Grounded Theory is growing in popularity as a research method in ICT research areas such as Information Systems and Software Engineering. Although there are two distinct methods, namely the Glaserian and the Straussian versions, a substantial number of research articles tend to ignore the difference and just claim that they are using grounded theory. To a researcher new to the grounded theory method, the two methods look very similar. Because the Straussian method is more prescriptive, most opt to follow this method, without investigating the Glaserian version. The few who try to use a hybrid of the two methods (not appreciating that the two methods are substantially different), only realize after a significant investment in time that the methods are not reconcilable and that either the one or the other should be followed. To contribute towards eliminating the confusion, this paper investigates the differences between the two methods. This will, hopefully, enable ICT researchers to make a more informed decision on which method to follow.

This paper aims at contributing to the debate about the digital divide. We first focus on what to us constitutes the root problem: the typical approaches to the development of people through and by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). In contrast to governmental, political and technological attempts that focus almost exclusively on providing access to digital communication technologies, and expect “development” naturally to flow from that, we argue for a focus on “development” which is based on our notion of sustainable socio-economic development. We refer to “technocentric approaches” when the approaches propose and pursue technological interventions and show little regard for the actual needs of the people involved. At the other end of the scale, where the focus is on people and their developmental needs, we will speak of “sociocentric approaches”. This presents us with a different divide, which we will refer to as the “socio-techno divide”. We argue that it is this divide that has to be addressed – not the digital divide – and then present an analysis of the socio-techno divide. This analysis takes the form of two types of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), namely Foucauldian and Habermassian. The analysis of the South African government’s rhetoric illuminates the issues that need our attention and indicates an agenda for constructive engagement about the use of ICT for development in the Third and Fourth worlds.

No abstract