Understanding the Politics of Practice in Development Projects

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment
Diagram of local and global network analysis of a development project

In development, we talk a lot about policy, strategy and results.  We talk less about the everyday practice of project implementation.  But this messy, political reality is what actually determines whether development interventions succeed or fail.

In our paper, Understanding Development Project Implementation: An Actor-Network Perspective, Carolyne Stanforth and I revisit this neglected space by applying a lens that is surprisingly under-used in development studies: actor-network theory (ANT).

Why implementation practice still matters

Despite the shift towards governance, institutions and high-level reform – and notwithstanding the current aid cutbacks – development projects remain the core mechanism for turning development intentions into development impacts.  Yet between intention and impact lies what David Mosse once called the “black box” of project practice.

That black box remains largely unopened.  Analyses tend to rely either on linear management models or on binary judgements of success/failure.  Both approaches miss the political, organisational and material dynamics that actually shape project trajectories.

The value of actor-network theory

ANT provides one way to grapple with this complexity.  Rather than starting from structures or individual decisions, ANT starts from networks: shifting associations of actors (human and non-human) whose alignments must constantly be built and rebuilt.

In the paper, we draw particularly on Law and Callon’s notion of local and global networks.  The global network provides the resources and legitimacy for a project; the local network does the work of implementation. Successful projects require both of these networks to be mobilised and, critically, for the project to become an obligatory point of passage between them.

A Sri Lankan reform project as example

We illustrate this through a detailed case: an Asian Development Bank-funded public expenditure reform project in Sri Lanka.  Initially, the global network of senior ministry officials and ADB staff aligned behind an ambitious, technology-led reform agenda.  But the local network never mobilised.  Existing financial systems, long-standing departmental interests, and election-driven political churn produced resistance.  The project’s first strategy thus failed because it did not become the shared pathway through which actors saw their interests being met.

Only after a redesign – anchored in a new LogFrame, a new project director, and a more incremental approach – did the networks stabilise.  Various deliverables followed, including ministry-wide digital communications, enhancements to existing financial systems, and the Integrated Budget System that ultimately became the visible marker of “success”.  As represented in the network analysis diagram below, project progress mirrored changes in the networks, not changes in formal plans.

Diagram of local & global network analysis of a development project

Rethinking power and politics in development management

Perhaps the most useful insight from viewing projects through the ANT lens is about power. The ADB held formal authority and financial leverage but these capacities did not deliver the initial design.  Power was enacted only when other actors were successfully enrolled: when associative, not capacitive, power took effect.  This reminds us that project management in development is inherently political.  It is less about enforcing compliance, more about persuading, enrolling and improvising within complex actor-networks.

Why this matters

By opening up the black box of implementation, ANT helps us understand how development projects really unfold.  It highlights the dynamic interplay of actors, technologies, documents and interests.  And it provides a language for analysing project trajectories that goes beyond the simple notions of either success or failure.  For practitioners and researchers, this perspective offers a richer, more realistic understanding of what it takes to make development projects work in practice.

For more details on applying ANT for analysis of development projects, take a look at the full paper: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/understanding-development-project-implementation-an-actor-network/

Rethinking Educational Strategies For Rural India – The Case For Digital Learning Room Project (DLRP)

~ Dr Chandrani Maitra ~ Leave a comment

Background and Introduction

A large portion of India’s population still lives in rural villages, many of whom are children. Yet, their educational environment faces numerous complex challenges. This leads to the growth of an underserved community, increasing social inequality. The key to addressing this gap is modernising the educational system to provide children with access to contemporary teaching methods. Digital education has become a powerful tool in children’s learning today. It should be engaging, interactive, and dynamic, fostering comprehensive learning experiences.

The Centre for Social Change and Development (CSCD), a UK-registered charity, is committed to empowering people through knowledge sharing. Its flagship project, Digital Learning Room, involves remote education for young children separated by social and technological barriers (https://www.cscad.org.uk/). This mid-term report evaluates the effects of introducing digital resources in villages within underserved communities.

Methodology and Execution

This initiative by CSCD involved seven interventions across two schools situated 267 km apart (Sargachi and Raidighi), serving children aged 4–7 from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the Gangetic delta. The schools, with 30 and 31 students respectively, adopted a blended learning approach on alternate Sundays (10 am – 12 PM), replacing traditional chalk-and-blackboard methods with a SMART TV, a laptop, and smartphones, with support from a lead teacher and an assistant teacher.

The lead teacher conducted sessions via Google Meet, connecting both classrooms remotely. The curriculum—including stories, songs, rhymes, math, and literacy activities—was delivered synchronously to both groups. Assistant teachers supported in-class activities, managed logistics, and communicated with parents. A 15-minute break followed each 45-minute session to keep children engaged.

Before starting, the CSCD coordinator held meetings with teachers and assistant teachers, which involved identifying digital resources, preparing teaching materials and curriculum, and consulting with other staff to share risk management strategies, ensure the smooth running of classes, and so on. Additional volunteers were on standby to take over if needed, with lesson plans designed to be flexible for quick adaptation.

