Social Impact and
Diffusion of Telecenter Use: A Study from the Sustainable Access in Rural
Rajendra Kumar
PhD Candidate
International Development Group, Department of Urban
Studies and Planning ,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Michael Best
Assistant Professor
Abstract
In a study of social diffusion of
telecenter use in rural south India, we find that these centers are being used
only by a relatively small proportion of the village households despite their
having been in operation for well over a year. Based on a survey of the
telecenter users, we find that these users are, in general, young, male, school
or college students, relatively more educated, belong to relatively higher
income households, and come from socially and economically advanced
communities. Thus the telecenters may sustain existing socioeconomic
inequalities within these communities. However, we find some significant
exceptions. We find that location of telecenters close to the residential
localities where socially and economically backward communities live and
presence of local champions within those communities are associated with
attracting more users from those communities. We also find that providing
localized content and services and making these services more affordable are
other important factors in increasing usage and diffusion. We posit that
incorporating these factors in the planning, spatial location, and operation of
the telecenters can significantly improve their social diffusion and improve
their long-term financial and social sustainability.
Introduction
Telecenters
or kiosks have generally been defined as places or centers that provide shared
public access to information and communications technologies for meeting the
educational, social, personal, economic, and entertainment needs of the
community (Fuchs, 1998; Harris, 1999; Proenza, 2001). Telecenters have gained
prominence as the primary instruments for bringing the benefits of ICTs to poor
communities where the technological infrastructure is inadequate and the costs
of individual access to these technologies are relatively high. They provide
opportunities for access to information by overcoming the barriers of distance
and location, and by facilitating access to information and communication, they
have the potential to foster social cohesion and interaction (Young, Ridley,
& Ridley, 2001).
Most
of the evaluations of telecenters have focused on their operational aspects,
such as their technical, financial, and managerial performance and
sustainability (Etta & Wamahiu, 2003; Young, Ridley, & Ridley, 2001).
There have been relatively few studies examining the social impacts of these
telecentres on the communities in which they are situated. Some researchers
have looked at the social impact of the community telecenter initiatives largely
through anecdotal evidence (Holmes, 2001) while others have examined their
impacts on poverty reduction (Gerster & Zimmerman, 2003; Ulrich, 2004).
As
most of the studies on telecenters to date have focused on their operational
and sustainability aspects, a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for
their planning and evaluation has largely been missing from the debate (Roman,
2003). Roman (2003) provides a very cogent theoretical framework for planning
and evaluating telecenters using the
In
this study, we examine the social impact and diffusion of telecenters under the
Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) project in Tamil Nadu,
Though
the kiosks have been in operation for well over a year in many communities,
they are still being used by only a relatively small percentage of the village
population. Our principal focus here is to examine why kiosk use has not been
able to diffuse among a wider section of their communities. In examining this,
we chiefly employ the theoretical framework for diffusion of innovations by
This
case is of particular interest in that it is one of the first projects in
The
remainder of the paper is organized as follows: first, we describe the overall
project briefly; next we discuss the methodology employed in our empirical
study; then we present our data analysis and discuss the results; next we
analyze the findings within the theoretical framework of diffusion of
innovations, and finally we end with our conclusions.
Description
of the Project
The
SARI project is a collaborative research venture including several
organizations: the Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.), Madras; Berkman
Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School; Georgia Institute of
Technology; I-Gyan Foundation; and n-Logue Communications Pvt. Ltd. It uses a
Wireless-in-Local Loop (WLL) technology to provide internet connectivity to
rural villages.
Internet
connectivity is offered to the local community through kiosks, which are run as
self-sustained businesses with cost recovery through service charges. A
majority of the kiosks are locally owned and operated by self-employed
entrepreneurs, while some are operated by self-help groups from a local
non-governmental organization. Technical support for all the kiosks is provided
by n-Logue Communications. The project had established 39 village kiosks by
August 2003 when this field study was conducted. Out of these 39 kiosks, 20
were being run by local self-employed entrepreneurs while the remaining 19 were
being run by the local NGO mentioned above.
Figure
1 shows the location of Melur where the kiosks are located.
Figure.1: Location of Melur in India
(Source:
http://www.tourindia.com/htm/homepage.htm,
modifications by the authors)
Services
Offered by the Kiosks
The
kiosks provide a host of applications and services to the rural people, which
include computer education; email/voice mail/voice chat; e-government services
such as obtaining birth and death certificates from government offices;
agricultural, veterinary, and health services; web browsing, etc. They provide
internet content in the local language in these areas. The services are based
on a self-sustaining commercial model with the charges ranging from Rs. 10
(approx. US $0.22) for sending an email to Rs. 100 (approx. US $2.2) for one
hour of basic computer education everyday for one month. To deliver these
services, the project has developed partnerships with several public and
private agencies. These include tie-ups with the state government to provide
e-government services, with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural and Veterinary
University for providing agricultural and veterinary services, and with a
private eye hospital for providing eye check-ups. It is this broad array of
services that attract users, including those who are illiterate, to the kiosks.
