Should communal computing facilities cohabit with public facilities?
Department
of Information Systems, University of Cape Town
Private
Bag, Rondebosch, South Africa
Reasons for establishing communal
computing facilities (CCF) in existing public facilities vary from lower setup
and operating costs, to easy access for intended users. We explore how CCFs
operate in existing public facilities and the effects of these environments on
the operations and usage of CCFs. Informed by findings of studies on CCFs in
disadvantaged communities, this paper notes a number of merits and demerits of
setting CCFs in existing public facilities. We note that hosting institutions
may contribute towards achieving CCFs’ critical success factors. On the
negative side, hosting institutions may limit the type of users for CCFs.
Keywords: Digital divide,
shared-access, location, critical success factors, public facilities
Communal computing facilities (CCFs) such as telecenters are a well
recognised weapon in the fight against the digital divide. Such facilities
offer Information and Communication Technology (ICT) access to members of the
community who cannot afford personal access. Setup and operating costs are some
of the major challenges in setting up CCFs. One of the solutions to such
problems is to set up a CCF in an existing public facility such as a school or
a library (Jensen and Esterhuysen, 2001). Examples of CCFs operating in public
facilities include the World Bank School Telecenter Project where schools open
up their computing facilities to the general public (World Bank, 2005) and
telecenters operating from post offices in Afghanistan (UNDP, 2003). Over and
above saving costs, CCFs operate in public facilities to ensure accessibility
by users and potential users.
A number of studies mention in passing issues that come up when CCFs are
hosted in other facilities. However, there is a dearth of studies dedicated to
looking at this issue in detail. Studies of this kind would serve to inform
stakeholders of issues which must be taken into account when setting up CCFs in
public facilities so that both the CCF and the hosting institution can benefit
from their cohabiting arrangement.
Informed by qualitative research studies done on two separate South
African CCF initiatives, this paper brings to light the challenges and benefits
that arise when a CCF operates from a public institution. We argue that the hosting
institutions may play a significant role towards the CCF realising some of the
telecenter critical success factors. On the negative side, our research also
shows that the hosting institution may exclude other members of the community
from using the CCF.
The discussion in this paper is based on two South African initiatives:
the Smart Cape Access Project and the Cape Access Project. The Smart Cape
Access Project operates from public libraries in the city of Cape Town while
the Cape Access Project operates from libraries, schools and Multi-Purpose
Community Centres (MPCC) in the Western Cape Province.
We define a communal computing facility as a center which provides
shared computer and internet access to a community. CCFs usually offer their
services for free or at minimal rates. CCFs go by different names and modes of
operations; the most common name being ‘telecenter’. Other names include
‘telecottage’ (Haman, 2001) and ‘Communication Technology Center’ (Alkalimat &
Williams, 2001). In South Africa, a substantial number of CCFs operate as part of MPCCs
(Snyman & Snyman, 2003).
CCFs
co-habiting in public infrastructures
There are different models where shared computing facilities co-locate
with other community facilities. One model is where an institution incorporates
shared computing functionality in its operations. The second model is where an
institution opens up access to computing facilities which originally (or
traditionally) were ones to which the general public did not have access. The
third model, which we are addressing in this paper, is where an independent CCF
is setup and operates in a public facility.
An example of the model where an institution incorporates CCF
functionalities in its operations is when a library chooses to incorporate
shared computing facilities in its services. Cisler (1998) encourages libraries
to do that. He posits that this would be in the interest of the libraries.
Bundy (2000) claims that telecenters set up as part of a library are more
likely to survive compared to those set up outside libraries. Proenza (2001)
reports that every parish library in Jamaica has computer facilities. Cisler,
however, warns that since the CCF functionality will attract new kinds of
library users, libraries need to re-orient their staff to cater for a new breed
of users.
School-based telecenters fall in the second model. By opening up its
computing resources to the general public a school aims at generating
additional revenues for the school as for example to support the maintenance
and upgrade of the ICT infrastructure (Mayanja, 2002; World Bank, 2005). This
model enables schools to afford and maintain technological infrastructures
which would otherwise be beyond their reach. Publications written about
projects in this model mainly concentrate on telecenter management issues for
the schools (Islam & Welch,
2005, Mayanja, 2002; World Bank, 2005). Few studies have focused on how the fact that the CCF is situated on a
school affects users from the wider community.