On the day of teaching, the teacher briefed the class about the schedule, noting the distance between groups. Each group was led by an assistant responsible for seating, distributing materials, providing worksheets, and handling needs like fetching water or contacting the local coordinator if someone fell ill. If personal needs arose, the assistant communicated with the CSCD coordinator via WhatsApp, who supervised the project. Parents stayed informed through mobile updates from the teacher about activities, homework, and cancellations.

During instruction, the teacher assigned tasks to each group, with assistant teachers carrying them out. Contingency plans for power outages included having digital resources available offline. For example, during an unexpected power outage at Raidighi, the teacher showed a video on his smartphone to one group, while others engaged in activities such as building with blocks, colouring, or decorating houses. Once power was back, groups shared their experiences.

Key outcomes assessed

Key Outcomes Assessed

1.⁠ ⁠Equity in Education: Geographical barriers were bridged, offering high-quality instruction to remote learners.

2.⁠ ⁠Teacher Capacity Building: Co-teachers evolved into complementary roles, leveraging technology for seamless execution.

3.⁠ ⁠Resilience: The model proved adaptable to disruptions, ensuring continuity.

4.⁠ ⁠Community Engagement: Parents and educators embraced the approach, advocating its sustainability.

Impact on Learners

The digital approach created an interactive environment where children actively engaged with audio-visual content, peer interactions, and creative activities such as drawing and crafting. The inclusion of music, drama, and storytelling encouraged greater participation. All 61 children attended consistently and showed enthusiasm for ongoing learning.

Parental Perspectives

Parents valued transparent communication and the opportunity to observe their children’s progress. Coordinators stayed in contact through phone calls and shared performance records.

Teacher Perspectives

Teachers and assistants felt empowered through collaborative lesson planning, real-time support, and access to digital resources, which were especially helpful in managing classes during emergencies such as storms.

Figure: Activities conducted (all photographs obtained with consent)

Discussion

This intervention highlights the potential of digital tools to transform early education in resource-limited settings, promoting inclusive and joyful learning environments. This discussion explores how digital learning empowers rural children, improves their learning outcomes, and supports societal development.

The transformative role of digital learning in rural indian education: bridging the educational divide

In rural India, limited skilled teachers, poor infrastructure, and scarce learning resources create significant barriers to quality education. These areas often lack trained educators and teaching aids, resulting in disengaged students and high dropout rates. Nonetheless, digital learning rooms have the potential to transform early childhood education in these underserved regions. By combining technology with teaching methods, these initiatives can fill educational gaps and make learning more engaging and inclusive.

Digital learning rooms, equipped with SMART TVs, laptops, and internet access, facilitate virtual interactions with expert educators. For example, one teacher can instruct multiple classrooms simultaneously via platforms like Google Meet, maintaining consistent teaching quality. Interactive content—such as videos, animations, and gamified modules—engages children and makes complex concepts easier and more enjoyable to understand. This strategy not only boosts academic achievement but also helps narrow the educational gap between urban and rural areas.

Fostering holistic development

Digital tools expand learning beyond traditional textbooks. Children can visit virtual museums, join storytelling sessions, and participate in activities such as digital art creation. These experiences foster creativity, critical thinking, and communication skills, essential for overall development. Moreover, access to global content helps broaden their horizons, sparks curiosity, and fuels ambitions. Even a child in a remote village now has the chance to learn about the solar system, coding, or environmental conservation—opportunities once limited to urban elites.

Empowering teachers and communities

Digital learning supports educators with accessible resources and training. Assistant teachers in rural schools, who are often underprepared, get real-time support, boosting their confidence and teaching skills. Parents also become active participants in their children’s education by staying informed about curriculum updates and monitoring their children’s progress. This collaborative ecosystem fosters community involvement, driving ongoing engagement.

Overcoming socio-economic barriers

Digital education helps marginalised communities overcome geographical and economic barriers. It connects children to the wider world, allowing them to surpass conventional limits. According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, access to digital technology can boost literacy rates and lessen gender gaps in education. Providing children with 21st-century skills through digital learning equips them to engage in the global economy.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Digital learning has great potential but encounters challenges such as unreliable internet, power outages, and the digital divide. To address these issues, solutions like solar-powered infrastructure, offline resources, and teacher training programs are essential. It is crucial for governments and NGOs to work together to expand these efforts, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not left behind.

Conclusion

Digital learning is not merely a luxury but a fundamental necessity for the children in rural India. Initiatives in digital education aimed at rural regions effectively address significant gaps in access and quality of education. By integrating cutting-edge technology with pedagogical methods, these programs foster greater student engagement, enhance learning outcomes, and empower marginalised communities. In promoting engagement, equity, and innovation, such initiatives contribute to the development of a more educated and equitable society.

Nonetheless, the sustainable implementation of these programs necessitates comprehensive infrastructure development, extensive teacher training, and inclusive policy frameworks. As the global community advances in digital transformation, rural India must strategically harness this opportunity to realise its demographic potential. This treatise asserts that digital education serves as a pivotal driver for equity and socio-economic development, and calls upon stakeholders to focus on scalable, contextually appropriate solutions. The future progress of India fundamentally depends on bridging the digital divide today.