Research
Methods
We
have used a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques for our
study. We conducted a comprehensive survey of 132 kiosk users in five villages
and collected data on their demographic background, educational status, and the
affordability and desirability of the kiosk services. In addition, we used data
from a survey conducted by the SARI project officials in these villages which
covered all the user and non-user households in the local community served by
the kiosks. The selection of the users was done using a two-stage sampling
process. In the first stage, we used the purposive sampling technique to select
the villages based on the length of operation of the kiosk in the community and
whether they were being run by self-employed entrepreneurs or by the NGO. The
five kiosks selected were in operation from 10 to 18 months as of June 2003.
Three of the five kiosks were run by the NGO while the remaining two were run
by self-employed local entrepreneurs. The villages selected thus represented
12.8% of all villages that had kiosks. In the second stage, we selected the
users from the records maintained by the kiosk operators. For this study, we
interviewed all visitors who had used the kiosks during the month of May 2003.
We found that this sample of users constituted around 10% of all users who had
used these five kiosks since their inception. We have no reason to believe that
the user population from May was at all unusual and therefore this represents a random sample of users for
statistical analysis and for drawing inferences about the user population as a
whole for these villages. We also collected quantitative data from the Taluk
local government office records, government census records, and surveys of the
village kiosk operators. We conducted the field work for this project during
July-August 2003 and the data we analyzed was for kiosk usage from November
2001 to June 2003.
Our
main sources of qualitative data were from structured and open-ended interviews
with kiosk operators, SARI project officials, and government officials in the
Taluk and district office. We interviewed eight government officials including
the state government Secretary of Information Technology and every official involved
in the project at the district and Taluk levels. We also interviewed 4 SARI
project officials including the project manager stationed at project
headquarters in Chennai and 3 local officials stationed at Melur. Finally, we
interviewed the 12 kiosk operators to gain information on the methods they
employed to create awareness about the kiosks among the users and the
procedures used for provision and delivery of various kiosk services.
The
interviews with the users were conducted in the local Tamil language by trained
graduate students from a local university. Each of these interviews took
approximately 30 minutes to complete. The interviews with the kiosk operators,
and the government and project officials were conducted by one of the authors
in both English and Tamil. These interviews took approximately one hour each to
be completed.
Data
Analysis
We
have used descriptive statistical techniques to analyze the demographic
profiles and the social and educational status of the users. We have also used
statistical techniques such as one-sample inference for means and proportions
to conduct a comparative analysis of the socio-economic profiles of the kiosk
users and their respective village communities. This technique allows us to
draw statistically valid conclusions about whether the kiosks are being used by
the entire community or whether their usage is limited to only certain segments
in them.
Overall Reach of the Kiosks
In
the five villages surveyed, the kiosks reached from 3-14% of the village
population and around 11-26% of the village households (reliable information
for one village, Ulagapitchampatti, on the percentage of households reached was
not available) (Figure 2). These results are calculated from the total number
of users at these kiosks since their inception. Thus, for example, the total
number of users at Thiruvadavur kiosk represents 4.9% of the total population
and 20% of the total households within the hamlet. We calculated this based on
the records maintained by the kiosk operators. The results show that the
majority of the village community has yet to use the kiosk services, though the
minority that have used it is sizeable.
Figure.2:
Overall reach of the kiosks within their communities.
Socio-economic profile of the kiosk
users and the village community
We
first present a comparative analysis of kiosk users and their respective
village communities for each of the five kiosks as well as for the five kiosks
combined. This analysis is presented in Tables 1 to 6 in the Appendix [1].
We discuss these results below for seven variables indicating the demographic
and socio-economic status of the kiosk users and the overall village population:
age, gender, religion, caste, income, ownership of household assets, and
educational level.
Age Distribution of Kiosk Users
An
overwhelming majority of the kiosk users are young. Most of them are below 30
years (Figure.3). The average age of the users is 20 or below in four of the
five villages (Tables 1 to 5) [2].
The average age of all users in all five villages combined is 19.2 years (Table
6). With the sole exception of Ulagapitchampatti, over 90% of the users are
below 30 years. This indicates that the kiosk users are significantly younger
than the communities as a whole. We think that the significantly different age
profile in Ulagapitchampatti, when compared to that in the other four villages,
is due to the extra efforts made by the operator in creating awareness about
the kiosk services through vigorous canvassing among all sections of the
village population.
Figure.3: Age distribution of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of users less than
30 years of age is significantly higher than that in the village population.
Gender of Kiosk Users
Most
of the kiosk users are male (Figure.4). The proportion of male users varies
from 65.5% in Thaniyamangalam to 90% in Kidaripatti and is far higher than the
percentage of males in the village population (Tables 1 to 5). The proportion
of male kiosk users in all the five villages combined is 74.2%, which again is
far higher than the same in the total village population (Table 6). This
further indicates a significantly different kiosk user profile compared to the
respective village communities. Most of the women users at the kiosks are girl
students who come for computer education. (See Best & Maier (2006) for a
broader analysis of women’s usage patterns within the SARI project.)
Figure.4: Gender distribution of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of male users is
significantly higher than that in the village population at 95% confidence
level.
Religion of Kiosk Users
All the kiosk users belong to the majority Hindu religion, except in two kiosks, Ulagapitchampatti and Thiruvadavur (Figure.5). In these two villages, the proportion of non-Hindu users is not statistically different from that in the overall village population (Tables 1 and 2). In Thaniyamangalam, the village population itself contains only 0.2% non-Hindus (Table 4). However, the remaining two kiosk villages, Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, have significant non-Hindu populations (4.1% and 19.2% respectively) but still have no non-Hindu kiosk users. The proportion of non-Hindu users is lower than that in the overall village population even when we combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6).
