A constructive technology assessment approach to ICT planning in developing countries: Evaluating the first phase, the Roundtable workshop

Information Technology for Development

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 34-61

  Moens, Nicolaas P ^a   Broerse, Jacqueline E W ^a   Gast, Lisette ^b   Bunders, Joske F G ^a  

^a ATHENA INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Constructive technology assessment; Development; Information systems; Participation; Roundtable process

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONTEXTUAL FACTORS; DEVELOPMENT; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES; INTERPRETIVE STUDY; PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; QUALITATIVE DATA;

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES;

EID: 78650354928     PISSN: 02681102     EISSN: 15540170     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/itdj.20130     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Argyris, Ch., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Avgerou, C. (2003). New socio-technical perspectives of IS innovation in organizations. In C. Avgerou & R. Le'bre La Rovere (Eds.), Information systems and the economics of innovation (pp. 141-161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
3. Barrett, M., Grant, D., & Wailes, N. (2006). ICT and organizational change: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(6), 6-22.
4. Broerse, J.E.W. (1998). Towards a new development strategy: How to include small-scale farmers in the technological innovation process. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
5. Bunders, J., Broerse, J., & Zweekhorst, B. (1999). The triple helix enriched with the user perspective: A view from Bangladesh. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2/3), 235-246.
6. Bütschi, D., Carius, R., Decker, M., Gram, S., Grunwald, A., Machleidt, P., Steyaert, S., & van Est, R. (2004). The practice of TA: Science, interaction, and communication. In M. Decker & M. Ladikas (Eds.), Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment-Methods and impacts (pp. 13-55). Berlin: Springer.
7. Caron-Flinterman, J.F. (2005). A new voice in science. Zutphen. The Netherlands: Wöhrmann Print Service. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
8. Cecchini, S., & Scott, Ch. (2003). Can information and communications technology applications contribute to poverty alleviation? Lessons from rural India. Information Technology for Development, 10(1), 73-84.
9. Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6(6), 457-463.
10. Furuholt, B., & Ørvik, T.U. (2006). Implementation of IT in Africa: Understanding and explaining the results of ten years of implementation effort in a Tanzanian organization. Information Technology for Development, 12(1), 45-62.
11. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996). Technology assessment as learning. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 21(1), 72-99.
12. Guston, D.H. (1999). Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values. 24(4), 451-482.
13. Handy, C. (1976). Understanding organizations. London: Penguin Books.
14. Heeks, R. (1999). Reinventing government in the information age: International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform. London: Routledge.
15. Heeks, R. (2002). Failure, successes and improvisation of information systems projects in developing countries. The Information Society. 18(2), 101-112.
16. Hennen, L., Belluci, S., Berloznik, R., Cope, D., Cruz-Castro, L., Karapiperis, T., Ladikas, M., Ladikas, M., Kluver, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L., Staman, J., Stephan, S., & Szapiro, T. (2004). Towards a framework for assessing the impact of technology assessment. In M. Decker & M. Ladikas (Eds.), Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment-Methods and impacts (pp. 57-85). Berlin: Springer.
17. Howcroft, D., Mitev, N., & Wilson, M. (2004). What we may learn from the social shaping of technology approach. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 329-371). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons
18. Irvin, R.A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
19. Janszen, F. (2000). The age of innovation: Making business creativity a competence, not a coincidence. London: Prentice Hall.
20. Klein, H., & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.
21. Kolb, D., Rubbin, I.M., & Osland, J.S. (1991). Organizational behaviour: An experimental approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Krishna, S., & Walsham, G. (2005). Implementing public information systems in developing countries: Learning from a success story. Information Technology for Development, 11(2), 123-140.
23. Lee, A.S. (2004). Thinking about social theory and philosophy for information systems. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social theory and philosophy for information systems (pp. 1-26). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
24. Maxwell, J.A. (1998). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. In L. Bickman & D. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research method (pp. 69-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Moens, N.P., & Broerse, J.E.W. (2006). Innovating in sectoral governance and development with ICT: Conceptualising the ICT Roundtable process. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 4(6), 33-40.
26. Moens, N.P., Broerse, J.E.W., Janszen, F., & Bunders, J. (2008). Information and communication technology development in Tanzania: A case study of innovation processes. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 3, 33-62.
27. Muller, M.J. (2003). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of HCI (pp. 1051-1068). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Narayan, D. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31. Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. (2006). Using constructive technology assessment and lead user approaches in search for sustainable technology, theoretical considerations and practical implications, The Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Unpublished paper presented at SPUR 40th Anniversary Conference, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
32. Peters, V. (2000). Kwalitan 5.0. Nijmegen. The Netherlands: Department of Methodology, Catholic University Nijmegen.
33. Piotti, B., Chilundo, B., & Sahay, S. (2006). An institutional perspective on health sector reforms and the process of reframing health information systems: Case study from Mozambique. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 91-109.
34. Puri, S.K., & Sahay, S. (2007). Role of ICTs in participatory development: An Indian experience. Information Technology for Development, 13(2), 133-160.
35. Qureshi, S. (1999). Fostering associations in Africa through networking. Information Infrastructure and Policy, 6, 67-79.
36. Ringland, G. (1998). Scenario planning: Managing for the future. Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.
37. Rip, J., Misa, T.J., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Cassell.
38. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 512-556.
39. Schot, J. (2001). Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Technology Analysis & Management, 13(1), 39-52.
40. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2-3), 251-268.
41. Sen, A.K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
43. Smits, R., & Leyten, J. (1991). Technology assessment: Watchdog or tracker? Towards a comprehensive technology policy (Summary in English, main text in Dutch), PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
44. Swanson, E.B., & Ramiller, N.C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 553-584.
45. UN Millennium Project (2005). Innovation: Applying knowledge in development, task force on science, technology and innovation. London: Earthscan.
46. Van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
47. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, L.J. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439-459.
48. Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. (2006). Research on information systems in developing countries: Current landscape and future prospects. Information Technology for Development, 12(1), 7-24.
49. Weick, K.E. (1995). Sense making in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Weisbord, M. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51. Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 865-899.
52. Zweekhorst, M. (2004). Institutionalizing an interactive approach to technological innovation: The case of the Grameen Krishi Foundation. Amsterdam: IpsKamp Press, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.