Resisting the Narrowing of Education: Emerging Critical AI Competencies Among Students in Bangladesh and the UK

~ taslimaivy ~ Leave a comment

Dr Taslima Ivy, Lecturer, Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester

Dr Martyn Edwards, Lecturer, Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester

Many discussions about Artificial Intelligence in education position teachers and students as passive recipients of technological change, while corporations, policymakers, and technical experts define what counts as effective AI use (Miao and Shihohira, 2024, p.12). Velander et al. (2024) argue that such approaches render individuals “powerless to change or disrupt this future,” signalling a deeper mechanism of disempowerment. Selwyn (2022) adds that the most significant digital technologies of the 2020s are often “used on” people rather than “used by” them. Building on this, Selwyn (2024) shows how, in education, classrooms are increasingly redesigned to fit what data systems can measure, producing what he calls ‘recursive narrowing,’ where technology, rather than teachers and learners, decides what counts as learning.

Can Critical AI competencies offer an alternative? Darvin (2025) argues these competencies extend beyond mere functionalistic skills, allowing learners to interrogate how power, ideology and inequality are reproduced within digital spaces. Dindler et al. (2020) emphasises that young people need more than coding skills; they require opportunities to examine how technologies are imbued with values and how they might act to change them. Such perspectives resonate with Freirean pedagogy (2000) which centres upon students lived experience, agency and capacity to co-create knowledge.

To explore this potential practice, we developed the AI in Education seminar series and AI Literacy Hackathon—an initiative between the University of Manchester and three Bangladeshi universities (University of Dhaka, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, Noakhali Science and Technology University), supported by a2i, Government of Bangladesh. The aim was not to teach AI as a set of neutral skills but to create a space for inquiry, reflection, collaboration and creation through four interlinked phases:

  • Collective Inquiry: Eight seminars brought together students, educators, policymakers, and ed-tech professionals as a community of co-learners to examine how values, power, and equity shape the design and use of AI and how these sociotechnical systems impact individuals and communities.
  • Critical Reflection: Reflective tasks, facilitated through Padlet, allowed students to further analyse issues raised in the seminars and articulate concerns they developed after the live sessions.
  • Collaborative Outputs: In a final hackathon, students collaborated to create AI literacy materials (comic strips, podcasts, reels etc.) designed for real-world use and spark broader conversations about AI
  • Public Recognition: Student outputs were celebrated via a final presentation and certificate ceremony.

Figure 1: Student-created comic excerpts examining AI in education

The student-created comic strips below are samples of the artefacts produced through this process, offering a deeper window into how learners engaged with critical questions around AI in education.

The final materials demonstrate students’ critical orientations toward technology, identity, and power confirming that bottom-up participation can foster rich forms of criticality. For instance, in the podcasts students voiced concerns that many languages, including their grandmother’s, are absent from AI datasets, provoking fears of linguistic erasure. Some described AI’s constant corrections as a form of indirect colonisation of American norms. One comic strip captured cultural mismatch, noting that ‘AI doesn’t fully understand our culture.’ Students also uncovered systemic issues. For instance, Bengali participants described AI as a ‘non-judgmental friend’ within environments where asking questions feels unsafe thereby challenging traditional hierarchical student/teacher dynamics, leading another group to attest ‘the problem is within us, not AI.’ Others highlighted digital inequities like limited AI use due to lack of devices or internet access.

In a global context dominated by top-down AI agendas, these perspectives reveal issues often missing from mainstream policy conversations. At the same time, many of the proposed solutions remained early stage, for example, creating more data rather than imagining alternatives. This highlights that critical AI competencies develop gradually through iterative cycles of inquiry, design, and feedback. Taken together, the hackathon artefacts surface a set of generative questions that reposition AI in education not as a solution to be optimised, but as a sociotechnical issue to be critically explored:

  • How are students and teachers currently using AI in practice, and what needs are these uses responding to?
  • What systemic failures are students attempting to solve through AI?
  • How do AI systems align with or colonise existing cultural/epistemological values in a context?
  • What kinds of participatory, iterative structures are needed for educator/learners to co-shape AI practices and build educational futures?

If you are interested in co-designing critical AI competencies with your students or communities or joining our next seminar series and hackathon starting in February 2026, please feel free to get in touch by emailing Ivy (taslima.ivy@manchester.ac.uk ) or Martyn (martyn.kj.edwards@manchester.ac.uk).

References:

Darvin, R. (2025). The need for critical digital literacies in generative AI-mediated L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 67, 101186.

Dindler, C., Smith, R., & Iversen, O. S. (2020). Computational empowerment: participatory design in education. CoDesign, 16(1), 66-80.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed., M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Bloomsbury.

Miao, F., & Shiohira, K. (2024). AI competency framework for students. UNESCO Publishing.

Selwyn, Neil (2022) What should ‘digital literacy’ look like in an age of algorithms and AI? Parenting for a Digital Future (06 Apr 2022). Blog Entry.

Selwyn, N. (2024). On the limits of artificial intelligence (AI) in education. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 10(1), 3-14.

