Four steps to identify mechanisms of ICT4D: A critical realism‐based methodology

Abstract

Questions such as 'What is ICT?' and 'What is development?' are relatively wellanswered and well-documented in literature but work connecting the two has been limited. Existing ICT4D studies tend to be descriptive or prescriptive in nature, and hence the explanation of how and why ICT works in the contexts of developing countries needs further investigation. ICT cannot by itself lead to development: it has to be deployed by actors in a given social, political, cultural, and technical context, under conditions at the time of deployment. The interplay of the above-mentioned elements in any given development situation relies on underlying mechanisms that may explain how and why ICT leads to development. Therefore, it is important to investigate questions like "What mechanisms link ICT and development?" and "How do we identify these mechanisms?". To research and answer these questions, we propose a critical realism-based four-step methodological approach. The core idea of the critical realism-based approach suggested in this study is to identify the underlying mechanism (s), particularly in ICT4D contexts, to explain how and why ICT leads to development.We illustrate the proposed methodology by applying it in a case study from Nepal.

Mechanisms for mobile phone use in empowerment: A critical realist study of people with disabilities in Nigeria

“…To answer the research questions, the study adopts Thapa and Omland's (2018) critical realism‐based methodology. Our aim is to understand the three stratified layers of critical realism: the empirical, the actual and the real, and the interplay between the events, structures and mechanisms in the context of our study, as shown in Figure 1.…”

“…Following the works of Information Systems (IS) scholars (eg, Bygstad et al, 2016; Thapa & Omland, 2018), we adopt the critical realist methodology as advocated by Thapa and Omland (2018) in order to identify mechanisms in a particular context (Danermark, Ekström, Jakobsen, & Karlsson, 2002; Easton, 2010). According to Thapa and Omland's (2018) critical realism methodology, there are four steps in the identification of mechanisms in the ICT4D which are: Description of events: This involves describing the events in the phenomenon understudy. Identification of entities and associations: This is concerned with dimensions, aspects and components under study such as persons, organizations and systems. Abduction (theoretical re‐description): This focuses on interpreting the data using theory. Retroduction: “ is a meta‐process the outcome of which is the identification of mechanisms that explain what caused the events to occur ” (Easton, 2010, p. 124). …”

“…Third, our study identifies the contextual factors that enable or restrict the use of mobile phones by PWDs in Nigeria. Fourth, our study seems to be the first in the ICT4D domain to engage the CA and Thapa and Omland's (2018) critical realism methodology; this is done in order to uncover the underlying mechanisms that enable the capabilities of mobile phone use for empowering people with physical disabilities in Nigeria. Thus, it is a contribution to critical realism methodology.…”

“…However, little if any, study has been conducted towards investigating a broad understanding of the underlying mechanisms that shape mobile phone use and its capabilities to empower PWDs. Hence, “ there is need for a multimethod approach to uncover mechanisms that may answer both why and how ICT leads to development ” (Thapa & Omland, 2018, p. 8).…”

Dimensions that characterize and mechanisms that cause the misuse of information systems for corrupt practices in the Nigerian public sector

“…Typically, we have Danermark et al's (2002) six‐stage explanatory framework, although not developed from IS literature, which has been used by IS scholars (eg, Dobson, Jackson, & Gengatharen, 2013; Ononiwu, 2015; Vega & Chiasson, 2019). Wynn and Williams (2012) methodological framework as well as Thapa and Omland's (2018) four‐stage model also exist. Despite the relevancy of these models, we follow Dobson et al (2013) to adopt the Danermark et al's model as shown in Table 2, because of its power in answering our research questions.…”