There is a dearth of research specifically addressing issues arising
from operating CCFs from public facilities. Several authors mention the issue
but clearly not as the main thrust of their research or publications. Proenza
(2001) advises that for sustainability, rural-based telecenters need to go into
partnership with other public service providers. Proenza adds that school
computer laboratories, libraries and post offices provide ideal partners.
However, the article discusses the issue only briefly and does not address
issues affecting the communities which are meant to use the facilities.
Additionally some researchers have argued that the nature of the hosting
institution may inhibit access to some members of the community who would like
to use the CCF. Colle and Roman (2002) argue that a “location in a library or
school might intimidate those who might benefit from the service.” This is
because community members with low levels of education or literacy may feel out
of place in the locations which are considered “intellectual”. In addition,
Colle and Roman make mention of a telecenter in Mamelodi, South Africa, which
had to be relocated from a library because the community perceived the library
as an official/government location.
Cultural factors may also limit accessibility to some host institutions.
For example, Colle and Roman also mention that in Latin America some women were
put off from using the internet because it was located in post offices, which
in their context were considered “male places.”
Critical success factors for communal computing facilities
We are arguing that the nature of the business and the culture of the
hosting institutions have an impact on the success of the hosted CCF. To
appreciate how the host institution may influence the success of a CCF, there
is need to understand (1) how the term “success” can be used in relation to
CCFs and (2) what factors are critical to achieve this success.
In fact, there is no consensus on what the term “success” means for a
CCF. A number of publications on CCFs measure success in terms of profitability
and sustainability (Jensen and Esterhuysen, 2001; Proenza, 2001). While there
is a general agreement concerning the need for sustainability of CCFs,
indicators concerning sustainability are only relevant if the initiative is
directed toward generating a profit or if the funding agency has the intention
of discontinuing funding at some stage. There are, however, (or are proposals
to develop) CCFs which have continuing funding from governments or other
agencies (in the same way that governments fund schools and libraries)
(Gurstein, 2001). For instance the initiatives which are used as cases in this
study are fully supported by the government and users are not required to pay
for their services.
There is a need, therefore, to establish a different evaluation criteria
for such CCFs. Mchombu (2003), Menou (1993) and UNESCO (1997) suggest that one
way of evaluating community information can be based on patronage or use. This
is the approach which we adopt in this paper.
A number of researchers and practitioners have suggested different
factors that are critical to the success of CCFs (Jensen and Esterhuysen, 2001;
Proenza, 2001, Roman & Colle, 2002). However, there is not much agreement
on the factors and, there would appear to be few if any attempts to rank the
influence of the different factors perhaps because the ranking of such factors
would necessarily be highly context dependent. Previous papers (Chigona, et al
2005, Chigona & Samaai, 2006) discussed seven critical factors for CCF
success of which four would appear to be of specific relevance to this
discussion. They are: community buy-in, local champion, location of CCF, and
marketing and public awareness.
Community buy–in: To ensure high acceptance and usage of the CCF, it is
essential to get the backing of the community. This is achieved by getting the
community involved in the project from the outset and ensuring the community
ownership of the project (Bridges.org, 2002; Jensen and Esterhuysen, 2001;
NTCA, 2000).
Local champion: A champion is an individual with influence in the
community and commands respect. Having the support of a local champion for a
project encourages involvement of the other members of the community to follow
suit (Bridges.org, 2002; Ernberg, 1998). For the long term sustainability of a
project, it is advisable to have more than one local champion (NCTA, 2000).
Location of the CCF: A CCF location should be easily accessible both
physically and socially for different groups of people (Colle, 2004; NTCA,
2000). In other words, the location should be suitable for people of different
age groups and genders It is desirable, therefore, that the location should be
at a place where people visit to do other activities such as shopping. Jensen
and Esterhuysen (2001) note that there are examples of cases where usage of
telecenters increased once the telecenter relocated to inside or near another
community infrastructure.