Velander, J., Otero, N., & Milrad, M. (2024). What is critical (about) AI literacy? Exploring conceptualizations present in AI literacy discourse. In Framing futures in postdigital education: Critical concepts for data-driven practices (pp. 139-160). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Beyond Hardware: How AI and Chinese Innovators are Reshaping Digital Accessibility

~ Weiyi Zhang ~ Leave a comment

Accessibility is a fundamental concept, ensuring that no one is excluded from participating in society on the basis of a disability. Historically, our efforts focused on removing physical impediments, such as architectural barriers or the need for specialised assistive hardware. However, the rapid advancement of the digital age has introduced complex new information barriers. The challenge is clear: how can accessibility development keep up with this trend? More importantly, can the rise of powerful AI technology be leveraged to bridge the information divide rather than widen it? This post explores these questions by examining the practices of leading Chinese technology firms like OPPO, Vivo, Xiaomi, and HONOR.

The Era of Multimodal Interaction

The mobile phone remains a key portable terminal in our daily lives, and there is a consensus among Chinese tech firms that multimodal interaction is the next frontier. This technology vastly enriches the ways users see, hear, and touch, allowing information to be flexibly translated across different sensory channels to bridge the information divide. Vivo, for instance, believes that intelligent devices act as “external organs” for users. Their feature, “Vivo 看见” (Vivo See), assists users with visual impairments by describing real-world scenes in detail. It can enable a user to confidently visit a flower shop to buy red carnations or, as shown in recent demos, identify exactly how much of a birthday cake has been eaten and where it has been cut.

(Source: Vivo看见)

(Sentences on the picture: “How much of the cake was cut off?” “There is a triangular area at the bottom right corner of the cake that has been cut off, while the rest of the cake is intact.” )

Innovating for Situational and Environmental Barriers

(Source: Google Images)

These innovations extend beyond permanent disabilities to address situational barriers encountered by diverse users. For example, a solitary woman can protect her privacy by using an AI function to reply to calls with a man’s voice, instructing a delivery to “put the takeout outside the door”. Furthermore, new device forms like foldable phones are creating new possibilities: a half-folded device can use the outer screen as a “translator” for displaying information, while the inner screen communicates with the user via lip-reading and gesture recognition. Moreover, by leveraging these multimodal capabilities, more natural multisensory information transfer is being achieved through devices like bone conduction headphones, precise haptic feedback (such as watch vibrations), and holographic projection, enhancing the user experience across various accessibility needs. In the home environment, Xiaomi has established an integrated product series centred on the AI robot “Xiao Ai.” This allows users to interact with furniture and appliances via voice or gesture, providing real-time subtitles for those who cannot hear and scene descriptions for those who cannot see, effectively extending accessibility across the entire house.

(Source: Google Images)

Embedding Inclusion into Business Strategy

The vision of accessible products cannot be realised without embedding it into business strategies. Chinese firms are recognising that inclusion is a driver of value, not just a cost centre. OPPO, for example, is developing a “千人千屏” (A Unique Display for Every User) experience. By leveraging AI to tailor digital interfaces to the needs of every individual, they are aligning with the principle of inclusive design, which is meeting the diverse needs of a wider range of users to increase utility and market appeal. Similarly, HONOR has established a dedicated accessibility R&D group to coordinate cross-departmental efforts and actively invites users to participate in design. Notably, they set up accessibility experience booths at product release conferences to enhance employee awareness of these achievements.

The Ecosystem and the Reality Check

Advancing accessibility requires an industry-wide effort. Vivo has taken significant steps by integrating industry and academia, collaborating with organisations like the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (CDPF), China Association of the Blind (CAB), and universities to gain a deep understanding of users’ needs. In 2024, they freely opened their AI capabilities to developers serving users with disabilities, with daily average calls reaching 2 million, covering many non-Vivo terminal enterprises.

The Other Side of the Coin

However, while these developments are impressive, we must be cautious and look beyond the technological optimism. Are these solutions truly accessible to everyone? Many of these advanced multimodal features rely on the powerful processing capabilities of high-end flagship devices, potentially excluding users in low-resource settings who rely on budget devices. Furthermore, features that constantly analyse the environment via cameras, while helpful for navigation, raise significant questions about data privacy. There is also the risk of AI hallucinations. In a casual setting, a wrong description of a cake is fine. But in a navigational or medical context, an AI hallucination could be dangerous.

Conclusion

The essence of product accessibility lies in empowering people and enabling everyone to equally enjoy the life brought by technology. Chinese tech firms are actively tackling these challenges by focusing on AI-powered terminal innovation, embedding inclusive design into commercial strategy, and building open ecosystems. These efforts promise to promote digital equality, but the journey is far from over. As we celebrate these advancements, we must remain vigilant about the structural challenges of cost and privacy to ensure technology truly bridges the divide.

Acknowledgements

The cases presented in this blog are mainly derived from the roundtable discussion of the 7th Technology Accessibility Development Conference (2025TADC), Beijing, China.

Further reading

  1. DESA (2013) Accessibility and Development: Mainstreaming disability in the post-2015 development agenda. New York: UN-Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
  2. Dritsas, E. et al. (2025) ‘Multimodal Interaction, Interfaces, and Communication: A Survey’, Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(1), p. 6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9010006.
  3. Gilbert, R.M. (2019) Inclusive Design for a Digital World: Designing with Accessibility in Mind. Apress.
  4. Jaeger, P.T. (2022) Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers (Disability in Society). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781626371910.
  5. Makuwira, J. (2022) ‘Disability-inclusive development’, in The Routledge Handbook of Global Development. Routledge.
  6. Persson, H. et al. (2015) ‘Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects’, Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4), pp. 505–526. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z.
  7. Raja, D.S. (2016) Bridging the Disability Divide through Digital Technologies. Background Paper for the 2016 World Development Report: Digital Dividends. World Bank.

