’s Keynote on the HOPE Economy

… a friend saw it and gifted me the book “Talking to my daughter about the economy” Why? Because my daughter’s name is Hope, hence “Talking to Hope about the economy” – HOPE Economy. And of course, these are just (unconventional) bonuses on top of the profound intellectual stimulation, network building and learning about various and interesting ICT4D research gained from the IFIP conference. (Epiphania Kimaro, University of Manchester).

The conference resonated with me across various dimensions, from keynote sessions to the breakouts and social events; it is one of the best conferences I have attended. There are a number of takeaways, however, the notes below are written in bold in my conference note, and I thought it is worth sharing and reflecting on…  (1) To change the world sometimes, you just have to change your world, by changing your lens. (2) Smart cities are not technology—you can’t have a smart city without smart governance. In other words, smart technology starts with smart people. (3) People first! Technology is an enabler, people who want to solve problems often start with technology instead of the people. These insights have deepened my appreciation of the intricate relationship between technology and society. (Adebowale Owoseni – Computer Science and Informatics Department, De Montfort University, UK)

I attended the Doctoral Consortium to receive some feedback on the work I had done on my research thus far, and what I received exceeded my expectations. Overall, the conference gave me an excellent opportunity to network with academics from both local and international universities. (Lumka Salamntu, Rhodes University).

This conference was truly captivating! It ranks among the best I’ve attended, thanks to its exceptional organization, focus on open dialogue, and the overall experience. It was particularly exciting to present my paper on iCT4D. Adding to the joy, my first visit to South Africa was remarkable – the country is clean, the hospitality warm, and the overall atmosphere truly engaging (Mohamed Nuh, Tampere University, Finland)

It was good to be home! South Africa is where I started my ICT4D journey, and received my best mentorship. It was nostalgic meeting the Professors and fellow researchers that have been a part of my journey – nothing compares to that. I appreciate the effort the University of Cape Town put into the conference – and the success was clearly experienced and felt in the presentations, engagements, and the lovely hospitality. Pitso, Prof Brown and the wonderful UCT team, you really made it work! I enjoyed being a mentor at the Doctoral Symposium – not only providing guidance but learning from our doctoral students. Their perspective of insight is refreshing, and I look forward to the outcome of their research. The conference provided a space to identify how the narrative of ICT4D is changing, and the critical questions around its position globally on various themes and topics in governance, AI, digital inclusion (what should that mean?), entrepreneurship, health, education and the ethics of design outside context.  I enjoyed that some presentations did not only end with questioning the value of digital development, but rather offering alternative approaches and actionable steps in guiding the future of the field globally. (Caroline Khene, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK)

Caroline Khene, Research Fellow and Digital Cluster Lead at the Institute of Development Studies and Secretary of IFIP 9.4, reflects on the changing narrative of the ICT4D field, in the light of activity with the Task Force 5 on Inclusive Digital Transformation.

The narrative is changing in our field, with some people questioning whether ICT4D matters, exists, or still has a research agenda. When I started researching in this field as an undergraduate student in South Africa, the term ICT4D was frowned upon in my discipline – as not being part of information systems – “ICT4D is not Information Systems” is what I was often told…how ironic! My research career began in South Africa, at a time when it was difficult to mainstream the concept in our discipline, making it challenging to advocate for it in teaching curriculum and research. Interestingly, although not surprising, I also learned of the challenge ICT4D researchers in the north also experienced, with debates around approaches applied, methodologies, relevance, and its position in information systems and related disciplines. Despite these challenges, supportive networks such as SIGGLOBDev, IFIP 9.4, IDIA, and later the ICTD Conference began to emerge, where research around the field started to gain prominence and open debates around the value of digital technology in addressing pressing issues in international development. The growth and interest of ‘digital’ in international development, later resulted in questions around, ‘whose design, whose innovation, whose decision, whose perspective of impact’, as several issues emerged around sustainability/continuity of digital programmes, digital ethics and rights, data justice, surveillance capitalism – just to name a few. Furthermore, as Low-Middle-Income-Countries (LMICs) are continuously targeted for investment by global powers from the US, Europe and China, this puts into question top-down approaches, with no realistic-inclusive-representative deliberation in place around how digitalisation should unfold within their context. Techno-feudalism is now at bay, placing LMICs in problematic positions of behavioural-cultural lockdown, to not claim the cultures and histories that should shape digital innovation in their context.

