COM547: Mobile Technologies

This article (Silva et al) is a qualitative study examining the appropriation and social uses of the cell phone in the favelas (slums) of Rio de Janeiro.  My first reaction to the article was the "unofficial" recognition of people in the favelas.  This unofficial recognition means that in exchange of the people not paying taxes, the government does not support the people in any way (water, electricity, etc)  I do understand that they moved there illegally, so the government does not have to support them in any way.  However, couldn't the government get more money if they did require the the people of the favelas to pay taxes?  Additionally, the article says that most children go to school until the 4th grade.  Is education free in Brazil? If so, would the students be able to go to school longer?

The article also states that many police officers live in favelas.  I would think that because of their steady income (I would hope) they would be able to move out of the slums into the "asphalt."  Is there a desire to stay in the favelas because of pride?  Is there a fear of ostracizing if they move out?

Lastly, the scholars do an excellen job of linking the low- and high-income uses of cell phones.  One way these to socioeconomic groups are linked is due to diretaos.  Diretaos, loosely, are phones that are able to call anyone in the world for three months, but are illegal and can be tracked after 10 minutes of use.  My initial question was how dealers got these.  But further reading explained that other sources are in play in the transactions of diretaos.  People from high-income groups must provide these services to the dealers.  We are able to see how the two groups "work" together.

A. Silva, Sutko, Salis, and C. Silva

The “Cell phone appropriation and social mobile use in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil” article describes the social appropriation of mobile phones among low-income communities in Brazil by answering two research questions about cell phone use in the slums of Brazil.  The researcher’s findings highlight the difficulties the populations encounter in acquiring and using cell phones due to social and economic factors and the consequential subversive or illegal tactics used to gain access to such technology.  They also talk about how the cell phone functions socially as a fashion accessory which draws from some of the other readings we have done for this course. 

One question this study brings to my mind is; how can low-income territories such as Rio de Janeiro utilize technologies such as the cell phone to make themselves less “invisible” to the government and high-income populations?  The authors say, “Most of the working population in favelas attends school until 4^th grade and is subsequently employed in non-specialized jobs such as doorkeepers and cleaners.”  Does Brazil not have laws demanding that children stay in school?  What is it doing to their technological advancements as a country in the future if all the children are deprived of their full education? 

 

Donner

“Research Approches to Mobile Use in the Developing World: A review of the Literature,” reviews about 200 resent studies on mobile phone use in developing world countries, and identifies major concentrations of research.  The research done by Donner categorizes studies along two dimensions.  This paper reviews current studies about mobile phone use, which is one of its benefits because some of the other works on mobile phone use are pasted on less current aspects of the mobile and landline communications.  Donner feels that, “Despite the growing number of mobile users in the developing world, their use patterns sometimes receive only a brief mention within broader reviews of the impacts of mobile phone society.” 

In Donner’s article he states, “In 2002, the total number of mobile phones in use worldwide exceeded the number of landlines.  Current projections suggest that the world will continue to add mobile lines faster than fixed lines; indeed, the next billion new phone users will use primarily mobiles.”  Do you guys think we will ever see a day that no-one has a landline anymore?

Horst & Miller “Welfare”

This chapter is concerned with an overall assessment of the impact of the cell phone on low-income households.  Unlike the other readings this chapter begins with fields delineated by conventions of international development and other governing bodies, such as health, in which this assessment appears to be relatively unproblematic.  These researchers discuss the many ways in which the cell phone can be used.  They say, “Women, in particular, chat extensively about ailments, comparing experiences to determine whether a current illness is actually the same as something seen before and therefore can be treated without reference to a doctor.”  Does this type of phone use occur in the US?  And are there any cultural factors that play a role in this type of use of a cell phone in certain countries?

In this chapter they also discuss, under the crime and security section, the cell phone can be seen as helping people feel secure within their homes.   As well as the ways in which cell phones and pre-paid phone cards are being used in school settings by students and faculty.  The authors say their central theme of this chapter is a desire to move from assessment based on the categories of welfare that derive from external agencies to something closer to Jamaican’s own evaluations of the cell phone’s impact on Jamaican life and welfare.   The article focuses its attention on Jamaica; however, it does mention South America. 

