Exploring new perspectives for digital inclusion projects in rural areas

Abstract

The emergence of digital convergence and the explosive growth of wireless communications in conjunction with learning experiences regarding the provision of Internet services in rural communities all over the world make necessary to rethinking the strategies and methods employed by governments, development agencies and private sectors to detonate socioeconomic development through the adoption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in rural communities. We start our analysis from experiences in our participation in digital inclusion projects as well as from reports and research papers recently published that show that the availability of broadband infrastructure, convergent devices for Internet access and associated content, though necessary, it is not enough to accomplish sustainable social and economic development in rural communities. We suggest that it is necessary to explore new perspectives, which in conjunction with the cyber-infrastructure, consider two complementary programs; a social action program to incorporate strategies for community participation, technology adoption, usability and capacity building and a program for social innovation to encourage entrepreneurship and organizational development in the rural context. We pose that the cyberinfrastructure and associated programs constitute a socio-technical system interacting with the rural context, which in turn we characterize as a socio-environmental system. We argue that the project objectives should arise as a result of the stakeholders' interaction of both systems in the operational, tactic and strategic levels.

Digitalization in Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review in Latin America

“…The studies (which are, henceforth, referenced by their number and can be consulted in Appendix), involved the participation of Latin American research centers (78.51%) from Mexico (studies 1, 8,11,13,14,18,31,34,35,42,46,48,51,58,60,63,67), Colombia (3,4,6,10,3 0,32,44,45,47,53,66), Brazil (16,17,22,33,39,55,64,65,68), Argentina (19,21,37,40,56,70), Chile (26,27,29,52,54), Peru (20,50), Uruguay (7,61), Bolivia (5,28), Ecuador (57), Costa Rica (69), Nicaragua (43), Dominican Republic (9) and Venezuela (36). In addition, albeit to a lesser extent, research centers from the United States (5.06%), Cana...…”

“…The geographical areas covered in the studies (countries that have been the study area of research studies) were Argentina (19,21,37,40,56,70), Bolivia (5,28), Brazil (16,17,22,33,39,55,64,65,68), Chile (26,27,29,52,54), Colombia (3,4,6,10,30,32 ,44,45,47,53,66), Costa Rica (69), Ecuador (57), Mexico (1,8,11,13,14,18,31,34,35,42,46,48,51,58,60,63,67), Nicaragua (43), Peru (20,50), Dominican Republic (9), Uruguay (7,61), and Venezuela (36); in addition, comparative studies simultaneously referred to several Latin American countries or addressed Latin America generally (2, 12,15,…”

“…In rural communities, policies aimed at promoting the appropriation of technologies are more effective when the programs are developed together with the communities to ensure that those communities control the technologies and serve their interests (34,45).…”