Figure.5: Distribution of religion of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of non-Hindu users
is significantly lower than that in the village population.
Caste of Kiosk Users
In
collecting data on the caste of the users, we followed the official method of
classification of castes into backward castes (BC), most backward castes (MBC),
scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), and forward castes (FC) (also
classified as ‘other’). SCs and STs are traditionally the most socially and
economically disadvantaged communities in these villages. Most of the users
belong to the numerically dominant castes in these villages, namely, the
backward castes (BC) (Figure.6). The proportion of SC users is not
significantly differently from that in the overall village population when we
combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6). However, the situation is
different at the individual village level.
In
three villages (Ulagapitchampatti, Thiruvadavur, and Thaniyamangalam), the
proportions of SC users are statistically significantly lower when compared to
those in the kiosk village population as a whole (Tables 1, 2 and 4). However,
in Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, the majority of the users belong to the scheduled
casts and the proportions are significantly higher statistically as compared to
those in the total village population. Discussions with the users and the kiosk
operators indicate that the location of these two kiosks, closer to the SC
households, is an important factor in attracting more SC users. These operators
have also made extra efforts in contacting the SC households and motivating
them to visit the kiosks. However, just canvassing among the SC households does
not appear to be sufficient in attracting them to the kiosk. This was
corroborated by the kiosk operator in Thiruvadavur, who stated that despite her
best efforts in motivating the SC households to come to the kiosk, not many SC
users had availed themselves of the services as they lived far away from the
kiosk. Thus, location of the kiosk seems to be a more important factor when
attracting SC users compared to marketing and canvassing efforts. .
Figure.6: Caste of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of SC users is
significantly lower than that in the village population. A (**) indicates that
the proportion of SC users is significantly higher than that in the village
population.
Income of Kiosk User Households
For
the the purposes of this survey, we divided the monthly household incomes into
five ranges: less than Rs. 500 (about $US 11) per month, between Rs. 500 and 1,000,
between Rs. 1,000 and 2,500, between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 5000, and more than Rs.
5,000. Most of the user households are in the middle to upper income groups
(with monthly incomes more than Rs. 1,000), except in one village,
Ulagapitchampatti (Figure.7). Only Ulagapitchampatti seems to attract a large
proportion (78.8%) of low income kiosk users (those with monthly household
incomes of Rs. 1000 or below) (Table 1). In the other four villages, this
proportion varies from 15.4% in Thiruvadavur to 33.3% in Thaniyamangalam. We
think that the significantly higher proportion of low income users in
Ulagapitchampatti is due to the extra efforts made by the kiosk operator in
contacting the poor households in the village. This was also confirmed by the
kiosk users. As no reliable data on actual income levels of the kiosk village
area population was available, it was not possible to statistically compare the
income levels of the kiosk users with that of their respective village
communities. But qualitative evidence (discussions with kiosk operators and
SARI project officials) indicates a generally higher income levels among the
users when compared to that of the overall village population.
Figure.7: Income distribution of kiosk users
Ownership of Household Assets in
Kiosk User Households
In
the absence of reliable income data, we used the ownership of household assets
to make a comparative analysis of the economic status of the users and the
village population. As can be seen in Tables 1 to 6, the kiosk users do seem to
come from a higher economic status as they own more household assets compared to
the average of their respective communities, though the extent of differences
vary in each village. For example, in Keelaiyur, the kiosk users are not
statistically different from their community in this regard, while in
Ulagapitchampatti and Kidaripatti, they seem to be different only on a few
indicators, such as in proportion of cable TV ownership in Ulagapitchampatti
and in 2-wheeler (scooter) ownership in both the villages. In the other two
villages, the differences are wider. In Thiruvadavur, higher proportions of
kiosk users own two-wheelers, color TVs and cable TV, and comparatively far
lower percentages live in thatched houses or in houses without electricity. This
shows the higher economic status of the users compared to that of the overall
village community. The sharpest differences emerge in Thaniyamangalam, where
far higher proportions of kiosk users own telephones, radio/transistors, color
and cable TV, and far lower proportions live in thatched houses and in houses
without electricity.
Figure
8 below presents the distribution of ownership of two-wheelers, which we think
is a key indicator of the socio-economic status of the households in these
villages.
Figure.8: Distribution of two-wheeler ownership among the kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of users owning
two-wheelers is significantly higher than that in the village population.
Educational Level of Kiosk Users
Most of the kiosk users are school and college
students (Figure.9). School includes up to 12th grade. None of the users are
illiterate, except in two villages, Ulagapitchampatti and Keelaiyur (Tables 1
and 3). Even in these two villages, the proportions of illiterate users are significantly
lower than those in the overall village population. Thus, we can say that the
kiosk users are comparatively more literate and educated than their
communities.
Figure.9: Educational level of kiosk users.
A
(*) indicates that the proportion of illiterate users is significantly lower
than that in the village population.
In
addition to the educational attainment of the kiosk users, we also analyzed the
educational attainment of the heads of the user households (Figure.10). Two
villages (Ulagapitchampatti and Keelaiyur) show statistically the same profile
for the heads of user households when compared to that of their respective
village populations (Tables 1 to 5). When we combine the data for all the five
villages, we find that the proportion of illiterate heads of user households is
significantly lower than that in the overall village population (Table 6).