“We need to be more critical”. Taking a critical approach is not new to the ICT4D field, with several researchers embracing critical theory, paradigms, and philosophical approaches in how one ‘does’ research. This has been a valuable realisation in our research community, as researchers become more ‘aware’ of their influence, and inserts of power that manifest in digital development research and initiatives. I attended the IFIP WG 8.2 and WG 9.4 Joint Working Group Conference, in Hyderabad, India, in December 2023. The conference theme, as a legacy to the late Bruno Latour and his work, centered on globalisation, inequity, and climate change. The emergent discussions at the conference converged around deliberative power in different ways, and what it should mean in relation to ‘how’ power transitions should occur in south contexts. Keynotes by Janaki Srinavasan and Bobby Banerjee touched on the place of history and politics in researching the information age, and political ontologies of sustainability in decolonising climate change. A different kind of ‘critical’ continues to gain prominence, which should not only rest in interpretations of the researcher, but critical that is emancipatory for the ‘researched’ to collaboratively become the ‘researcher’, in democratic processes of embedding and driving local ontologies.

So ICT4D – does it have an agenda, has it disappeared? No it hasn’t – it has just become integrated into different discussions shaping the digital economy. Our field applies not only to LMIC but globally in varied contexts, including that of high-income countries – something I have seen and experienced moving from South Africa to the UK. What needs to be encouraged is the participation of new voices and ontologies in global spaces of influence, like the G20 intergovernmental forum comprising of 20 sovereign countries shaping agendas for the global economy. The T20 exists as an engagement group that produces, discusses, consolidates and presents ideas to the G20 for addressing emerging global challenges. Its members are local and international representatives of think tanks and research institutions, facilitating the contribution of emergent ideas through policy briefs.  This year, Brazil holds the presidency for the G20, with the T20 consisting of 6 Task Forces:

1. TF01: Fighting inequalities, poverty, and hunger.
2. TF02: Sustainable climate action and inclusive just energy transitions.
3. TF03: Reforming the international financial architecture.
4. TF04: Trade and investment for sustainable and inclusive growth.
5. TF05: Inclusive digital transformation.
6. TF06: Strengthening multilateralism and global governance.

I am pleased to be member of Task Force 5 on Inclusive Digital Transformation, which consists of 6 significant focus areas: 

1. Digital Inclusion and Meaningful Universal Connectivity
2. Digital Transformation and Platformization of Public Services
3. Digital Integrity, Data Protection, and Cybersecurity
4. New Digital Technologies for SDGs and Decent Work
5. Challenges, Opportunities, and Governance of Artificial Intelligence
6. Global Digital Governance and Regulation of Digital Platforms

Each focus area resonates with research previously developed and continuing in the field of ICT4D or digital development. The T20 currently has an open Call for Policy Brief Abstracts, with a deadline of 5 February 2024. I would like to encourage scholars and researchers globally, to contribute policy briefs shaping ideas for addressing global development challenges. Contributors are encouraged to collaborate with other think tanks or research institutions from at least 2 different countries (at least one country should be a G20 member). As the next G20 Presidency will move to South Africa next year, we also particularly encourage submissions from the African continent.

This year, I am also honoured to have been appointed as secretary for IFIP 9.4, supporting our new Chair Dr Silvia Masiero. My hope is to enable wider collaboration and sharing of insights from working group members and invited contributors, contributing to present and future research agendas and debates shaping and evolving our field. Silvia started this amazing blog, and I hope to continue her great work and enthusiasm in sharing knowledge and fostering new collaborations.

Soumyo Das (Emlyon Business School) reflects on the global injustice of the climate crisis, whose effects are disproportionately hitting the Global South. What relationships exist between ICTs, socio-economic development goals, and the natural environment?