Data and development, Digital agriculture, Digital economy, Digital geopolitics, Digital society, Digital transformation: New Research Outputs from CDD, Manchester

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment

Recent outputs on Data and development, Digital agriculture, Digital economy, Digital geopolitics, Digital society, Digital transformation – from Centre for Digital Development researchers, University of Manchester

Data and Development

  • Data Justice for International Development (open access)
    by Richard Heeks
    Develops a new and comprehensive model of structural data justice that is shown to be of particular value to critical data studies in understanding how both “power over” and “power to” are exercised in data-intensive development.

Digital Agriculture

  • ICT and Rural Development in the Global South
    by Katarzyna Cieslik
    This review highlights the strengths of the recently published ICT and Rural Development in the Global South, praising its grounded evaluation of digital development initiatives while questioning its limited engagement with rapidly advancing AI and machine learning technologies. As ICT4Agr evolves, the piece asks whether user intent and capacity still determine the outcomes of digital tools, or whether emerging technologies are reshaping that equation in uncertain ways.

  • Platformization of Rural Africa (open access)
    by Katarzyna Cieslik and colleagues
    Marks the launch of the UMRI project ‘Platformisation of Rural Africa: Dependency, Dispossession and Data in the Platform Economy’.  The project explores how digital agritech platforms are transforming farming and data governance across Sub-Saharan Africa, asking a vital question: what happens to farmer autonomy in a datafied agricultural landscape?

  • Uberisation of Mechanisation: Exploring Digital Tractor Hire Platforms in Ghana with Actor-Network Theory (open access)
    by Ebenezer Ngisah, Cees Leeuwis, Katarzyna Cieslik & Comfort Freeman
    Looks at the dynamics of a donor-supported digital matching platform in north-western Ghana that sought to connect smallholder farmers with tractor services. Using narrative interviews and an actor-network theory lens, it shows how existing brokerage systems and local practices shaped farmers’ engagement, emphasizing the importance of designing digital agricultural tools that work with established networks.

Digital Economy

Digital Geopolitics

  • Analysing the US-China “AI Cold War” Narrative (open access)
    by Yujia He & Richard Heeks
    Examines how the rhetoric of “AI Cold War” emerged and how – driven by securitisation, militarisation, and big tech interests – it can distort global understandings of AI development and international relations.

Digital Society

Digital Transformation

Are Older Adults Being Left Behind in China? The “Grey Digital Divide” Is Quietly Widening

~ qianruwu ~ Leave a comment

In recent years, with the rapid spread of digital technology, Chinese society has been accelerating into the digital era. From mobile payments and QR-code-based transportation to online medical appointments and intelligent government services, digital tools have become deeply embedded in people’s daily lives and have invisibly reshaped how society operates. However, as digitalization continues to advance, China is also facing the increasingly prominent issue of the “grey digital divide,” which refers to the disadvantages faced by the elderly in using digital technologies. While digitalization brings convenience and efficiency, it also unintentionally widens the technological gap between generations, making the grey digital divide an important issue that affects social equity and inclusiveness.

1.China’s Population Aging Trend

To discuss the grey digital divide, it is first necessary to understand China’s unique demographic structure. China’s aging process has been accelerating, at a pace significantly faster than that of most countries (Chen & Hartt, 2021). According to United Nations data, in 2017, people aged 60 and above accounted for 16.2% of China’s population. By the end of 2024, this proportion had risen to 22%, reaching approximately 310 million people. The rapid growth of such a large elderly population has put new pressure on education, healthcare, public services, and other areas.

The complexity of the issue lies in the fact that aging and digitalization are occurring almost simultaneously. While the elderly population is rapidly increasing, digital technologies are also iterating at an extremely fast rate. Various online services, smart devices, and digital applications are updated frequently, often making it difficult for people to keep up. For many older adults, just as they begin to adapt to one function, new operational requirements emerge. The combined effect of these two trends has pushed more elderly individuals to the margins of the digital society, causing the grey digital divide to widen quietly.

2.What Is the Grey Digital Divide?

The “grey digital divide” refers to digital inequality rooted in age differences, mainly manifested in the elderly’s significantly lower digital usage ability, usage frequency, access, and comprehension compared with younger groups (McMath, 2017). Due to insufficient devices, limited digital skills, or psychological resistance, many elderly individuals struggle to integrate smoothly into the digital society, which gives rise to the grey digital divide (Li & Kostka, 2024). From a research perspective, the grey digital divide is typically divided into three types:

(1) Access Digital Divide: This concerns whether older adults can access digital technologies. It includes whether they have functional smart devices, stable internet access, and affordable data plans (Lythreatis et al., 2022). This level determines whether they have the opportunity to enter the digital world.

(2) Usage Digital Divide: This focuses on whether the elderly know how to use and dare to use digital tools（Alexopoulou et al., 2022）.It includes their motivation, digital skills, operational abilities, and familiarity with smart devices. Many older adults are not unwilling to participate; they simply lack confidence or are discouraged by complicated procedures (Ragnedda and Ruiu, 2017).