 

Ureta

These researchers analyze the patterns of mobile device usage and spatial mobility among low-income families in Santiago, Chile.  Ureta says, “mobile phones appear especially important in enhancing the individual’s capabilities of acting-at-a-distance without the need to be physically “on the move.”  Her research shows how mediated communication takes place at a specific time and place.  In this article the researchers pursue one broad research question in relation to mobile phones in Chile: Can we find any relationships between mobile phone usage and the levels of spatial mobility among low-income populations?  They went about answering this question by conducting fieldwork over a 10 month period in 2004 where they studied 20 low-income families.  This study also concentrates on one particular aspect: the relationship between the use of the device and the families’ everyday spatial mobility.  In their research they found that, “mobile communication tends to remain within the closest networks, mostly relatives living in other areas of the city, seeming to reinforce the connection with people who are known personally, as a kind of nonpresent “personalized network” or a ‘telecocoon” rather than opening up the network to new connections.”     

Their take on the landline seemed to be different than that of Donner’s.  These researchers say, “The relationship between mobile phones and physical mobility is not very different from that observed when landlines telephones reached homes in the first half of the twentieth century.” 

 

These four articles from this week all have a centralized focus on mobile phone use in developing world countries.  South America was brought up in each of the four works in some form or fashion.  The two which I felt overlapped the most were the Donner and Ureta pieces.  They seemed to both talk about the mobile phone in connection to the landline more so than the other authors did.  The other two articles were very in depth in discussing the functions and uses of the mobile phone by low-income families.  The work done by all of the researchers from this week’s readings opens many new avenues for further research to be conducted on the mobile phone in South America.   

Jessica Vincent

     Before I completed the reading for tonight and the last couple weeks, I really did not think that the impacts of cell phones on developing countries were much different than already developed countries. I was aware of the digital divide obviously, but I thought that developing countries would adapt and use the technology like developed countries as soon as they had access. Clearly, my perceptions have changed.

     According to a scholar cited in the Donner article, “the telephone was the first device to allow the spirit of a person expressed in his own voice to carry its message directly without transporting his body” (Donner 2008). While we know the telephone is capable of much more than this, it paints the picture of how far telephony has come. Now mobile phones have and continue to surpass the once simplistic telephone and landline. The Donner article looks at studies being done about mobile use in the developing world in order to look at the development of communication technologies and why mobiles even surpass landlines in developing countries. As we begin to sift through the research in the Donner article we are able to look at a table that shows mobile use across four income categories. Then Donner mentions that the developing countries do not get as much mention as they should and says that Castells is a great resource for looking at the “treatment of mobile use in the developing world”. In Donner’s paper or more appropriate literature review he covers articles that look at the mobile phone and its use in developing countries. First, the determinants of mobile adoptions are discussed going into depth about diffusion studies, regulatory frameworks/ industry structures, and digital divide/universal access. Next, Donner looks at the impacts of mobile use. Then Donner looks at interrelationships between mobile technologies and users. According to Donner (2008), “mobiles are best understood as coconstructed phenomena; there are interrelationships between what the technology is and how people choose to use it.” This moves into talking about the symbols of modern and global and then everyday uses. Under everyday uses we read again about this concept of beeping. This seems to be a popular method of mobile use in developing countries. It is also interesting how the phone is used in romance and religion...something that can be seen in both developed and developing countries. Finally, the article talks about design approaches and shared mobiles before the discussion, implications, and conclusion. According to Donner (2008), “at the broadest level, the review helps capture a picture of still-evolving communication technology that is distinct, but by no means monolithic.”

 

     The Silva et al. article is a qualitative case study about mobile phone use among low-income in particular low-income in Brazil. According to Silva et al, “the study describes the social appropriation of mobile phones…answering two research questions about cell phone use in the slums (favelas) of Rio de Janeiro: (1) How do favela residents appropriate cell phones?, and (2) How do cell phones work as social organization tools in the favela? Then the article moved into the history about the favelas in order to give the reader’s a sense of what life is like. Growing up as a middle class citizen in the United States I was taken aback when I read that the government does not have a role in the life of people in the favelas and does not take any steps to improve their lives. The study Silva et al. conducted was based on four focus-group style interviews with residents in three favelas. According to Silva et al., “we found out from our interviews that the relationship between people and technologies or, in our case, the social use/ appropriation of cell phones, also reflects the very complex power dynamics within Brazilian society.” Furthermore, their study was unique because they focused on the low-income enclaves and looked at the relationship and connections between high and low income populations. The article differs from the past articles because it does not show how cell phone use in the low-income favelas helps or hinders the digital divide. Then Silva et al. reviewed the literature on cell phone use in developing countries. In order to collect the data Silva et al. sampled “typical, geographically heterogeneous cases” (Patton in Silva et al.). As I mentioned above they held focus group-style interviews alongside a brief survey about demographics. According to Silva et. al, “we realized that (1) we cannot address cell phone use among low income communities without framing cell phone practices within the complex power dynamics that tie these communities to high income populations and the parallel power; and (2) contrary to most studies..as a way of bridging the digital divide, cell phone use in Brazil mostly supports an existing social structure built upon those power relations described above.” The study showed that low-income citizens appropriate mobiles with difficulty, illegal ease, and ambivalence. Even though drug dealers have a negative connotation it was interesting to see how they protected and provided for a community when a government lacked to step in. Furthermore, the cell phone worked as an organizational tool being fashionably, relationally, and materially. As I mentioned above, I did not realize the difference in the cell phone usage between developing and developed countries. However, as Silva et al. pointed out, the cell phone practices illustrate their social conditions. According to Silva et al. they saw themes of education, skills, access to work, and access to security/safety. They also argue that there should be more of a focus on the relationship to technology alongside the access aspect.