The 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report tells a tale, while anticipated, finally painted, and marked as ‘with high confidence’. Human-induced environmental change has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people and has disproportionately affected those in the Global South (ibid.). The observed effects are particularly visible across tracts of South & South-East Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with significant impact on food chains, public health, human- & animal-migration and displacement patterns, and damages to key economic sectors (ibid.).

While such human-induced environmental changes are driven by a plethora of processes, ICTs, through different means across its life cycle, play a significant contributing factor. The negative effect in the production phase is driven by the process of, and materials used, in the development of such technologies. Furthermore, since most ICTs are produced within a concentrated geographic region, its distribution involves non-renewable energy-consuming global supply chains. The aspect of energy consumption is further exacerbated in its use. As a minute observation in relation to the UN’s vision of the use of ICTs for achieving SDGs, the collection and processing of human data for purposes of monitoring SDG achievement has been vocalised for several cases, for example, public health. While the ethical, legal, and social implications for the same are immense, from a purely technical perspective, it involves the storage and analysis of data within technical infrastructures which are well documented to be energy inefficient and with significant environmental impact. It is also well reported that ICTs carry short product life cycles, which ultimately contribute to non-biodegradable and potentially toxic e-waste.

Irrespective of such forecasts and readily available statistics, Governments across the world are increasingly investing in the use of ICTs to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in line with UN’s vision of using ICTs as enablers to accelerate the achievement of the 17 SDGs. While the impact of ICTs used for the purpose of achieving socio-economic growth is perhaps miniscule in comparison to the global use of ICTs for individual consumption and to drive economic processes, it still leaves behind a considerable environmental footprint. The issue is furthermore critical for ICTD researchers, as the environmental implications of production, use, and disposal of ICTs are much higher in the Global South; furthermore, the use of ICTs for SDGs are concentrated in the Global South, which implies that the environmental implications of the same would be concentrated within the same geographic boundaries.

Irrespective, research has rarely captured the triangular relationship between ICTs, socio-economic development goals, and the natural environment. The implications of the relationship, however, is quite broad, and I take the case of public health (UN-SDG#3: Good Health & Well-Being), and of e-waste to substantiate my argument. On one hand, governments across the Global South are increasingly using ICTs to achieve positive public health outcomes, and on the other, it has well documented that the state of the natural environment has a strong bearing on human and veterinary health. However, studies show that the end-of-life-cycle outcome of most ICTs, i.e., e-waste, is a major contributor to environmental degradation, in the form of non-biodegradable toxic waste, with public health implications.

The environmental implications reflect social forces at play. From a Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) perspective, it reflects social choices in the use of certain physical and chemical materials in the design and development of the ICTs (non-biodegradable & chemically toxic in nature). Furthermore, the short-life cycles – the reason why most ICTs ends up being non-usable after a point of time, is discarded, and ends up being e-waste – is a material reflection of the planned obsolescence ideology of ICT ideation and design stakeholders. It could also reflect changes in policy approaches, in changing the kind of ICTs used to achieve a particular socio-economic goals purpose – as is reflected in continual changes in the type of e-POS machines used for delivering public welfare services in India over a 10-year period.

Irrespective of the social force at play, e-waste contributes to significant environmental damages and it is well documented that it is associated with negative birth outcomes, changes in lung & respiratory functions, damages to DNA, hormonal disorders, and carcinogenic outcomes. And yet, every year, there is a significant rise in the volume of e-waste generated – rising annually by 21% in between 2014 and 2019, with the vast majority being dumped in in low- or middle-income countries.

It therefore becomes a recursive ailment, if the very same ICTs used to achieve good health ends up being a contributing factor to negative health outcomes. As such, the environmental implications of the ICTs used to achieve socio-economic goals recursively impacts the very same* Social Development Goals which the ICTs tries to address in the first place.

For those policymakers, while governments and international organizations need to rethink about prescribing ICTs as the elixir for any-and-every socio-economic ailment in the first place, it needs to be more cognizant about the role played by the natural environment on the state of society and the economy, and the impact of ICTs on it. For researchers, the article is an attempt to re-hash and re-highlight the fact that ICTD research has focussed largely on socio-economic goals, and there exists a lack of studies which has a focus on the natural environment. Environmental goals too are important for sustainable futures, and this article is a call for ICTD researchers, policymakers, and designers to add the natural environment in the equation of the study of ICTs and socio-economic development.

