ICTs as a Tool and a Means to an End

I have been in civil society circles for sometime and one of my greatest arguments, indeed, my greatest worries is the misconception that pushes ICTs as a tool. It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "ICTs for governance" or translated, eGovernance; ICTs for Education; ICTs for Development - the field of development work we all currently engage in. The challenge of definition makes it hard for a proponent of technology solutions to culture and society to pass meaning and influence perceptions of the true meaning of ICTs to custodians and decision makers of society. For instance, you would hear the statement, "mainstream ICTs into gender or governance, or HIV/AIDs", etc which but gives the often myopic and simplistic meaning to ICTs, hence the short changed definition of ICTs as a tool.

Of course, ICTs can be seen as a tool if the definitions of ICTs remain the way they are. D. Hlinka (2008) argues that it is more than a tool. This low level definition is usually attributed to ICTs for the following reasons:

1. The lumping of information AND communication together to describe technology
2. The assuming understanding that technology is only a medium without the necessary comprehension of the entire ecosystem (source, target, medium, content, D. Hlinka (2008) that makes up the ecosystem).

So, where does this limiting definition of ICTs come from, especially within the civil society circles? Could it be an attempt at understanding how best to effectively carry out CSO activities, objectives, goals and the breakdown of measurable indicators by which CSO work will become more visible (ie the number of computers installed in a project)? Or is it that ICTs are already an integral and inseparable part of civil society activism in a way that attempting to understand it creates a limiting definition -- as a tool? Either way, it currently has a limiting focus and that must change for us to effectively carry out civil society development type work. Whether in the purely ICTs area or in what may seem to be any other area in which our now brainwhased traditional understanding would seek to separate it.

ICTs go beyond just being a tool but an integral part of our day to day workings. The TVs, cellphones, radios, pens, watches, shoes, clothes, we put on have a bit of technology to them or rather, are technology in themselves. It becomes difficult to separate them from the core undertakings we may be engaged with.

Another definition that baffles me is one that defines ICTs as a, "means to an end" and not an end in itself.

My simple argument to this has been the simple fact that the designers of goals and objectives such as the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) did not see the integral benefits of ICTs to the other MDGs and have thus led to the creation of a definition that separates ICTs from objectives and goals, creating a definition that will seek an implementation of a 'tool' that brings about the achievement of that particular goal. Recent adjustments to these shortcoming, especially within CSOs has led to the adoption of ICTs as a tool to achieving some, if not all of the MDGs.

Perhaps it is the fact that ICTs can 'easily' be achieved that makes it a goal less 'sexy' for clear cut definitions. Easily, because, goals are set in what we may traditionally call technology and such goals are achieved compared to goals and objectives in other 'non' technical fields that may require the stability of other social and external factors, etc. The rapid implementation and achievement of technology goals makes it th more less challenging for proponents of society's solutions who think a solution may be very complex for it to achieve the status of an endeavor worth carrying out. It is this 'difficult' definition of goals and objectives and when applied to the field of ICTs that makes it hard for a more integral and better definition of ICTs.

I have not attempted to dissect, the acronym, ICTs, for D. Hlinka (2008) did a better job of it. I have used ICTs in its lay sense, perhaps that by so doing it would appeal to the readership and would at least bring a semblance of understanding to what the reader may already be used to.


---
D. Hlinka(2008), A Conceptual and Definitional Focus of the Meaning of Educational Technology in the 21st Century.