(3) Outcomes Digital Divide: Even if older adults can access and use digital technologies, the benefits they obtain vary significantly（Calderón Gómez, 2018). This is related to their economic conditions, educational background, and social support. Some elderly individuals can use digital services to improve their quality of life, while others struggle to enjoy the same convenience.

3.Why Are Elderly People Being Left Behind in the Digital Society?

(1) Insufficient Digital Skills

In recent years, China’s public services and daily life processes have rapidly digitalized. From health codes to online medical appointments, mobile payments, and e-government services, almost every procedure involves registration, verification, QR scanning, uploading documents, and other complex steps. These processes are unfamiliar and difficult for many elderly people and require strong learning and information-processing abilities. When online procedures become the default mode for many services, older adults with weaker digital skills are easily left out.

(2) Psychological Resistance and Cognitive Pressure

For a long time, telecom fraud, fake links, and other digital risks have made older adults highly cautious about online services. Concerns about personal information leaks, payment errors, or operational mistakes further reduce their willingness to use digital technologies, creating a sense of high perceived risk and distrust. Compared to online operations, many seniors prefer traditional methods even if it means waiting in longer lines.

(3) Lack of Resources and Support

Urban–rural disparities, educational differences, and changes in family structure limit elderly people’s digital participation. Elderly individuals in rural areas may lack smart devices or stable internet access, while those in cities may have devices but lack family members who can provide patient guidance. Meanwhile, community digital training programs have limited coverage, and many digital platforms fail to consider the cognitive characteristics of older users, creating obstacles both to entering the system and to completing tasks.

4.How Can the Grey Digital Divide Be Bridged?

Effectively narrowing the grey digital divide requires collaborative governance involving the government, enterprises, communities, and families.

Government Level

The government should promote age-friendly design by simplifying government and public service app interfaces and continuing to maintain offline windows and human services. One-click operations and voice interaction features should be encouraged. Clear policies and evaluation standards for age-friendly digital services should also be established to ensure a supportive institutional environment.

Enterprises and Technology Developers

Technology providers need to shift from designing for young people by default to designing for everyone. More intuitive interfaces with larger fonts and simpler processes should be created, along with devices and operating systems tailored to older adults. Strengthening privacy protection and risk alerts can also enhance seniors’ sense of safety and trust.

Communities and Families

Communities should provide digital skills training and ongoing support to help older adults gradually build competence in a familiar environment. Family members should offer encouragement and guidance, helping seniors develop confidence. Social organizations can promote intergenerational support activities to narrow the digital distance.

5.Conclusion

The grey digital divide is not an individual problem of the elderly but a societal challenge that must be addressed in the digital era. Ensuring that older adults are not left behind is not only about technology adoption but also about fairness and compassion. In the future, forming a more positive interaction among institutional design, technological innovation, and social support will be crucial for China’s digital governance. Building a more inclusive digital ecosystem, where every citizen can participate and benefit, represents the value pursuit of the digital age.

Reference:

Alexopoulou, S., Åström, J., & Karlsson, M. (2022). The grey digital divide and welfare state regimes: a comparative study of European countries. Information Technology & People, 35(8), 273-291.

Calderón Gómez, D. (2018). The three levels of the digital divide: Barriers in access, use and utility of internet among young people in Spain.

Chen, X., & Hartt, M. (2021). Planning for an older and digital future: Opportunities and challenges of age-friendly e-participation in China. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(2), 191-210.

Li, H., & Kostka, G. (2024). Navigating the digital age: The gray digital divide and digital inclusion in China. Media, Culture & Society, 46(6), 1181-1199.

Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121359.

McMath, J. M. (2017). The gray divide: a stage theory analysis of technology adoption by older adults (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).

Ragnedda, M., & Ruiu, M. L. (2017). Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. In Theorizing digital divides (pp. 21-34). Routledge.

CFP: From Critique to Hope and Optimism: Frameworks, Methodologies and Directions for ‘Positive Digital Development’

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment

Call for papers for track “From Critique to Hope and Optimism: Frameworks, Methodologies and Directions for ‘Positive Digital Development’” for the international conference, “Reorienting the Digital: Ethics, Ontology, and Sustainable Futures” to be held in Kathmandu, Nepal, 25-27 May 2026

Submission deadline: 7th January 2026

Track description:

This track explores how critical perspectives on digital development can move beyond diagnosis and deconstruction to also embrace hope, imagination, and constructive alternatives. While critical ICT4D has provided vital insights into power, exclusion, and inequality, it risks becoming paralysed by critique alone. In line with the conference theme of “Reorienting the Digital,” this track asks if ICT4D can be reimagined through frameworks that inspire positive transformation? What does “positive digital development” look like, and how can it be pursued without falling into naïve techno-optimism or ignoring structural injustices?

We invite papers that foreground hopeful methodologies, theory-building, and practical innovations. Possible topics include:

  • post-critical methods and design
  • methodologies to elicit “alternative” positive imaginaries – poetic inquiry, appreciative inquiry, speculative storytelling
  • rethinking ICT4D through affect, joy, and solidarity
  • theorising “hopeful” digital possibilities – frameworks and methods
  • speculative and anticipatory digital futures
  • localised and indigenous hopeful visions of digital possibilities
  • case studies of “positive” or “affirmative” data practices
  • empirical accounts of inclusive, life-affirming digital change.