*Maybe not the same SDG cluster, perhaps a different one, but in essence, to the larger SDG goals.

About the Author: Soumyo Das is a Researcher at Emlyon Business School. His research focusses on sustainable management & innovation, and was formerly associated with the Centre for IT & Public Policy at IIIT Bangalore as an ICTD scholar. He can be reached at das (at) em-lyon.com, or on Twitter at @soumyoin.

By: Muluneh Atinaf, IT-Doctoral Program, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,                   mulunehatinaf@yahoo.com

ICT4D research has addressed critical individual, organizational, and societal issues progressively. The nature of problems is also being changing from time to time challenging the suitability of the solutions and the field to address current and emergent problems with older assumptions. Hence, the field enquires to rethink and reframe research in ICT4D to be framed and reflect justice, apply multi-theoretical approaches, and give attention to the indigenous understanding of ICTs. This piece focuses on one of the multi-theoretical approaches in ICT4D research. Among the multi-theoretical approaches to consider is looking at the multiple concepts that have gained attention and become a trend for ICT4D research. Context, resilience, and sustainability are among the concepts gaining attention and becoming the building blocks of ICT4D research.

It is better to look into each of the concepts before discussing how the triple concepts relate and how they can be investigated together in an ICT4D research. Context refers to the processes and conditions other than the constituent causal sociomaterial interactions of information systems (IS) phenomena that affect their formation and are affected by them. Resilience is the ability of a system to perform its objectives to continue to thrive in the face of challenges. However, context-based research rarely goes beyond understanding the lived experiences of stakeholders and existing IS artifacts to inform resilience and sustainability of interventions. The development practice is challenged by multiple and overlapping treats. Moreover, the local communities have differences in their capabilities such as access to infrastructure including computing devices, digital literacy, and cognitive gaps to apply the information received. Therefore, ignoring context within such local development realities and stakeholders’ conditions while designing resilient IS will not lead to sustainability of the interventions. ICT4D research should try to look into the three pillars of ICT4D research from the socio-technical perspective. However, common agreement is lacking on what constitutes resilience for development projects. Sustainability in this piece refers to enduring those interventions, specifically the ICT4D interventions in the development arena, and keeping target users to continue using the interventions. From the above definitions one can understand that resilience maintains the functions and operations of a system (both information system and the contexts of the local development practices) during stress through unlocking potential from the technology or human potential. In fact, context is a methodological challenge in ICT4D research and mainstream IS research. Relatively, context and sustainability are well-researched both in the ICT4D and mainstream IS research. Given the above conceptualizations, ICT4D research is still criticized as a-contextual, inadequately considering the value-adding context-based potentials of stakeholders, techno-centric study (Chigona et al, 2009) that leads to ICT4D failures, and limiting theorizing in ICT4D.

Therefore, research applying ICT for development goals needs to deeply investigate the historical processes of the context with their social practices and processes for the success of the interventions and the contexts that enable such success. ICT itself is part of the context encompassing the conditions and processes in the environment. The question is then how do the triple concepts of context, resilience, and sustainability relate to each other? How does one inform the other or is informed by the other?

Addressing this inquiry needs to develop understanding on each of the concepts and how individual concepts or a group of concepts can enable/inform the other. It is known from previous research that ICT4D interventions are embedded in a system, a network, a project, or a social structure where the resources that define the local contexts and enable resilient communities are distributed within these systems and structures. Resilience and sustainability are sometimes treated as synonyms looking at the points of learning taking place between the two concepts however there is a clear difference between the two concepts. In practice they are different in that resilience focuses on the regeneration of resources and sustainability focuses on supplying the resources. Therefore, resilience becomes the core issue that can contribute both to sustaining the interventions and the local practices of the communities. Hence, resources can be regenerated not only from the IS infrastructure but also from the practices of the local development communities. The community’s local development practices involve their daily development practices and the IS applied to support their development practices.