Marketing and public awareness: Community members must first become
aware of the CCF and its services before they will get involved in it (Colle
and Roman, 2002). Marketing can take the form of advertising, public relations,
events and promotions. To sustain the “visibility” of the CCF, the marketing
efforts must be ongoing (NCTA, 2000). Marketing is also important to generate
support (including financial support) for the telecenter (Jensen and
Esterhuysen, 2001)
This paper is based on studies on two South African CCF initiatives: the
Smart Cape Access Project and the Cape Access Project. Detailed results of
those studies are published elsewhere (Chigona & Samaai, 2006, Chigona et
al, 2005, Chigona et al, 2006). These studies form a part of a larger ongoing
research effort to investigate factors which contribute towards the failure of
CCFs in South Africa. In this section only an overview of the initiatives will
be presented; the research methodologies used in those studies are discussed in
the next section.
Smart Cape Access Project
Smart Cape Access Project (or Smart Cape for short), an initiative of
the Cape Town City Council, provides free computer access and internet
connectivity to disadvantaged communities in the city of Cape Town (Infonomics
South Africa, 2003). The access points for the initiative, usually referred to
as Cape Access Points, are located in selected public libraries in the city.
All one needs to access the facilities is a library membership which is itself
free of charge. Users are allowed only up to 45 minutes of access time per day.
Cape Access
The Cape Access, a project of the Provincial Government of the Western
Cape (PGWC), aims to provide its residents (especially those in the rural
areas) “with access to technology and benefits that can be derived from it”
(PGWC, 2004). The project aims to provide technological infrastructure to allow
the public to interact with government and business.
At the time of the study, the project had six pilot sites in different
parts of the province. The areas where the centers were located are categorised
into urban, rural and deep rural. The centers operate from MPCCs, libraries and
schools. The centers which operate from libraries adopted a technological
solution similar to the one used by the Smart Cape.
To reduce capital investment, wherever possible, the Cape Access Project
uses community computing facilities already available in the community. This
has been the case with the MPCCs and the schools which are part of the project.
The schools had computing facilities made available under the Khanya project, a
Western Cape government led initiative providing ICT infrastructure in schools
(www.khanya.co.za). On the other hand, hosting institutions which have no
computing facilities (e.g. the libraries) were provided with the required
facilities.
In addition to providing the technological infrastructure, the
initiative assists the communities in establishing e-community forums. An
E-community forum is a community-based group responsible for planning and
running the computing resources. The group consists of representatives of the
community, community leaders and non-governmental organisations (PGWC, 2004).
E-community forums aim at creating a bottom-up approach to ICT development.
Over and above mobilising the respective communities towards using the centers,
the e-community forums are supposed to come up with the ICT-enabled projects
for the community. The identified projects are to be supported by the Cape
Access Project.
Both the Smart Cape and Cape Access studies used a qualitative interpretive
approach. This research approach was selected as it provided a means for
obtaining respondents’ explanations and interpretations of the phenomena being
studied (Myers, 1997; Snape and Spencer, 2003). In depth, semi-structured
interviews and observations were used to obtain information from different
stakeholders. Due to the anonymity agreement with the respondents, the
identities of the centers remain hidden.
Smart Cape study
Data was collected from three Smart Cape Points. These will be refered
to as Center-A, Center-B and Center-C. The sample was selected using a
purposive sampling technique i.e. a sampling technique where the researcher
selects samples “because they have particular features and characteristics to
enable detailed exploration and understanding of central themes and puzzles
which the researcher wishes to study” (Lewis, 2003:78). In this case, the
sample was selected based on the social-economic differences of the different
locations. Center-A: Mainly refugees from central Africa; with formalised low
cost single unit housing. Center-B: Predominantly coloured community; with
formalised low cost high density housing. Center-C: Largely black; with largely
informal housing. A culturally diverse sample was selected based on the
assumption that culture may play a role in CCF adoption.
Data was collected by means of interviews and observations between
August 2004 and January 2006 in five phases as follows:
Phase 1: Initial interviews
The focus of this phase, which was conducted in August 2004, was to
identify the critical success factors for the CCFs. Structured interviews were
conducted with the management and users of the three centers. Seven users were
interviewed per center.
Phase 2: Second round of interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted with the management of the three
centers. In addition, semi-structured open-ended questionnaires were personally
administered to on users (selected using convenience sampling) and to a
randomly selected sample of non-users. For the purposes of this research a user
is defined as anybody who has used the facility more than once. A non-user on
the other hand is a person who lives within the catchment area of the CCF, and
knows about the facility but does not use it. The sample had 23 users and 11
non-users. The interviews were conducted in August 2005. For detailed results
of this phase refer to Chigona et al (2006).