Thus, in general, the heads of the households of kiosk users are comparatively
more educated when compared to heads of the households in their respective
overall village populations.
Figure.10: Educational level of heads of kiosk user households.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of illiterate
heads of user households is significantly lower than that in the village
population.
Summary of Analysis
The
analysis indicates that the kiosk users have a socio-economic profile which has
statistically significant differences from that of their respective overall
village populations for all the seven demographic variables analyzed, though
the differences are not uniform across all the five villages. We find that the
kiosks have served mainly those sections of their communities that are
relatively more educated, enjoy a higher social status, and are economically better
off.
How can the kiosks be made more effective in serving a broader set of community members? In the following sections, we examine the diffusion of kiosk use as a technological innovation in the context of the diffusion of innovations framework by Rogers (1995, 2003). We examine why kiosk use has failed to diffuse more widely and present recommendations for enabling broader diffusion. We argue that with appropriate strategies to attract new users, it is possible for the kiosks to broaden their user base by reaching out to socially and economically disadvantaged communities.
Diffusion
of Kiosks as a Technological Innovation
Rogers
(1995, 2003) provides a very useful framework for analyzing the observed
characteristics of kiosk users in terms of adopter categories: innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. He also provides a
framework for analyzing the rate of adoption of the innovation within the
social system in terms of perceived attributes of innovations (relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability), type of innovation
adoption decision (optional, collective, authority), communication channels
(mass media or interpersonal), nature of the social system (its norms, etc.),
and the extent of the change agents’ promotion efforts (Rogers, 1995, p. 207).
Roman (2003) suggests a number of reasons why Rogers’ theory is particularly well-suited to studying telecenter diffusion: “(1) the predictive potential of diffusion theory makes it useful for telecenter planning and design, (2) diffusion theory provides a fertile incentive to stimulate telecenter research – research that, in a circular way, can contribute to further shape the theory, and (3) diffusion theory is versatile and can be adapted to fit the needs of multidisciplinary inquiry.” As a middle-range theory (Merton 1968), it is particularly well suited in guiding and evaluating empirical studies and, thus, should be well suited to conceptualizing findings such as those here.
Characteristics of the Kiosk Users
As
noted earlier, kiosk users constitute only approximately 3-14% of the village
population. Assuming the traditional S-shaped adopter distribution, with a
small number of initial users, a rush to use in the middle, and a small number
of laggers, the current kiosk users should probably be categorized as
‘innovators’ and ‘early adopters’ (Rogers 1995). Rogers (1995, p. 269) notes
that earlier adopters usually come from those with relatively higher
socio-economic status; they have relatively more years of formal education, are
more likely to be literate, and have higher social status than later adopters.
The observed socio-economic characteristics of the kiosk users in this study
thus closely match these predictions based on theory.
The
categorization of the kiosk users into adopter categories gives us some clues
for facilatitng the use of the kiosks to diffuse more widely among the village
population. Evidently, the change agents (the SARI organization and the kiosk
operators) have failed to target effectively the individuals and households in
the villages with relatively lower socio-economic status. This suggests a need
for targeting communication efforts towards those segments of the population
who may be the last to adopt the use of the kiosks. At the same time, the theoretical framework
from Rogers predicts the results observed under the SARI experiment; it is
expected that early adopters will have different social and economic standings
from the population at large.
Attributes of the Innovation and its
Extent of Adoption
Roman
(2003) describes the three most important factors to be considered in
explaining the extent of adoption and the socio-economic impacts of the kiosks:
the perceived attributes of the innovation (how the kiosks and their services
are perceived by the community), the communication of innovation (how the
innovation is communicated within the community), and the consequences of
adoption (the socio-economic impacts of the kiosks). In the following sections,
we attempt to place the kiosks and their observed socio-economic impacts within
this framework.
Perceived Attributes of Innovations
Roman
(2003) goes on to describe the three most important perceived attributes of
innovations in the context of telecenters: relative advantage which indicates
the costs and benefits associated with the adoption of an innovation;
compatibility, which indicates the perceived match of the innovation with the
value system and social norms of the potential adopters; and complexity, which
is the perceived degree of difficulty of the innovations in their understanding
and use.
Relative
Advantage
In
the context of the SARI kiosks, we think that relative advantage has been a key
factor in the use of the kiosk services. The most reliable evidence of this
comes from the case of the e-government services, where savings in time,
effort, and costs are associated with higher levels of their usage for two
e-government services: birth certificates and old age pensions (Kumar &
Best, 2006). We found that the same is true for other services, such as
computer education, email, and voice chat. In other words, the costs associated
with these services were less, and the benefit accrued greater, than the
alternatives (a postal letter, telephone call, and so forth).
Compatibility
The
issue of compatibility is closely linked to the existing socio-cultural
environment for these communities and may help explain the observed
socio-economic profile of the users. We think that one major finding that it helps
explain is the relative absence of women users from the kiosks. Though the
technology itself may be considered to be gender-neutral, how it is perceived
and used within the community is clearly associated with the social norms
within the community. We find that women in these households often don’t have
decision-making power or control over the use of financial resources. Generally
the kiosks are not thought to be useful to the women, except perhaps in
accessing health services. However, the households do allow girl students to
come to the kiosks for computer education, which is widely perceived to be
useful to them. This indicates the importance of relevant content and services
for attracting women users (Best & Maier, 2006).
