The Journal of Community Informatics
Social Impact and Diffusion of Telecenter Use: A Study from the Sustainable Access in Rural India Project
Rajendra Kumar
PhD Candidate
International Development Group, Department of Urban Studies and Planning ,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Michael Best
Assistant Professor
Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Abstract
In a study of social diffusion of telecenter use in rural south India, we find that these centers are being used only by a relatively small proportion of the village households despite their having been in operation for well over a year. Based on a survey of the telecenter users, we find that these users are, in general, young, male, school or college students, relatively more educated, belong to relatively higher income households, and come from socially and economically advanced communities. Thus the telecenters may sustain existing socioeconomic inequalities within these communities. However, we find some significant exceptions. We find that location of telecenters close to the residential localities where socially and economically backward communities live and presence of local champions within those communities are associated with attracting more users from those communities. We also find that providing localized content and services and making these services more affordable are other important factors in increasing usage and diffusion. We posit that incorporating these factors in the planning, spatial location, and operation of the telecenters can significantly improve their social diffusion and improve their long-term financial and social sustainability.
Introduction
Telecenters or kiosks have generally been defined as places or centers that provide shared public access to information and communications technologies for meeting the educational, social, personal, economic, and entertainment needs of the community (Fuchs, 1998; Harris, 1999; Proenza, 2001). Telecenters have gained prominence as the primary instruments for bringing the benefits of ICTs to poor communities where the technological infrastructure is inadequate and the costs of individual access to these technologies are relatively high. They provide opportunities for access to information by overcoming the barriers of distance and location, and by facilitating access to information and communication, they have the potential to foster social cohesion and interaction (Young, Ridley, & Ridley, 2001).
Most of the evaluations of telecenters have focused on their operational aspects, such as their technical, financial, and managerial performance and sustainability (Etta & Wamahiu, 2003; Young, Ridley, & Ridley, 2001). There have been relatively few studies examining the social impacts of these telecentres on the communities in which they are situated. Some researchers have looked at the social impact of the community telecenter initiatives largely through anecdotal evidence (Holmes, 2001) while others have examined their impacts on poverty reduction (Gerster & Zimmerman, 2003; Ulrich, 2004).
As most of the studies on telecenters to date have focused on their operational and sustainability aspects, a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their planning and evaluation has largely been missing from the debate (Roman, 2003). Roman (2003) provides a very cogent theoretical framework for planning and evaluating telecenters using the Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovations (1995). He describes three principal attributes of innovations which could be very useful in telecenter research: relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. He also underscores the importance of socio-structural environment in innovation diffusion and adoption. In one of the early attempts to understand telecenters within the diffusion framework, Johnson (2003) examines how incorporating a gender dimension into telecenter design can enhance their adoption among women.
In this study, we examine the social impact and diffusion of telecenters under the Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) project in Tamil Nadu, India. This project aims at rural social, economic, and political development by providing comprehensive information and communication services through computer and internet kiosks in rural communities. Starting in November 2001, the project had established 77 such kiosks by June 2004 in rural communities in Melur Taluk (an administrative unit within a district) of Madurai district in Tamil Nadu. The number of kiosks was 39 in June 2003 when this research was conducted. The kiosks offer a number of services including basic computer education, e-mail, web browsing, e-government, health, and agricultural and veterinary applications on a fee-for-service basis.
Though the kiosks have been in operation for well over a year in many communities, they are still being used by only a relatively small percentage of the village population. Our principal focus here is to examine why kiosk use has not been able to diffuse among a wider section of their communities. In examining this, we chiefly employ the theoretical framework for diffusion of innovations by Rogers (1995, 2003). Particularly, we analyze how the principal attributes of innovations, such as relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity, affect diffusion within the community.
This case is of particular interest in that it is one of the first projects in India that aimed at establishing commercially sustainable telecenters in rural communities. The lessons learned from it can help us understand how best to enhance the social acceptability and reach of the telecenters and to realize their long-term social and economic sustainability and development goals.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: first, we describe the overall project briefly; next we discuss the methodology employed in our empirical study; then we present our data analysis and discuss the results; next we analyze the findings within the theoretical framework of diffusion of innovations, and finally we end with our conclusions.