Phase 3: Observations at Center –C
Observations were conducted to complement and validate the findings of
the initial interviews. The observations were non-intrusive, i.e. the users
were observed as they naturally used the system (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister,
1997; Goulding, 2002). The researchers were positioned where they could see the
application being used but could not see the actual screen contents. The
observations paid particular attention to the following aspects:
·
Demographic composition of the users in terms of age
and gender.
·
Social-network influence: Whether the users came in
groups or individually.
·
The use of the facilities i.e. the activity the users
were engaged in when they were using the facilities.
The observations were conducted on four separate days at Center-C. Each
observation session lasted two and half hours. This exercise was carried out
within the first two weeks of December 2005.
Phase 4: Observation at a center in a relatively advantaged area
Observations were conducted at a Smart Cape access point operating in a
library in a relatively advantaged community. This phase was included in the
study in order to ascertain whether the pattern observed at Center-C was unique
to centers operating among the disadvantaged communities. Two observation
sessions were conducted with each session lasting one and half hours. This
phase was conducted in the second week of January 2006. The idea of observing
another facility outside the area of focus in order to deepen your
understanding of the area of focus was adopted from Goulding (2002).
Phase 5: In-depth interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted with users and staff at Center-C.
These interviews were meant to verify findings and to seek clarification on the
themes which had emerged from the previous phases of data collection. At this
phase one staff member and three users were interviewed. Interviews were
stopped at this point as it was observed a saturation point had been reached
i.e. no new concepts were emerging from the interviews.
Cape Access study
The aim of the study was similar to that of the first phase of the Smart
Cape study. However, this study looked at CCFs operating among the rural and
semi-urban communities. In addition, the study investigated the roles that
e-community forums are playing in the operations and usage of CCFs.
Data was gathered through interviews with management, users and
non-users of two centers. The two centers, one rural and the other semi-urban
were selected using purposive sampling. In addition, members of e-community
forums of all six pilot sites were interviewed. Observations on two of the
centers were also used to obtain empirical data.
Data analysis
The data analysis was based on the work of Ritchie et al (2003). In the
first instance, the empirical materials from the two studies were analysed
separately. This analysis aimed at identifying key themes emerging from the
data. The relationship between the hosting institutions and the use of CCFs
appeared as themes in both studies. This finding prompted us to revisit the
data and pay special attention to issues around the relationships between
hosting institutions and the CCFs and how the relationships affect the use of
the CCFs.
The second analysis went through the following process:
·
Categorisation of the primary materials from both
studies.
·
Identifying key themes relating to the relationship
between hosting institutions and the use of CCFs.
·
Relating the findings to existing literature to
validate the results.
·
Drawing conclusions and recommendations.
The findings show that there are different levels of willingness among
different public institutions to host CCFs. It was also noted that the hosting
institutions had influence on the operations of the CCF as well as on the
public’s adoption of the CCF. These findings are discussed in turn.
Factors affecting the willingness to host
Different levels of willingness to host CCFs were noted among the
hosting institutions. Compared to libraries; schools appeared to be
less-willing CCF hosts. There was a case where a school principal was a member
of the e-community forum, but was not willing to open up a school for the
establishment of a CCF. A school is reported to have refused to allow CCFs to
use its computing facilities for training. (The library from which the CCF
operates could not be used for training due to space limitations hence a need
for another training venue). In contrast, libraries appear to be very willing
to host CCFs. For example, after noticing a low usage among women, a library at
Center-C organised a special training program for the women.
The differences in attitudes between libraries on the one hand and
schools on the other hand as hosts may be understood from two perspectives:
·
Perceived benefits to hosting the CCF and
·
Potential security risk for the host’s existing
infrastructure from the CCF.
Recall that under the Cape Access Project not all the host institutions received
computing infrastructure; the libraries did, but the schools had to use their
existing computing facilities. In other words, the schools have to allow
external users access to their ICT infrastructure without, according to the
schools management, “apparent benefits to the school.” The schools indicated
that it was not clear to them how they would be compensated and how the
maintenance costs would be shared between the school and the project. It can be
seen, therefore, that unlike the case with the libraries, the benefits for the
hosting schools are not clear. In fact, the schools potentially stand to lose.