Compatibility
is closely linked to the issue of relevant content. Researchers have made
considerable efforts in assessment of needs and relevant applications for the
kiosks in Melur (Sinan, Marcela, & Randal, 2001). However, even if the
broad areas where relevant content can be provided are known, far greater
efforts are required in narrowing these down, and actually developing and
delivering them to the communities. One example that repeatedly occurred during
this study concerns e-government services. E-government services started well
and were delivered relatively successfully through these kiosks for over a
year, but then collapsed due to lack of institutionalization, shifting of the
initial champions, and resistance from the local government officials (Kumar
& Best, 2006). For instance, when the initial Taluk officer and District
Collector (who had both championed the e-government program) where shifted out
of Melur these services ended. Thus
developing and delivering relevant services are keys to the sustainability of
the kiosks, but sustaining the services themselves requires ongoing political
and institutional support.
Complexity
Complexity
of the innovation is closely linked to the perception in the community that it
is meant only for those who are educated. We found this to be true in many
discussions with the users and think it would certainly be true among the
non-users. The image of a computer which can only be used with the help of an
external operator is one of great complexity. Efforts are required to demystify
the kiosks, an issue intimately linked to how the innovation is communicated
within the community. Furthermore, simpler interfaces, applications, and
appliances should be developed.
Communication of Innovation
Communication
is the exchange of information through which new ideas are propagated from one
individual to others (Rogers, 2003). It is the very essence of diffusion of
innovations. The two most important ways through which ideas are communicated
are through mass media and interpersonal communication. Theory suggests that
mass media are best for creating awareness about innovations, whereas
interpersonal communication is more important for the final decision to adopt
(Roman, 2003). Research also suggests that diffusion is linked to existing
social networks (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981) and that the concept of homophily
is very important in the propagation of new ideas (Rogers, 2003). Homophily
refers to similarity in socio-economic status, educational attainments, etc.
among individuals. The theory suggests that diffusion is likely to take place
more effectively in a social system where individuals are similar in their
socio-economic status, educational attainment, beliefs, etc.
As
the analysis presented earlier shows, kiosks have been used mainly by those who
enjoy a comparatively higher socio-economic status (with some exceptions) and
is yet to reach the majority of the village population. Discussions with the
kiosk operators and the SARI project officials reveal that a good amount of
effort has been put towards creating awareness about the kiosks, both through
mass media and through interpersonal communication by the kiosk operators.
Then, why have they not succeeded in having a wider reach?
We
think it is important to consider this question in the socio-cultural context
of rural communities in India and how this affects diffusion. There is
considerable residential segregation by community (caste) in the villages,
often cutting across income levels. Individuals belonging to the same caste
also enjoy a high degree of homophily in their socio-economic status and social
value systems. This is where the crucial role of the local leaders - kiosk
operator or other influential opinion makers - in promoting adoption and use
comes in. We found sufficient evidence to suggest that the kiosk operator
played a crucial role in promoting adoption and use of the kiosks. However,
wider diffusion of the kiosks among communities having a comparatively lower
socio-economic status requires local champions from within those communities,
not just the kiosk operator who seems to be able to influence mainly those from
his or her own community. Absence of local champions from within the
communities belonging to comparatively lower socio-economic status appears to
be one of the main reasons for lack of diffusion of the use of the kiosks among
them.
We
also found two additional factors that are important in the diffusion of
kiosks. We found that the location of the facility influenced whether scheduled
caste community members used them. The question of locating the kiosks closer
to the SC habitations thus becomes very important in attracting more SC users.
We found evidence of this in the success of two kiosks (Keelaiyur and
Kidaripatti) in attracting the SC users; these kiosks are located close to the
SC habitations.
The
second important factor in the diffusion of the kiosks is affordability.
Discussions with users reveal that this is an important aspect in their use of
the kiosks, even when they are aware of the services and its benefits. The
usage of the kiosks so far seems to be driven by its relative advantage:
savings in time, costs, and efforts when compared to traditional modes of
accessing the same services. However, affordability of the kiosk services in
absolute terms is perceived to be an important factor by the users and is
likely to be crucial in the extent of their ultimate diffusion.
Consequences of Adoption
Researchers
have noted that it is difficult to theorize the consequences of adoption of
innovations because it is prone to be led by value judgments (Roman, 2003).
Rogers (2003) points out that diffusion is likely to widen the existing
socio-economic inequalities within a social system. Empirical research on
telecenters supports this finding (Blattman, Jensen, & Roman, 2003; Holmes,
2001; Hudson, 2002).
Our
finding in this study that the kiosks are being used mainly by those enjoying a
higher socio-economic status is in line with the knowledge gap hypothesis
(Tichenor, 1970). However, this should be interpreted with caution due to the
problematic nature of diffusion of innovations in the context of the complex
socio-economic and cultural realities in rural India. In other words, it is not
a simple cause and effect relationship with the ‘gap’ in knowledge and
adoption, but it is intricately woven into the historical social and cultural
relationships among communities in rural areas, e.g., social and psychological
barriers in access to facilities and affordability, and compatibility with
existing socio-cultural value systems (for example, in diffusion among women,
as noted earlier).
