A Critique of the Claims about Mobile Phones and Kerala Fisherman: The Importance of the Context of Complex Social Systems

Abstract

This paper challenges some fundamental aspects of research and conclusions relating to the use of technology for community development. Views of technology, in this case the mobile phone, as a tool for increased economic welfare are often skewed due to extreme reductionism, ambiguous interview questions and poor data sources. Research of complex social systems or sub-systems give the wrong answers when reductionist methodologies are used. To demonstrate such shortcomings, the 2007 paper of Robert Jensen serves as an example. His conclusion that mobile phones enable Kerala fishermen to increase their economic welfare is the most cited paper on ICT4D topics, but there are fundamental methodological and logical problems with the claim, while other research came to contradictory conclusions. This critique is presented on many levels: ideological, paradigmatic, methodology, logical, statistical and semantic.

ICT solutions for the informal sector in developing economies: What can one expect?

“…A set of celebrated studies on the impact of use of mobile phones by fishermen in Kerala, India found dramatic and positive impact on waste reduction, market performance and welfare improvement of both producers and consumers (Jensen, ; Abraham, ; John & Jubi, ). However, these studies, particularly Jensen (), have been challenged on grounds of both methodology and substantive findings (Burrell & Oreglia, ; Sreekumar, ; Srinivasan & Burrell, ; Steyn, ; Steyn & Das, ). In particular, these critics have often questioned the generalizability of Jensen's findings, emphasizing the uniqueness of the social context within which Kerala fishermen operated, which involved historically evolved social subsystems and networks, nor do their findings corroborate all of Jensen's.…”

Toward Reducing Crop Spoilage and Increasing Small Farmer Profits in India

“…In a 2007 report, Jensen claimed that such an SMS strategy significantly helps fishermen identify which market to sell at [Jensen, 2007]. However, a recent study by Steyn refutes Jensen's claims and gives evidence that fishermen do not take advantage of such information despite its availability [Steyn, 2016]. We are working with farmers to understand what forecast information they will find most useful.…”

How do development actors do “ICT for development”? A strategy‐as‐practice perspective on emerging practices in Ghanaian agriculture

“…Based on the practices of the development actors (ie, those providing the information and shaping change), our study suggests that ICTs do not offer a shortcut to improved development outcomes. Others have made similar arguments in recent work, dispelling the "myth" of market price information (Burrell & Oreglia, 2013;Wyche & Steinfield, 2016), calling into question the use of quantitative impact measurements (Aker et al, 2016;Burrell & Oreglia, 2013;Steyn, 2016), and favouring a view that ICT enables incremental changes (Duncombe, 2018). Our work contributes to this growing body of work by suggesting consideration be given to a range of ICT strategies, from hybrid (aimed at delivering step-changes) to high risk (aimed at transformative impacts).…”

“…Outside of Africa, research has also examined technologies such as e-commerce platforms (Li, Du, Zhang, & Mao, 2018) and information kiosks (Ali & Kumar, 2011). This literature shows mixed levels of success and calls into question the impact of mobile technology on smallholders' market-related practices (Aker et al, 2016;Burrell & Oreglia, 2013;Nakasone, Torero, & Minten, 2014;Steyn, 2016;Wyche & Steinfield, 2016). It demonstrates that the chain of events leading from market price services to positive livelihood outcomes is not straightforward (Srinivasan & Burrell, 2015).…”

“…Most prominently, such actors have aimed to capitalise on the increasing penetration rates of mobile technologies to facilitate the adoption of improved agricultural production practices (Courtois & Subervie, 2014;World Bank, 2012) and enhance coordination and trust among traders (Overaa, 2006). Existing literature suggests that such efforts have experienced mixed levels of success (Aker, Ghosh, & Burrell, 2016;Burrell & Oreglia, 2013;Steyn, 2016), and the adoption of improved production and marketing practices, disseminated via mobile, remains low.…”