In addition the Smart Cape libraries claimed that the introduction of
computers increased the number of library users. The library management perceived
the CCF as a complimentary service to their everyday service of providing
information to the general public.
Practically, school-based facilities may be available to the community
only after school hours. To make matters worse, due to security concerns, the
schools are likely to be less willing to surrender the control of their
computing facilities and premises to another organization after school hours.
Even though a school is a public place, its infrastructure and operations are
designed for a limited subset of the population (the learners and staff).
Opening up school facilities to the wider community raises new challenges and
risks for the schools. The circumstances for libraries are different. In the
first place, libraries are public places by nature and in addition, the CCF is
expected and can operate within the normal operating hours of the libraries. It
can be seen, therefore, that for a library, hosting a CCF does not
substantially present additional risks to its property or operations or an addition
to operating costs.
Facilitating community buy-in
The Smart Cape studies did not identify any attempts at creating
community buy-in by the project. In addition, there was no evidence of local
champions influencing the local community to use the CCFs. Based on existing
literature, the lack of community buy-in and absence of champions could have
compromised the success of the CCFs. However, contrary to what might have been
expected, the centers were successful: The facilities are occupied most of the
time and in most cases users have to queue for the facilities. What may on the
face value look like a contradiction between existing literature and our
findings may be explained by the role hosting institutions played in
facilitating the CCFs community buy-in.
As the managers explained, the libraries were well established prior to
the initiation of the respective Smart Cape projects. Many of the community
members already supported the library, “knew the staff and felt comfortable
with them” (Smart Cape Center Management). The communities’ trust of the
library and its staff is evidenced in that library management at Center-C is
occasionally invited to give talks to community on the benefits of the
computing facilities. It can be said, therefore, that the hosting institution
as an actor in the CCF network (to borrow from the Actor Network Theory
terminology) is facilitating the community CCF buy-in and is serving as a local
champion encouraging members of the community to adopt the new innovation.
Marketing and public awareness
As was noted in the literature review, marketing and public awareness is
one of the critical success factors of a CCF. Our findings point out that the
host institutions contributed towards the marketing and raising public
awareness of the respective CCFs. This was specifically noted among the
library-based CCFs. A substantial number of library-based CCF users in both
projects indicated that they came to know about the CCFs while using the
respective libraries. In addition, the libraries actively market the CCFs and
their services. In both projects, libraries include information on the CCF
during their respective public awareness campaigns. In contrast, no marketing
efforts were noted from the hosting schools.
The benefits which a hosting institution obtains from hosting a CCF
could explain the willingness (or lack) of the hosting institution to invest
efforts in marketing the CCF.
Biased user-profile
It can be said, therefore, that while it may be true that the hosting
institutions assist in marketing the CCFs, it must also be observed that the
marketing effect offered by the hosting institutions may be biased towards a
specific segment of the population. The profile of users in the CCFs operating
in libraries seems to be similar to the profile of the library users (typically
learners from surrounding schools). This is not surprising considering that a
substantial number of CCF users became aware of the existence of the facilities
while they were using the library. Including the CCF information in the library
marketing campaigns may not be helpful in reaching a non-biased audience.
According to the theory of selective exposure, people are most likely to pay
attention to what is already of interest to them (Rogers, 2003). It can be
said, therefore, that members of the community who are not interested in the
library are less likely to pay attention to a library campaign.
The problem of a biased user profile may be mitigated by CCFs actively
marketing themselves. Cape Access E-Community forums are currently engaging in
such activities.
Constraints of the host may restrain the operations of a CCF
It was noted that some of the operational requirements of the hosting
institutions may not be conducive to the operations of the CCFs. For instance,
some members of the e-community forums noted that the libraries’ “no-noise”
requirements are not ideal for CCF operations especially where the computing
facilities are located within the main library hall. The two studies show that
most users and potential users lack computer training, skills and self efficacy
in the use of computers. It can be said, therefore, that most users would
require human assistance during their initial uses of the system. Seeking and
obtaining human assistance, in this case, often implies engaging in a verbal
conversation.
Another constraint imposed by the hosting institution is business hours.
The operational hours for a hosting institution may not be conducive to the
operations of a CCF. For instance, Cape Town libraries opening times are
aligned to the normal working hours of other businesses in the country. The
libraries usually close at 17:00 while most businesses in the city close at
between 16:30 and 17:00. Similar constraints were observed with CCFs operating
in MPCCs. The operating hours contribute towards defining who may or may not
use the libraries and the CCFs housed in the libraries. Only those who are free
from other commitments during the normal working hours may use the facilities.