This informs the socio-technical nature of both the development practices and the regeneration of resources. This is an implication that resilience is socio-technical. The socio-technical nature of an information system was also accepted long ago. Therefore, both context and resilience are socio-technical. Hence, the analysis of these two concepts that are gaining attention by the ICT4D research should be approached from the socio-technical perspective. The socio-technical dimension involves people, tasks/processes, structure, technology, and data. The fact that resources are distributed in a system, networks, projects, or social structures, and development is refers to the beneficiaries imply both context and resilience are socio-technical and hence sustainability is socio-technical too. Therefore, resilience should be informed from the socio-technical context which in turn helps maintaining the functions and operations of the local development practices to meet the requirements of the local beneficiaries in a way that the two can lead to sustainable ICT4D interventions. Further information on the conceptual relationships established from the three conceptual pillars can be explored in the paper at the IFIP WG 9.4 2022 Conference Proceeding and the empirical evidence to this can be accessed in the forthcoming paper.

We are inviting proposals for panel presentations on topics relevant to the IFIP 9.4 community and broadly in keeping with the conference theme:  Freedom and Social Inclusion in a Connected World.

A panel should aim to present a variety of views on a topical issue in the ICT4D field, to generate debate amongst the panellists and to engage the audience in that debate.  Thus, there should be potential for different positions to be put forward for the chosen topic and the proposal should make it clear how the panel will present these different positions.  Good candidates for panel topics would be those arising from controversies, academic debates, new research agendas, global/geopolitical challenges, innovations and transformational technological advances and so forth.

The panel proposals will be reviewed by the Programme Chairs taking into account: a panel topic that will attract an audience, a panel composition that offers a variety of voices, and a panel format that will encourage audience participation.

Panel proposals should conform to the following guidelines:

• Maximum of three A4 pages in length, consisting of:
  • An introduction to the panel topic demonstrating its importance to the field
  • An exposition of the varying positions held on the topic and how these engender debate
  • A section with short biographies (max. 100 words) of each panellist
  • A references section
• Each panel should comprise a moderator and a maximum of 4 panellists
• The panel format should aim to complete all panellists’ debate and audience engagement in 90 minutes, with at least 30 minutes for audience engagement

Should the panel proposal be accepted, it would be expected that all panellists should commit to attending the conference.

Panel proposals should be submitted no later than 14^th March 2022 to the programme chairs, using our email addresses below.  Acceptance decisions of panel proposals will take place on 15^th April 2022.

Programme Chairs

Pamela Abbott (p.y.abbott@sheffield.ac.uk), Jose-Antonio Robles (jrobles@esan.edu.pe), Yingqin Zheng (Yingqin.Zheng@rhul.ac.uk) 

The continuation of the global COVID-19 pandemic has marked our year at IFIP 9.4. With the shift to an online format for our events, as well as transformations affecting the conduct of fieldwork and our members’ teaching and learning activities, the year has marked even more deeply the changes started in 2020. Caring responsibilities, health concerns and the new challenges brought by these have led many of us to a rediscussion of the essential aspects of our academic roles.

Accommodating the change has meant many actions. One was readaptation of the core event – the IFIP 9.4 conference – that constitutes the lifeblood of our work as community. On 26-28 May 2021, the First IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference has taken place, in the same dates originally planned for our physical convening in Lima. Programmatically titled “Resilient ICT4D”, the conference has sought to leverage the online format to recreate the atmosphere of vibrant and fruitful interaction that characterised our physical convenings since IFIP 9.4 was established. It has, at the same time, sought to move resilience from a conference theme to a feature of organisation of the event itself. This has meant using the online format to pursue objectives of inclusion and open communication that characterise the spirit of IFIP 9.4.

The event began with a PhD day where, by choice, we adopted a non-capped approach to participation. This creates an alternative to the model of doctoral consortia in our parent field: in Information Systems, such consortia are characterised by a capped number of participants, subjected or not to a fee for participation. Beyond the no-fee model, we also decided not to cap participation: using the virtual means, it has been possible to match 74 participants, based in 27 countries, with 24 mentors who volunteered their time and expertise to mentor such a big group of early-career researchers. Through rotation across Zoom tables, fruitful mentoring conversations have demonstrated the power of an inclusive PhD day, where the absence of caps and fees has left room to enriching and insightful discussions.