The track also welcomes reflection on how to integrate critique with constructive, generative scholarship – highlighting how concepts of hope and optimism can be made real through action.

This track offers a space to build alternative imaginaries for digital development – where critique is not abandoned, but rebalanced with hope, to enable more just and sustainable futures.

Track chairs:

  • Anuradha Ganapathy, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Richard Heeks, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Sundeep Sahay, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
  • P.J. Wall, Centre for Sustainable Technology & Digital Innovation (STaDIa), Technological University Dublin, Ireland

Papers:

Can be either full papers (12-15 pages for completed research) or short papers (6-11 pages for intermediate results).  All accepted papers will be published by Springer in the conference proceedings.

Submission:

Author names and affiliations should be removed, and submissions made using relevant Springer template: https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines

Submission portal: TBA

Organisation:

This international conference is the main academic venue for research focused on ICT4D/digital development.  This is the 19th in the series that began in 1989 and is run by the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 9.4 on “The Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development”.  This conference will be hosted in Kathmandu by the University of Kathmandu (Nepal) and the University of Agder (Norway).

More Details:

Full call with all tracks: https://ifip94.wordpress.com/2025/09/21/call-for-papers-ifip-wg-9-4-conference-2026/

Conference website: https://ifip94.ku.edu.np/

CFP: Twin Transitions for Development – Potentials and Pitfalls at the Digital-Environment Intersection

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment

Call for papers for track on “Twin Transitions for Development – Potentials and Pitfalls at the Digital-Environment Intersection” for the international conference, “Reorienting the Digital: Ethics, Ontology, and Sustainable Futures” to be held in Kathmandu, Nepal, 25-27 May 2026

Submission deadline: 7th January 2026

Track description:

This track invites critical and creative engagements with the notion of “twin transitions” – the simultaneous pursuit of digital transformation and environmental sustainability – in development contexts. While increasingly embraced by policymakers, donors, and multilateral institutions, these transitions are predominantly approached as separate, parallel endeavours. Yet tensions abound: digital systems can enable climate resilience or deepen ecological harms; sustainability goals can align with or obstruct digital inclusion and innovation. The assumptions underpinning these transitions, and frameworks used to measure them, remain under-examined.

We aim to open space for dialogue that interrogates the decoupling of the digital and ecological in development imaginaries, explores how these domains might be meaningfully integrated, and reflects on practical implications. We invite contributions that engage with the foundational problem of treating digital and environmental transitions in isolation, illuminating tensions, synergies, and complex interdependencies between digital transformation initiatives and environmental sustainability in development contexts.

We particularly welcome contributions in the following areas:

  • Empirical cases where digital development and sustainability agendas have clashed or coalesced in practice
  • Practical implications for initiatives and organisations
  • Conceptual critiques of the “twin transitions” framing in policy or practice contexts
  • Methodological approaches to researching and evaluating integrated digital-environmental initiatives
  • Philosophical inquiries into the ontologies and ethics of digital-ecological couplings
  • Design strategies and frameworks for socio-technical systems that support both sustainability and equitable development
  • Alternative development paradigms exploring digital technologies within circular economy and degrowth frameworks

The track encourages submissions that challenge conventional development paradigms and move beyond techno-solutionist narratives to engage with the deeper structural, cultural, and philosophical dimensions of genuinely sustainable digital futures.

Track chairs:

  • Jaco Renken, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Kata Cieslik, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Richard Heeks, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Gianluca Iazzolino, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK

Papers:

Can be either full papers (12-15 pages for completed research) or short papers (6-11 pages for intermediate results).  All accepted papers will be published by Springer in the conference proceedings.

Submission:

Author names and affiliations should be removed, and submissions made using relevant Springer template: https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines

Submission portal: TBA

Organisation:

This international conference is the main academic venue for research focused on ICT4D/digital development.  This is the 19th in the series that began in 1989 and is run by the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 9.4 on “The Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development”.  This conference will be hosted in Kathmandu by the University of Kathmandu (Nepal) and the University of Agder (Norway).

Questions?:

Email:jaco.renken[at]manchester.ac.uk

Full call with all tracks: https://ifip94.wordpress.com/2025/09/21/call-for-papers-ifip-wg-9-4-conference-2026/

ICTs, MSMEs and Poverty Reduction: A Framework for Action

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment

When I first began researching the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in development, I was struck by a disconnect. On the one hand, the transformative potential of ICTs in connecting people, reducing transaction costs, and opening up new markets was being loudly celebrated. On the other hand, the evidence of ICTs directly helping the poorest – particularly through micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) – was patchy, inconsistent, and often poorly understood.

This paper, prepared for UNIDO in collaboration with Richard Duncombe, set out to address that gap. Our goal was to provide a clear framework for understanding how ICTs can support MSMEs in ways that make a real difference to poverty reduction in developing countries.

MSMEs as engines of poverty reduction

MSMEs play a critical role in reducing poverty. They generate incomes, diversify livelihoods, and create employment opportunities; particularly for women and marginalised groups. They also deliver wider social benefits, from building skills and self-confidence to strengthening community resilience.