As was noted for the two projects, these are usually learners (after school
hours) and the unemployed. In other words, potential adopters who are in full
time employment are unable to use the facilities. As we noted elsewhere, this
puts the blue collar workers at the biggest disadvantage since they do not have
access at their respective work place because they are too junior and they may
not access ICT at the CCF because they work “wrong” hours.
Judging from the resistance from hosting schools, it can be concluded
that it is unlikely that hosting institutions can allow CCFs to operate outside
the normal working hours of the respective hosting institutions. An exception
was noted at one Cape Access center where the CCF is open to the public outside
the normal hosting library‘s opening times. As mentioned by the center
management, this arrangement was possible because of the small number of CCF
users and because the center is rural-based and “rural communities have trust
in each other”.
This paper aims at initiating
a discussion on the impact of hosting institutions on CCFs. Using data from
studies on two South African initiatives, the paper notes that hosting institutions
have both positive and negative impacts on CCFs. The lessons learnt from the
two studies are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of lessons learnt from the two studies
|
Advantages |
Limitations |
|
·
The CCF may act as a change agent. ·
The initial set-up problems are
eliminated. ·
Marketing and public awareness
effort. |
·
Constraints laid down by the host
may not be conducive for the CCF. ·
Biased user-profile. ·
Resistance from some of the actors
in the hosting institutions. |
The study points out that a
hosting institution may contribute towards the CCF achieving the critical
success factors. It was noted that a hosting institution may facilitate
community buy-in as well as acting as a local champion. The role of the host in
marketing and bringing public awareness about the CCF was also noted. However,
it was observed that the marketing provided by the host may lead to a biased
user profile for the CCF. To mitigate the bias, the CCF should actively market
itself to other audiences who may not be reached by the host.
It was also noted that the
operational setup of the hosting institution may not be conducive to the
operations of the CCF. It is recommended that the stakeholders must be aware of
the potential problems and attempts must be made to circumvent them. For
instance, the “no noise” policy could be addressed by placing the computing
facilities in a room separate from the main library hall.
One of the major findings of
this paper is that an institution’s level of willingness to play the role of a
“good” host is positively associated with the perceived benefit the CCF brings to the hosting institution. A
hosting institution is less likely to be supportive towards the course of the
CCF when the host perceives the relationship to be parasitic. On this point, we
would recommend that CCF initiators must be candid on the benefits the host may
gain from housing the CCF. Hosting a CCF brings new risks to the host and the
host must be willing to bear that risk if the compensation is clear and
perceived to be fair.
This paper concentrated on
the influence the hosting institutions may have on CCFs. It should be noted
that a CCF may have effects on a hosting institution. For mutual benefits of
both the CCF and the hosting institution, there is need for further studies of
this relationship.
The author is heavily
indebted to the students and colleagues whom he has worked with in the two
research projects used in this paper. The author is also grateful to the
Journal of Community Informatics reviewers for their constructive input towards
the final product.
Alkalimat, A. & Williams, K
(2001). Social capital and cyberpower in the African American community: A case
study of a community technology center in the dual city. In L. Keeble & B.
Loader. Community informatics: Community
development through the use of information and communications technologies.
London: Routledge. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://www.communitytechnology.org/cyberpower
Bridges.org
(2002). Spanning the digital divide: Understanding
and tackling the issues. Retrieved August 19, 2006,
from http://www.bridges.org/publications/65.
Bundy, A. (2000).
Libraries a living force. Paper presented at 3rd Conference of Friends of Libraries, Canberra. Retrieved
June 9, 2006 from www.library.unisa.edu.au/papers/living.pdf
Chigona, W.,
Mponang, P., Nlhapo, K. & Rwomire, S. (2006, June 11-13). Who is e-adopting
communal computing facilities? Case of disadvantaged Cape Town communities. In Proceedings of Global Information Management
Association Conference .(pp137-140), Orlando: USA.
Chigona, W.
& Samaai, E. (2006). An Assessment of factors influencing rural eAdoption:
A Case of South Africa. Proceedings of
IST-Africa 2006 Conference.