 

    

     In regards to exclusion, Ureta (2008) talks about how the mobile society “generates” new kinds of social exclusion. This exclusion is seen in this article as a result of physical immobility. According to Ureta (2008) physical mobility is not the only way in which we can be “on the move”. Physical mobility can be replaced by mobile technologies. Ureta tries to find relationships between mobile phone use and levels of spatial mobility in Chile among the low-income population. In order to examine this relationship, Ureta did fieldwork in Chile and the research was based on in depth interviews and observation. Most of the families lived in close proximity with one another and saw the phone as unnecessary. However, high availability and lower prices started to change this. Also, the move to the housing estate and increased mediated communication the flow of communication changed as well as the spatial mobility. Ironically, even though families were more mobile the cell phone was a family phone, a collective good and the mobile phone was not used when someone was mobile. According to Ureta (2008), “In terms of spatial mobility this collective nature of the mobile means that it cannot move if the family, or at least its central node, does not move with it.” The device does not change mobility even though it has as Ureta would put it a mobile nature. Interestingly enough, the mobile phone resembles a fixed landline. However, unlike fixed landlines mobiles are fluid and can adapt if the family chooses to be physically mobile with their phone. According to Ureta (2008), “for these families, mobile phone space is not the space of mobile freedom…it is a contested space…their immobility and exclusion in concrete urban spaces have a parallel in the space of mobile phone communications.”

 

     Finally, the last article we had to read also dealt with the impact of the cell phone on low income households. Horst looks at the communication ecology and its role in health, crime, school, and religion particularly in Jamaica. According to Horst (2006), “for example, rather than conveying health information, the critical role of the phone in a medical emergency may be the way it facilitates communicating the crisis.” This example shows how the concern with the phone is about the communication ecology and the way communication is created as opposed to how the phone is used. In many of these cases, we see the overall impact on the phone but more importantly how it transforms the communicative and general environment. Starting with the mobile phone and health, at first people thought that it would be difficult to “disseminate” medical information through the cell phone. The mobile was more likely to be used to find alternatives to formal medical treatments and to find ways to reduce the cost of medical treatments. The phone is also “critical” in emergencies especially when in reference to the transport system (Horst 2006). People can also communicate easier in times of emergencies. According to Horst (2006), “we found little evidence that the cell phone achieved direct medical impacts, but, when understood within the wider communicative ecology, it plays an important indirect role in managing health and welfare.” Next, Horst talks about how the cell phone has an impact on crime and security. The phone makes people feel safe outside and within the home, people can call for help, and the police have a better ability to respond to calls. On the other hand, the phone could also be used to thwart police activity and cell phone theft has become an increasing problem. The mobile phone also impacts schooling. Horst talked about a school that could not receive a grant for internet access without a landline. Furthermore, phones in schools and mobiles in particular help the school reach children’s parents, students can use the phones for educational purposes, and students can use the phone to catch up on assignments. The role of the mobile phone changes the relationship between students, teachers, and parents. In Jamaica, the mobile phone ended up becoming integral to student’s lives and they would go to extremities in order to have a phone during school which in turn caused Horst to say that still phones are credited for the decline of school performance. What is interesting about the impact of mobile phones in school is what Horst talks about as the discrepancy between actual usage and claimed need. Finally, the paper moved on to reveal something I would have never seen coming and that is the cell phone as a form of a blessing. While I think that is absurd, the community studied did not. I do however agree with what a preacher cited in Horst’s article and that was the fact that the phone in itself is neither an “instrument of good nor evil”; it depends on the motivation of the user. Overall, Horst believed he captured the impacts of the cell phone that are consistent with the experience of poverty.