Conclusion
We
have studied the social diffusion of internet kiosk use among people residing
in several rural Indian villages. This study includes an evaluation of five
villages in Melur district, Tamil Nadu, India, that were a part of the
Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) project. Our principal empirical
project has been to study the users of these facilities within the five
villages and to compare their demographic makeup (age, caste, gender, etc.) to
the village populations as a whole. We find that in a number of cases the
demographic makeup of the kiosk users is statistically different from the
makeup of the village overall. Thus, while we find that roughly 5% of the
population in the villages studied has used the kiosk, this 5% was clearly not
selected “at random” from the village population as a whole; some selection
biases drove kiosk use. In particular, we find these diffusion biases along
dimensions of gender (more males than females), age (users are usually younger
than 30), caste (scheduled caste members are less likely to use the facilities
save in those villages where the facility is located in an SC area), religion
(Muslims and Christians are under-represented as users in some villages),
educational attainment (with few illiterate users), and income (users are
richer as measured by standard surrogate indicators).
Rogers’
theory of diffusion of innovation offers an explanatory framework for the
diffusion biases we have measured. Indeed, the theory is well suited for this
sort of empirical testing and (perhaps) falsification (Roman 2003). In
particular, in earlier work we demonstrated that diffusion of the use of
e-government services was best explained through the perceived relative advantage
(Kumar & Best, 2006) of the service. Our findings here, however, seem best
explained by the notion of perceived compatibility and complexity of the
innovation as well as how the innovation has been communicated and shared
within the communities.
In
particular, we posit that the lack of female participation (for instance) can
be explained due to a lack of perceived compatibility between the innovation
and the overall context for women in
these villages. Similarly, the lack of scheduled caste users in some villages
can be explained both as a matter of social incompatibility as well as weak
communication channels that exist between higher caste operators situated in
upper caste hamlets and scheduled caste communities. Finally, we argue that the
presence of generally more educated users can be explained with Rogers’ notion
of complexity – where the perception amongst village members is that this
innovation is highly complex and difficult to adopt and thus only appropriate
to people with higher levels of education.
As
argued above, this theoretical framework not only can help explain our
empirical results but should be able to help inform the planning and design of
telecenter interventions going forward. Our findings, that complexity,
compatibility, and communication can inform the diffusion among a broad set of
users (in addition to the relative advantage studied elsewhere) should be
instructive in future design. In particular it suggests that attention be paid
to developing transparent and well-designed applications (and, indeed
appliances) in order to mitigate perceptions of complexity. Furthermore, it
indicates that local context and social compatibility can be paramount. Content
and systems need to address these issues directly (for instance by placing the
system within a context compatible with women’s adoption). Finally, we find
that communication of the innovation, especially as performed by the kiosk
operator, can be particularly critical to biasing the diffusion of the
innovation. For example, if the operator excludes marketing to members of the
scheduled castes this can easily discourage their use.
As the research for this study was conducted in mid-2003, we again conducted field research during July 2005 to validate the findings of this study. We found that of the 77 kiosks that were established in the region by June 2004, 29 of the 35 kiosks run by self-employed entrepreneurs had closed down. At the same time, 42 kiosks being run by the NGO were still operating (Best & Kumar, In Preparation). The main reasons behind the closure of the kiosks being run by self-employed entrepreneurs were lack of long-term financial viability and lack of adequate operational and technical support by n-Logue, the internet service provider and organization responsible for coordinating with other entities for delivery of services. The lack of long-term financial viability was mainly due to the inability of the kiosks to diffuse widely within their communities and attract more users. As pointed out in this study, the kiosks continued to attract users mainly from the relatively higher socio-economic strata within their communities and failed to upgrade their content to make it more relevant to a wider section of the village population. On the other hand, the kiosks being run by the NGO received financial subsidies for them to remain viable and also introduced more and better services to attract more users. These findings confirm the main conclusions of this study and underscore the importance of making the kiosks diffuse more widely among their communities for long-term economic and social sustainability.
References
Best, M.L.
& Maier, S. (2006). Gender and ICT use in rural South India. Gender
Technology and Development, In Review.
Best, M.L.
& Kumar, R. (In Preparation). Sustainability failure of rural telecenters:
Case of sustainable access in Rural India Project.
Blattman, C., Jensen, R., &
Roman, R. (2003). Assessing the need and potential of community networking for
development in rural India. The
Information Society, 19(5), 349-365.
Etta, F. E., & Wamahiu, S. P.
(2003). Introduction: Joining the information society, Chapter 1. In F. E. Etta
& S. P. Wamahiu (Eds.), Information
and Communication Technologies for Development in Africa: Volume 2 The
Experience with Community Telecentres. Ottawa: CODESRIA/IDRC.
Fuchs, R. P. (1998). Introduction.
In R. P. Fuchs (Ed.), Little engines that
did, case histories from the global telecenter movement: Futureworks, Inc.
Gerster, R., & Zimmerman, S.
(2003). Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and poverty reduction
in Sub Sharan Africa: A learning study (Synthesis). Building Digital Opportunities Program.
Harris, R. W. (1999). Evaluating telecentres within national
policies for ICTs in developing countries. Québec, Canada: International
Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Holmes, V. (2001). The Internet, inequality and exclusion in
Peru: The social impact of the cabinas públicas. London: University of
London.