Doctoral consortia also usually involve faculty panels, discussing themes including strategies for publishing and progressing in the career. Even to this model, the IFIP 9.4 PhD day has proposed a constructive alternative. The event has featured two panels: in the first one, titled “Lessons from the PhD Journey”, five colleagues close to completion of their PhD (or who just finished) shared with the group what they saw as the most useful learnings through the doctoral journey. In the second, titled “Academic Careers… With a Human Face”, four colleagues shared (not the best strategies to publish more and more, but) their views of how to live the academic journey in a human way, friendly to mental and physical health and mindful of the ethical aspects of the job. Out of many topics that emerged, remarks on intersecting form of bias in key aspects of the academic profession have triggered a collective reflection on how such biases can be recognised and tackled.

The IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference has followed the PhD day. With the choice of not having a physical host, the conference has proposed a collective governance model: decision-making was conducted by 32 track chairs, based across 14 countries and representing 27 different universities. The collective has taken all decisions – conference format; keynote invitations; panel organisation; social event – in the making of the conference, showing the value of collective decision-making in mirroring the spirit of IFIP 9.4. In addition, the conference chose a no-fee format and published open-access proceedings, leaving to the authors the choice on how to evolve the 82 papers presented in the event.

Importantly, the 13 tracks in the IFIP 9.4 Virtual Conference have reflect not only the continued relevance of core themes (resilience building; digital platforms; ICTs for public health, and more) for the community, but also the emergence of new themes: for the first time the conference featured a track on data justice, one on the role of ICTs in social justice, and one on feminist and queer approaches to ICT4D, which has inspired a Special Issue Call for Papers in Information Technology for Development. A track has underscored the continued interest of IFIP 9.4 towards indigenous theory, and new track ideas (e.g. a track on “digital authoritarianism and fundamentalism: problems and solutions”) have also emerged. Four panels have also brought new themes to our community: open data governance in the Global South, digital labour in the Global South, deconstructing notions of resilience, and feminist approaches to ICT4D have fostered important discussions. Three extremely insightful keynotes by Shirin Madon, Sajda Qureshi and Anita Gurumurthy have brought important themes to the attention of a wide audience of 486 registered participants.

As we look back to the activities conducted in 2021, it is important to note how these inspire the very substantial work that is yet to come. Tracks from IFIP 9.4 conferences continue to inspire Special Issues in the journals of the field: the recent Information Systems Journal Special Issue 31(6) is a combined Special Issue on Indigenous Theory and Digital Platforms for Development, both of which were tracks at the IFIP 9.4 2019 Conference in Dar el Salaam. Papers in such Special Issues – and beyond them, as IFIP 9.4 papers are further developed into journal publications – continue to inform the debates of the discipline, such as the turn of digital platforms literature towards issues of development discussed in the related Special Issue launch. New Special Issue Calls, such as the ISJ Call for Papers on Digital Transformation in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities and the ITD Call for Papers on Understanding Local Social Processes in ICT4D Research, have been presented in our Conference, generating fruitful debate between editors and potential authors. In addition, our Conference has hosted the launch of a MIS Quarterly Special Issue on Social Justice, a launch in which the Editors have remarked the strong synergies between the journal and our activities at IFIP 9.4.

Looking forward means, first and foremost, looking at future events and ways to keep the lifeblood of IFIP 9.4 alive and active despite the challenges of the continued global pandemic. Our next IFIP 9.4 Conference, which will take place on 25-27 May 2022, will keep a virtual format. The Conference adopts a multilingual format – with tracks in English, Spanish and Portuguese – and despite our inability to be physically in Lima as originally planned, will constitute a large convening where important discussions of ICT4D will be continued. The event, as well as the activities yet to come and be planned for 2022, will mirror the resilient spirit of the IFIP 9.4 community: a spirit of openness, interactivity, and willingness to advance together the ICT4D debate.

To all our members and readers, the happiest of holidays, and best wishes for a happy 2022!

Silvia Masiero

Secretary, IFIP WG 9.4