by Kimberly A Burke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

This week's articles continued to focus on mobile uses in developing countries.  Silva and Sutko pointed out that a major reason for the growth of the cell phone, similar to other developing countries, was due to poor geographical infrastructures.  Landlines, along with being expensive, are unable to reach many places.  However, the wireless nature of cell phones allows for available connections in almost all corners of the country.  Additionally, cell phones are cheaper because of the ability to buy pre-paid cards with an allotted amount of time to talk.  It was also found that cell phones are used collectively, similar to Africa.  There may be one cell phone that the entire family shares that stays in the house.  People in the same community may even use the same cell phone.  Also interesting was the concept of the dual city and the terms valued and devalued spaces.  Favelas (what I see to be similar to what we see as "ghettos") are located within close proximity of major, richer neighborhoods.  Favelas would be seen as the devalued space while the richer neighborhoods would seen as valued space.  Because of the socio-economic divide between the valued and devalued, the Favelas are autonomous from the other place although they are in close proximity.  I think that a digitial divide does exist initially.  My question is at what point does the divide dwindle. At what point does the digital divide no longer matter?

Horst examines how cell phones in Jamaica have contributed to such issues as health, crime and security, schooling, and religion.  In regards to health, what interested me was the concept of communicative ecology.  Cell phones actually are a part of a larger connected communication environment.  They have the ability to reach downward, to the side, and upward.  However, in Jamaica in this instance, when they reach as far upward as the can, they connect to a different "species" of the environment; transport.  The cell phone can connect you to a cab which can then take you to the hospital.  This shows that the cell phone must still be used in conjunction with other resources to reach its full potential.  Thus, the cell phone may not impact health directly, but as a "species" in the communicative ecology, we are able to see where the cell phone can be helpful and useful in times of medical emergencies.  Lastly with health, medical officials don't see how the dissemination of information through the cell phone can be productive.  So how do they view the ability to log on to the internet to research medical issues? Or the ability to send and receive email?  Horst finds that simply the ability to access a cell phone has cut down on crime in Jamaica.   Just the ability to be able to call for help scares criminals to a certain extinct.  Yet also important is how the cell phone can be used by criminals.  The article discusses the look-out man and how they can use the phone to alert other criminals of the whereabouts of the police. What scared me the most in the article was how students sometimes viewed the ability to communicate more important than eating.  They will, if parents and/or boyfriends won't pay for phone cards, choose not to eat as much or at all to be able to buy phone cards at the end of the week.  I really want the students to eat!

Ureta calls to attention a reason that landlines weren't big in Chile.  Of course, they are expensive to install; this is one reason.  But a new idea that we see in this article is that landlines aren't much of a necessity.  Since it is usual that families as well as people in the same social network stay in close proximity to each other and therefore value direct conversation.  Thus, the landline is seen as an unneed luxury.  But as they move on away from their family, the phone becomes seen as a necessity rather than a luxury.  And of course, the cell phone is easier to access than landlines. The cell phones generate a sense of closeness-over-distance.  We spent a great amount of time discussing how the use of cell phones devalues face-to-face communication.  We can see this come full circle this week.  The quality of communication is lost because the conversations are rushed.  The conversations are rushed because of the scare of spending too much money on the conversation.  Rosa, a participant in the study, claims that cell phones conversations, because they are rushed, are "frivolous, too cold... too fast, too tough."  I believe that a major point of this article was how mobility is (not) affected by cell phones.  A major though is that cell phones increase mobility; not in this study.  Even though the cell phone allows for mobile communication, many participants left cell phones at home, because many people are not very mobile to begin with.  Therefore, it is seen that mobility is conceptualized differently in various locations.

Donner also discussed mobile phone uses in developing countries.  We often tend to call mobile phones a substitute for land line phones.  However, Donner warns against that.  It is true that a great deal of the use of mobile phones is to communicate by voice, as landlines were, but more consideration should be place on how the mobile enhances communication beyond that of the landline.  Donner goes on to describe some ways in which Africans use their cell phones.  Like other collectivist countries, sharing mobiles is a big deal.  We don't see this much in the US and I believe its because of two reasons: many people can afford their own cell phones and we are a individualistic nation prided on competition and personal growth.  In Africa, this may be the only way some people are able to make phone calls.  Also, "beeping" is a form of communicating.  This practice is that of intentionally missing calls.  This gives the person being called hints as to why they are being called.  If given some attention, this process could really develop into a way that many people communicate with each other through mobile phones. I do agree with Donner about future areas of research, including delving into more specific areas of the mobile's use in different regions.