Hudson, B. H. (2002). Private sector provision of internet access
in rural India. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Johnson, K. (2003). Telecenters and the gender dimension: An
examination of how engendered telecenters are diffused in Africa.
Washington DC: Georgetown University.
Kumar, R., & Best, M. L. (2006).
Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing countries:
Lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India. The
Information Society, 22(1), 1-12.
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New
York: Free Press.
Proenza, F. J. (2001). Telecenter
sustainability: Myths and opportunities. The
Journal of Development Communication, 12(2), 94-109.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L.
(1981). Communication networks: Toward a
new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.
Roman, R. (2003). Diffusion of
innovation as theoretical framework for telecenters. Information Technologies and International Development, 1(2),
53-66.
Sinan, A., Marcela, E., &
Randal, N. (2001). Assessing network
applications for economic development.
Retrieved December, 2005, from http://edev.media.mit.edu/SARI/papers/pae.ksg.pdf
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A.,
& Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in
knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (2),
159-170.
Ulrich, P. (2004). Poverty reduction
through access to information and communication technologies in rural areas: An
analysis of the survey1 results from the social impact assessment conducted by
the Chinese ministry of science & technology and the United Nations
development program: With recommendations on issues of future sustainability
and household participation. Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 16(7), 1-38.
Young, J., Ridley, G., & Ridley,
J. (2001). A preliminary evaluation of online access centres: Promoting micro
e-business activity in small, isolated communities. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,
4(1), 1-17.
Appendix
Table 1:
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean+ |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
35 |
25.9 |
20.7 |
31.1 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
35 |
65.7% |
49.4% |
82.0% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
35 |
68.6% |
52.6% |
84.5% |
50.5%++ |
|
Proportion
of SC/STa Users |
35 |
2.9% |
-2.9% |
8.6% |
23.6% |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
35 |
5.7% |
-2.3% |
13.7% |
2.8% |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
35 |
14.3% |
2.3% |
26.3% |
29.0%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
34 |
17.6% |
4.3% |
30.9% |
29.0%++ |
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
33 |
78.8% |
64.3% |
93.3% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
30 |
46.7% |
28.0% |
65.3% |
18.44% |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
30 |
3.3% |
-3.4% |
10.0% |
3.21% |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
30 |
46.7% |
28.0% |
65.3% |
60.52% |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
30 |
63.3% |
45.3% |
81.3% |
51.10% |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
30 |
10.0% |
-1.2% |
21.2% |
14.23% |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
30 |
3.3% |
-3.4% |
10.0% |
22.24% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
35 |
77.1% |
62.7% |
91.6% |
90.58% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
35 |
22.9% |
8.4% |
37.3% |
26.65% |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
34 |
32.4% |
16.0% |
48.7% |
30.9% |
+
Source: Household Survey, 2003 conducted by SARI for the entire population of
the hamlet
++
Source: Census of India, 2001 for Thiruvadavur
+++
Based on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census
a
SC/ST means scheduled castes and schedules tribes. They are traditionally the
most socially and economically disadvantaged communities in these villages.
Table 2:
Thiruvadavur Village
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
28 |
16.29 |
14.3 |
18.3 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
28 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
28 |
75.0% |
58.2% |
91.8% |
50.5%+ |
|
Proportion
of SC/ST Users |
26 |
7.7% |
-3.1% |
18.5% |
18.6%+ |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
28 |
7.1% |
-2.8% |
17.1% |
2.8%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
28 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
29.0%+ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
27 |
3.7% |
-3.8% |
11.2% |
29.0%+ |
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
26 |
15.4% |
0.8% |
30.0% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
21 |
42.9% |
20.3% |
65.4% |
18.44%++ |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
21 |
9.5% |
-3.8% |
22.9% |
3.21%++ |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
21 |
66.7% |
45.2% |
88.1% |
60.52%++ |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
21 |
47.6% |
24.9% |
70.4% |
51.10%++ |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
21 |
42.9% |
20.3% |
65.4% |
14.23%++ |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
21 |
47.6% |
24.9% |
70.4% |
22.24%++ |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
28 |
78.6% |
62.7% |
94.5% |
90.58%++ |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
28 |
3.6% |
-3.6% |
10.8% |
26.65%++ |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
28 |
7.1% |
-2.8% |
17.1% |
30.9%++ |
+
Source: Census, 2001 for Thiruvadavur
++Source:
SARI Household Survey, 2003 for Ulagapitchampatti
+++Based
on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census
Table 3:
Keelaiyur Village
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean* |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
20 |
20.25 |
17.3 |
23.2 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
20 |
90.0% |
76.0% |
104.0% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
20 |
80.0% |
61.3% |
98.7% |
50.3%++ |
|
Proportion
of SC/ST Users |
20 |
65.0% |
42.7% |
87.3% |
25.1% |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
20 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
4.05% |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
20 |
5.0% |
-5.2% |
15.2% |
28.4%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
19 |
21.1% |
1.4% |
40.7% |
28.4%++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
18 |
22.2% |
1.5% |
42.9% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