But not all enterprises are the same. In the paper, we distinguish between two broad types:

  • Livelihood enterprises: usually very small, often informal, and focused on securing day-to-day survival for poor households.
  • Growth enterprises: more formalised small and medium firms with the potential to drive competitiveness, innovation, and exports.

This distinction is important because ICTs serve these enterprises in very different ways.

ICTs in the value chain

To make sense of these different roles, we propose a value chain model of ICT application. ICTs can function in at least four ways for MSMEs:

  1. Core operations: ICT as part of the main business output, e.g. a software or digital services enterprise.
  2. Value chain boundaries: ICTs supporting transactions with suppliers and customers, e.g. e-commerce.
  3. Value chain support: ICTs providing information for decision-making, e.g. market prices, training, or legal advice.
  4. Networking support: ICTs enabling business networks, associations, and partnerships.

For livelihood enterprises, ICTs are most valuable in providing access to information and networks, sometimes through intermediaries like business information centres. For growth enterprises, ICTs can play a role across the entire value chain, enhancing productivity, enabling innovation, and connecting firms to global markets.

Policy and intervention priorities

One of the key findings of the study is that “one size does not fit all.” Interventions must be carefully targeted. Livelihood enterprises face constraints that go far beyond information – such as lack of markets, money, and skills – so ICT alone is not a silver bullet. Growth enterprises, by contrast, are often better positioned to use ICT effectively and can generate wider economic spillovers.

At the macro level, governments and donors must focus on creating an enabling environment: affordable infrastructure, supportive regulation, and strategies that promote ICT adoption across sectors. At the meso level, intermediary organisations such as chambers of commerce, trade associations and business service providers play a vital role in connecting MSMEs to ICT-enabled services.  But at both levels, there needs to be a differentiated approach; supporting the particular needs of livelihood and growth enterprises.

Towards action

The paper concludes with a prioritised action plan, urging policymakers and development agencies to:

  • Support national ICT strategies that balance supply- and demand-side interventions.
  • Build awareness of ICT’s role in productivity and competitiveness.
  • Develop demand-driven information services and local content.
  • Strengthen the ICT sector itself to foster local capability and innovation.

📘 You can read the full paper here: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/1632800554/UNIDO_Paper_ICTs_MSMEs_Final.pdf

CFP: Digital Data and Technologies in Upland and Mountain Regions

~ Richard Heeks ~ Leave a comment

Call for papers for track on “Digital Data and Technologies in Upland and Mountain Regions” for the international conference, “Reorienting the Digital: Ethics, Ontology, and Sustainable Futures” to be held in Kathmandu, Nepal, 25-27 May 2026

Submission deadline: 7th January 2026

Track description:

The upland hill and mountain regions of the world are on the front line of the “triple emergency”: climate change is exacerbating short-term disasters and medium-term adaptation challenges; biodiversity loss is accelerating; and poverty and inequality are driving and being driven by out-migration and even abandonment.  The future sustainability of upland livelihoods and communities is therefore under severe threat.

While these regions are still characterised by marginalisation, they are increasingly being incorporated into digital datasets, platforms and other systems.  Digital incorporation can improve incomes, develop new livelihoods and enhance community safety in uplands.  But it can also increase inequality, erode local knowledge, and disempower.  Yet within both the digital development and mountain development research communities, these innovations have been relatively ignored to date, with critical and analytical work especially lacking.

In this track, we seek papers that will help illuminate these new trends.  In particular, we are looking for papers that are not merely reporting on digital phenomena that happen to be in hill and mountain regions, but which engage with the specific features of those regions: their relative exclusion from or marginalisation within core social, economic and political circuits; their unequal and often exploited relationship with lowlands; their provision of critical ecosystem services; their unique position in relation to climate change and biodiversity loss; etc.

Topics:

Possible paper topics could include but are not limited to:

  • Digital inclusion and exclusion in mountain regions
  • Local mountain knowledge and digital data systems
  • Digital support for livelihoods and economic change in hill and mountain areas
  • Digital systems and governance, participation, and political marginalisation in uplands
  • Technology-based monitoring of uplands ecosystem services
  • Migration, mobility, and digital connectivity in hill and mountain areas
  • The relationship of digital technology to climate change in upland communities

Track chairs:

  • Richard Heeks, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Gianluca Iazzolino, Centre for Digital Development, University of Manchester, UK
  • Pragyan Thapa, ICT4D Group, University of Agder, Norway

Papers:

Can be either full papers (12-15 pages for completed research) or short papers (6-11 pages for intermediate results).  All accepted papers will be published by Springer in the conference proceedings.

Submission:

Author names and affiliations should be removed, and submissions made using relevant Springer template: https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines

Submission portal: TBA

Organisation:

This international conference is the main academic venue for research focused on ICT4D/digital development.  This is the 19th in the series that began in 1989 and is run by the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 9.4 on “The Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development”.  This conference will be hosted in Kathmandu by the University of Kathmandu (Nepal) and the University of Agder (Norway).

Questions?:

Email: richard.heeks[at]manchester.ac.uk

Full call with all tracks: https://ifip94.wordpress.com/2025/09/21/call-for-papers-ifip-wg-9-4-conference-2026/