Description of the Project
The SARI project is a collaborative research venture including several organizations: the Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.), Madras; Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School; Georgia Institute of Technology; I-Gyan Foundation; and n-Logue Communications Pvt. Ltd. It uses a Wireless-in-Local Loop (WLL) technology to provide internet connectivity to rural villages.
Internet connectivity is offered to the local community through kiosks, which are run as self-sustained businesses with cost recovery through service charges. A majority of the kiosks are locally owned and operated by self-employed entrepreneurs, while some are operated by self-help groups from a local non-governmental organization. Technical support for all the kiosks is provided by n-Logue Communications. The project had established 39 village kiosks by August 2003 when this field study was conducted. Out of these 39 kiosks, 20 were being run by local self-employed entrepreneurs while the remaining 19 were being run by the local NGO mentioned above.
Figure 1 shows the location of Melur where the kiosks are located.
Figure.1: Location of Melur in India
(Source: , modifications by the authors)
Services Offered by the Kiosks
The kiosks provide a host of applications and services to the rural people, which include computer education; email/voice mail/voice chat; e-government services such as obtaining birth and death certificates from government offices; agricultural, veterinary, and health services; web browsing, etc. They provide internet content in the local language in these areas. The services are based on a self-sustaining commercial model with the charges ranging from Rs. 10 (approx. US $0.22) for sending an email to Rs. 100 (approx. US $2.2) for one hour of basic computer education everyday for one month. To deliver these services, the project has developed partnerships with several public and private agencies. These include tie-ups with the state government to provide e-government services, with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural and Veterinary University for providing agricultural and veterinary services, and with a private eye hospital for providing eye check-ups. It is this broad array of services that attract users, including those who are illiterate, to the kiosks.
Research Methods
We have used a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques for our study. We conducted a comprehensive survey of 132 kiosk users in five villages and collected data on their demographic background, educational status, and the affordability and desirability of the kiosk services. In addition, we used data from a survey conducted by the SARI project officials in these villages which covered all the user and non-user households in the local community served by the kiosks. The selection of the users was done using a two-stage sampling process. In the first stage, we used the purposive sampling technique to select the villages based on the length of operation of the kiosk in the community and whether they were being run by self-employed entrepreneurs or by the NGO. The five kiosks selected were in operation from 10 to 18 months as of June 2003. Three of the five kiosks were run by the NGO while the remaining two were run by self-employed local entrepreneurs. The villages selected thus represented 12.8% of all villages that had kiosks. In the second stage, we selected the users from the records maintained by the kiosk operators. For this study, we interviewed all visitors who had used the kiosks during the month of May 2003. We found that this sample of users constituted around 10% of all users who had used these five kiosks since their inception. We have no reason to believe that the user population from May was at all unusual and therefore this represents a random sample of users for statistical analysis and for drawing inferences about the user population as a whole for these villages. We also collected quantitative data from the Taluk local government office records, government census records, and surveys of the village kiosk operators. We conducted the field work for this project during July-August 2003 and the data we analyzed was for kiosk usage from November 2001 to June 2003.
Our main sources of qualitative data were from structured and open-ended interviews with kiosk operators, SARI project officials, and government officials in the Taluk and district office. We interviewed eight government officials including the state government Secretary of Information Technology and every official involved in the project at the district and Taluk levels. We also interviewed 4 SARI project officials including the project manager stationed at project headquarters in Chennai and 3 local officials stationed at Melur. Finally, we interviewed the 12 kiosk operators to gain information on the methods they employed to create awareness about the kiosks among the users and the procedures used for provision and delivery of various kiosk services.
The interviews with the users were conducted in the local Tamil language by trained graduate students from a local university. Each of these interviews took approximately 30 minutes to complete. The interviews with the kiosk operators, and the government and project officials were conducted by one of the authors in both English and Tamil. These interviews took approximately one hour each to be completed.
Data Analysis
We have used descriptive statistical techniques to analyze the demographic profiles and the social and educational status of the users. We have also used statistical techniques such as one-sample inference for means and proportions to conduct a comparative analysis of the socio-economic profiles of the kiosk users and their respective village communities. This technique allows us to draw statistically valid conclusions about whether the kiosks are being used by the entire community or whether their usage is limited to only certain segments in them.