13 |
53.8% |
23.7% |
84.0% |
38.9% |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
13 |
38.5% |
9.1% |
67.9% |
14.6% |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
13 |
84.6% |
62.8% |
106.4% |
77.1% |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
13 |
46.2% |
16.0% |
76.3% |
69.8% |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
13 |
38.5% |
9.1% |
67.9% |
27.5% |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
13 |
53.8% |
23.7% |
84.0% |
57.4% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
20 |
95.0% |
84.8% |
105.2% |
96.4% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
20 |
5.0% |
-5.2% |
15.2% |
11.1% |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
17 |
17.6% |
-2.0% |
37.2% |
11.4% |
+
Source: SARI Household Survey 2003 based on a population survey of 500 households
conducted by SARI
++
Source: Census, 2001
+++
Based on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census
Table 4:
Thaniyamangalam Village
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean+ |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
29 |
16.1 |
13.9 |
18.3 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
29 |
96.6% |
89.6% |
103.5% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
29 |
65.5% |
47.4% |
83.6% |
46.9%++ |
|
Proportion
of SC/ST Users |
29 |
10.3% |
18.9% |
42.0% |
47.3% |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
29 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.2% |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
29 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
24.2%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
28 |
3.6% |
-3.6% |
10.8% |
24.2%++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
27 |
33.3% |
14.7% |
52.0% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
26 |
23.1% |
6.1% |
40.1% |
15.8% |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
26 |
42.3% |
22.4% |
62.3% |
3.3% |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
26 |
80.8% |
64.9% |
96.7% |
44.2% |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
26 |
19.2% |
3.3% |
35.1% |
36.9% |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
26 |
69.2% |
50.6% |
87.9% |
21.8% |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
26 |
61.5% |
41.9% |
81.2% |
24.4% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
29 |
96.6% |
89.6% |
103.5% |
96.2% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
29 |
6.9% |
-2.7% |
16.5% |
31.8% |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
24 |
4.2% |
-4.3% |
12.6% |
46.7% |
+Source:
SARI Household Survey 2003 based on a population survey of 500 households conducted
by SARI
++
Source: Census, 2001
+++
Based on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census
Table 5:
Kidaripatti Village
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean+ |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
20 |
15.1 |
11.8 |
18.3 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
20 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
20 |
90.0% |
76.0% |
104.0% |
52.7%++ |
|
Proportion
of SC/ST Users |
18 |
61.1% |
36.9% |
85.4% |
21.4% |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
20 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
19.2% |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
20 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
39.1%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
17 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
39.1%++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
20 |
20.0% |
1.3% |
38.7% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
18 |
50.0% |
25.1% |
74.9% |
10.6% |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
18 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
1.8% |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
18 |
38.9% |
14.6% |
63.1% |
61.6% |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
18 |
22.2% |
1.5% |
42.9% |
47.4% |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
18 |
38.9% |
14.6% |
63.1% |
23.0% |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
18 |
38.9% |
14.6% |
63.1% |
42.0% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
20 |
85.0% |
68.3% |
101.7% |
95.6% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
20 |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
24.2% |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
15 |
6.7% |
-7.1% |
20.5% |
58.8% |
+
Source: SARI Household Survey 2003 based on a population survey of 500 households
conducted by SARI
++
Source: Census, 2001
+++
Based on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census
Table 6:
All Five Villages Combined
|
Characteristic |
Sample Size |
Sample Mean/ Proportion |
95% Confidence Interval |
Village Population Mean+ |
|
|
Demography: |
|
|
Lower
Limit |
Upper
Limit |
|
|
Average
Age of Users |
132 |
19.2 |
14.0 |
24.4 |
|
|
Proportion
of Users < 30 Yrs. |
132 |
88.6% |
83.2% |
94.2% |
68.0%+++ |
|
Proportion
of Male Users |
132 |
74.2% |
66.7% |
81.8% |
50.2%++ |
|
Proportion
of SC/ST Users |
128 |
23.4% |
16.0% |
30.8% |
28.4% |
|
Proportion
of Minorities (Muslims, Christians) |
128 |
3.0% |
0.1% |
6.0% |
6.7% |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Users |
132 |
4.5% |
1.0% |
8.1% |
30.3%++ |
|
Proportion
of Illiterate Heads of User Households |
132 |
9.6% |
4.4% |
14.8% |
30.3%++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income and Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion
of User Household Income <=Rs. 1000 |
124 |
37.9% |
29.3% |
46.5% |
|
|
Proportion
of 2-Wheeler Owners |
108 |
41.7% |
32.3% |
51.1% |
21.0% |
|
Proportion
of Telephone Ownership |
108 |
17.6% |
10.3% |
24.9% |
5.8% |
|
Proportion
of Radio/Transistor Ownership |
108 |
62.0% |
52.8% |
71.3% |
61.2% |
|
Proportion
of B&W TV Ownership |
108 |
40.7% |
31.4% |
50.1% |
51.6% |
|
Proportion
of Color TV Ownership |
108 |
38.9% |
29.6% |
48.2% |
21.6% |
|
Proportion
of Cable TV Ownership |
108 |
38.0% |
28.7% |
47.2% |
36.8% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning House |
132 |
85.6% |
79.6% |
91.7% |
94.6% |
|
Proportion
of Users Owning Thatched House |
132 |
9.1% |
4.1% |
14.0% |
23.3% |
|
Proportion
of Users Not Having Electrified House |
118 |
15.3% |
8.75 |
21.8% |
45.9% |
+
Source: SARI Household Survey 2003 based on a population survey of 500
households conducted by SARI
++
Source: Census, 2001
+++
Based on figures for Madurai district for 1991 census