Chigona, W., Van
Belle, J., Arellano, N., Euvrard, K., & Heslop, R. (2005). An evaluation of
key determining factors for implementing a successful communal computing
initiatives in a disadvantaged community in South Africa, The 2nd Annual Conference of the Community Informatics Research Network
(pp 437- 447).
Cisler, S.
(1998). Telecenters and libraries: New technologies and new partnerships, Rural and Isolated Librarians Special Group.
Retrieved March 1, 2007 from http://libr.org/juice/issues/vol1/LJ_29.html
Colle, R.
(2004). Memo to telecenter planners, Telecenter
Workshop of the APEC-TEL 30 Conference.
Colle, R. &
Roman, R. (2002). Handbook for
Telecenter Staffs. Cornell University. Retrieved October 21, 2004, from http://ip.cals.cornell.edu/commdev/handbook.cfm
Ernberg, J.
(1998). Universal access for rural computing: From action to strategies, Paper
presented at the First international
Conference on Rural Telecommunications. Washington.
Herman, C.
(2001). From visions to reality: changing women's perspectives at the village
hall. SIGCAS Comput. Soc, 31(4), 15
-22.
Gurstein, M.
(2001). Community informatics, community networks and strategies for flexible networking
in L. Keeble and B. Loader (Eds.). Community
informatics: Shaping computer-mediated social relations. London: Routledge.
Infonomics South
Africa (2003). Evaluation of the smart cape
access pilot project: A city of cape town digital divide initiative Retrieved
October 4, 2005, from http://www.smartcape.org.za
: Digital Learning. Retrieved January 8, 2007 from http://www.digitallearning.in/marmag06/generations.asp
Jensen, M. & Esterhuysen, A. (2001). The
Community telecenter cookbook for Africa: Recipes for self sustainability – How
to establish a multipurpose community telecenter in Africa, United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Paris. Retrieved July 6, 2006,
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001230/123004e.pdf
Lewis, J.
(2003). Design issue in J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.). Qualitative research practice a guide for social science students and
researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Mayanja, M.(2002). Uganda school-based telecenters: An
Approach to rural access to ICTs, TechKnowLogia. Retrieved October 10, 2005
from http://www.wougnet.org/Events/IARW/SchoolBasedTelecenter_MMayanja.pdf
Mchombu, K.
(2003). Information dissemination for development: An impact study. Information Development, 9(12), 111-126.
Menou, M. (Ed.).
(1993). Measuring the impact of
information on development. Ottawa: IDRC.
Myers,
M. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly,
21(2),
241-242.
NTCA (2000). Initial lessons
learned about private sector participation in telecenter development: A guide
to policy makers in developing appropriate regulatory frameworks. National Telephone Cooperatives Association,
Arlington. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.coopdevelopmentcenter.coop/Sector/Telecommunications/ntcaworldbank.pdf.
Proenza, F. (2001). Telecenter
sustainability- Myths and opportunities. In Dixon & Wattenbach. Bridging the rural knowledge gap:
Information systems for improved livelihoods. Retrieved October 13, 2005, http://www.fao.org/Waicent/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/ags/Agsp/pdf/ProenzaTelecenter.pdf
[13
Ritchie, J.,
Spencer, L. & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis”, in J.
Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative
Research Practice a guide for Social Science students and researchers. London:
Sage Publications.
Rogers, E.
(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th
ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Roman, R. &
Colle, R. (2002). Themes and issues in telecentre sustainability. Development Informatics Working Paper Series
(Paper No. 10). Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN015544.pdf
Shaughnessy,
J. & Zechmeister, E. (1997). Research
Methods in Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Snape, D. &
Spencer, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research in J. Ritchie &
J. Lewis Qualitative research practice a
guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage
Publications,
UNDP (2003). Revolutionary internet kiosks transforms
Afghan postal services, Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://mirror.undp.org/afghanistan/archive/2003/26-july03-telekiosks.htm
UNESCO (1997). Rural
information provision in developing countries – Measuring performance and
impact. (CII-97/WS/11). UNESCO General
Information Programme and UNI-SIST.
PGWC (2004). Cape access project. Retrieved November
6, 2005, from http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/directories/projects/14959/102911
World Bank (2005).
School telecenters. Retrieved October
10, 2005, from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/91628/telecentres/telecentres/index.html