Overall Reach of the Kiosks
In the five villages surveyed, the kiosks reached from 3-14% of the village population and around 11-26% of the village households (reliable information for one village, Ulagapitchampatti, on the percentage of households reached was not available) (Figure 2). These results are calculated from the total number of users at these kiosks since their inception. Thus, for example, the total number of users at Thiruvadavur kiosk represents 4.9% of the total population and 20% of the total households within the hamlet. We calculated this based on the records maintained by the kiosk operators. The results show that the majority of the village community has yet to use the kiosk services, though the minority that have used it is sizeable.
Figure.2: Overall reach of the kiosks within their communities.
Socio-economic profile of the kiosk users and the village community
We first present a comparative analysis of kiosk users and their respective village communities for each of the five kiosks as well as for the five kiosks combined. This analysis is presented in Tables 1 to 6 in the Appendix[1]. We discuss these results below for seven variables indicating the demographic and socio-economic status of the kiosk users and the overall village population: age, gender, religion, caste, income, ownership of household assets, and educational level.
Age Distributionof Kiosk Users
An overwhelming majority of the kiosk users are young. Most of them are below 30 years (Figure.3). The average age of the users is 20 or below in four of the five villages (Tables 1 to 5)[2]. The average age of all users in all five villages combined is 19.2 years (Table 6). With the sole exception of Ulagapitchampatti, over 90% of the users are below 30 years. This indicates that the kiosk users are significantly younger than the communities as a whole. We think that the significantly different age profile inUlagapitchampatti, when compared to that in the other four villages, is due to the extra efforts made by the operator in creating awareness about the kiosk services through vigorous canvassing among all sections of the village population.
Figure.3: Age distribution of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of users less than 30 years of age is significantly higher than that in the village population.
Gender of Kiosk Users
Most of the kiosk users are male (Figure.4). The proportion of male users varies from 65.5% in Thaniyamangalam to 90% in Kidaripatti and is far higher than the percentage of males in the village population (Tables 1 to 5). The proportion of male kiosk users in all the five villages combined is 74.2%, which again is far higher than the same in the total village population (Table 6). This further indicates a significantly different kiosk user profile compared to the respective village communities. Most of the women users at the kiosks are girl students who come for computer education. (See Best & Maier (2006) for a broader analysis of women’s usage patterns within the SARI project.)
Figure.4: Gender distribution of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of male users is significantly higher than that in the village population at 95% confidence level.
Religion of Kiosk Users
All the kiosk users belong to the majority Hindu religion, except in two kiosks, Ulagapitchampatti and Thiruvadavur (Figure.5). In these two villages, the proportion of non-Hindu users is not statistically different from that in the overall village population (Tables 1 and 2). In Thaniyamangalam, the village population itself contains only 0.2% non-Hindus (Table 4). However, the remaining two kiosk villages, Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, have significant non-Hindu populations (4.1% and 19.2% respectively) but still have no non-Hindu kiosk users. The proportion of non-Hindu users is lower than that in the overall village population even when we combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6).
Figure.5: Distribution of religion of kiosk users.
A (*) indicates that the proportion of non-Hindu users is significantly lower than that in the village population.
Caste of Kiosk Users
In collecting data on the caste of the users, we followed the official method of classification of castes into backward castes (BC), most backward castes (MBC), scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), and forward castes (FC) (also classified as ‘other’). SCs and STs are traditionally the most socially and economically disadvantaged communities in these villages. Most of the users belong to the numerically dominant castes in these villages, namely, the backward castes (BC) (Figure.6). The proportion of SC users is not significantly differently from that in the overall village population when we combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6). However, the situation is different at the individual village level.
In three villages (Ulagapitchampatti, Thiruvadavur, and Thaniyamangalam), the proportions of SC users are statistically significantly lower when compared to those in the kiosk village population as a whole (Tables 1, 2 and 4). However, in Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, the majority of the users belong to the scheduled casts and the proportions are significantly higher statistically as compared to those in the total village population. Discussions with the users and the kiosk operators indicate that the location of these two kiosks, closer to the SC households, is an important factor in attracting more SC users. These operators have also made extra efforts in contacting the SC households and motivating them to visit the kiosks. However, just canvassing among the SC households does not appear to be sufficient in attracting them to the kiosk. This was corroborated by the kiosk operator in Thiruvadavur, who stated that despite her best efforts in motivating the SC households to come to the kiosk, not many SC users had availed themselves of the services as they lived far away from the kiosk. Thus, location of the kiosk seems to be a more important factor when attracting SC users compared to marketing and canvassing efforts. .