Why Open Doesn’t Mean All: Hedging Against the Technology Matthew Effect
What makes technology attractive for a user? Why would one change their behavior to adapt to something they aren’t used to using? I’ve been doing a lot of thinking around what makes technology (or really any product) useable and “inclusive.” As an organization that aims to help those in the development space get and use the information they need to improve lives, we’re constantly thinking about the best ways to bring people into a culture of product use.
We’re in step with other organizations and companies working to make technology more inclusive. Sean McDonald of FrontlineSMS’s recent piece on the Open (Data) Market pushes this concept further. He explores the actual beneficiaries of open licensing, citing the misplaced belief that open means access for all. He also references the Technology Matthew Effect, which says that with all things equal, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. You could remove “open” from his argument to talk about “data” and “technology” to arrive at a similar conclusion: Without purposeful inclusion of those who are not targeted in the typical market, the tech4dev community may increase the gap between the tech-rich and the tech-poor.
My colleague Paige Kirby recently traveled to Timor-Leste as part of a team that is working to understand how data and technology are used to make decisions about development assistance. She came back with an anecdote that got my wheels turning. When discussing challenges to data use, a development partner shared a common pitfall with technology: when a tool is designed for all users, it benefits none. By trying to make something appeal simultaneously to “techie” and “non-techie” users, we run the risk of meeting each user’s needs halfway. Without designing for a particular audience, our technology won’t have much uptake.
“If you build it, [they all] will come” may have worked for Mr. Costner, but it should not be the driving force behind tech4dev solutions. We need to actively work to define the “they” as those who may be forgotten, or those who may typically have difficulty accessing data, particularly dashboards, maps, etc. By doing this, we can actively hedge against the Matthew Effect in data tools and tech4dev to allow for demand (and use!) to meet the supply (of technology, data, and tools) by designing for low and lowest-capacity users.
Image Credit: Enviu CC BY-NC 2.0
Share This Post
Related from our library
DG’s Open Contracting Portal Designated as a Digital Public Good
Digital Public Goods Alliance designated DG’s Open Contracting Portal as a digital public good in September 2022. The Portal provides procurement analytics that can be used to improve procurement efficiency and, in turn, reduce corruption and increase impact.
To Enable W-SMEs to Thrive in Côte d’Ivoire We Start by Listening to their Data and Digital Needs
This blog is co-written by Development Gateway’s Aminata Camara, Senior Consultant; Kathryn Alexander, Senior Program Advisor; and MCC‘s Agnieszka Rawa, Managing Director of Data Collaboratives for Local Impact (DCLI). On June 28th, 2021, MCC, USAID, Microsoft, Thinkroom, and Development Gateway will be co-hosting a workshop to share, validate, inform, and build on recent research on
Artificial Intelligence: A Silver Bullet or Scrap Metal for Global Development?
When someone mentions artificial intelligence (AI), it’s easy to conjure up two conflicting images: the first, killer robots whizzing past, replacing human jobs, daily tasks, and social interactions in a post-apocalyptic world; the second, a C-3PO-esque personality revolutionizing our health and food systems. Pondering this, we are also inclined to explore the question, where does