The core point to take from this week’s readings is that focusing on access does not tell us enough about cell phone adoption in the developing world. The argument boils down to a micro vs. macro approach that has some echoes of the political economy/cultural studies debates that were prominent in the 1990’s. Articles like Dr. Silva’s and Horth’s argue that merely looking at who has access to a mobile phone doesn’t tell us much. We have to understand how the mobile phone is used at a more micro level to truly understand the impact. I totally agree, but I think that Dr. Silva’s article is a little too hard on discussions of the digital divide.

Dr. Silva and Dan write that the digital divide is often implicitly connected with technologically deterministic arguments about development. Basically, the argument goes that giving people more technology will give them more development. I agree that this is overly simplistic and deterministic, but sometimes digital divide arguments are necessary. Funding agencies, for example, need statistics, and foreign investors and aid programs need statistics too. Obviously, providing everyone with a cell phone that people can’t pay for isn’t going to increase development. But I think that a lot of digital divide arguments aren’t deterministic, and I think that falling back on the simple determinism argument to paint more macro studies ignore some of the failings of the micro studies. Micro studies tell us a lot, but so do macro studies, which was represented in Donner’s call for a combination of the two approaches.

But the point that simple access to mobile phones doesn’t always make a huge difference is well taken. Both the study of the favela residents and the study of Chileans show that having a cell phone does not overcome other serious concerns. A cell phone won’t make you rich; it won’t make you mobile. But while it might be nice to say that such findings imply that funding should go into things like literacy and health care rather than ICT penetration, I don’t think the binary is nearly as simple as that. It’s not as if the people in the favela would have increased literacy funding if they didn’t have cell phones. Rather, the study shows that cell phone appropriation is complicated and multifaceted.

The complicated nature of cell phone adoption is what makes Dr. Silva’s, Horth’s, and Ureta’s articles so insightful and valuable. They remind us that we can’t act as if the cell phone itself will accomplish the same goals anywhere it’s adopted. Rather, economic issues play a huge role in how cell phones are used. For the study participants in Santiago or the favelas, it would be difficult to argue that the cell phone has had a uniformly positive impact on their lives. They are still not mobile, and except for drug dealers, there are not many opportunities to increase prosperity through cell phone use.

But something about that seems a little cynical to me. One of the major movements around the world, especially in the developing world, is a move to increased urbanism. Developing world cities are growing at remarkable rates as people move to urban areas from the rural areas they previously inhabited. AS social relations become more spread out (some remaining rural, some becoming urban), access to mobile telephony will become increasingly important. The members of the favela study and the Santiago study always lived in urban areas, but many more developing world individuals are first or second-generation urbanites, like in Lima where the favelas only developed in the last decade and a half. For these people, their social networks will be more dispersed and they will have to use mobile telephony to stay in contact.

But what these studies show us is that they need more than mobile telephony, they need plans they can use, which returns us back to the strong points made in the articles we read this week. So what do you all think: is the digital divide changing before our eyes? As more internet pages get coded with flash, html 5, etc. will it be an internet divide focused more on speed of connection than simple access? Is access what is most important with the mobile phone, or is it economics? Maybe literacy? I don’t know, but I am sure that access statistics will not go away. We need to combine macro and micro and embrace both their strengths and weaknesses. 

One of the most interesting aspects of the Horst and Miller (2006) article is the way in which they contextualize health practices by discussing how Jamaicans have different approaches to medicine and often disregard medical advice such as to continue a full treatment of penicillin in favor of only taking the medication as long as they think is necessary and then storing the medicine (possibly for a long time) until similar symptoms occur. The effect of such a practice is that an infection may not be eradicated or upon taking the medicine again, past its shelf-life, the efficacy of the medicine might be quite low.  Horst and Miller (2006) discuss this in terms of other cell phone and health-related practices such as the low instance of using cell phones to make preventative appointments. To that end it is also reported that women will chat about symptoms to decide if an illness is similar to avoid the cost of a doctor’s visit or to compare costs of medications and opposed to literature about cell phones and micro-coordination, extended family situations and complex coordination in Jamaica often take on a much more communicative ecology or macro-coordination complexity (Horst & Miller, 2006). The same is true of how Horst and Miller (2006) also discuss uses and fixations of the cell phone in school and church contexts. The situation is far more complicated than simply being connected, but also involves being culturally situated in truancy/absenteeism and also ideas about luck and fate.
 
Unlike the Horst and Miller article, which seeks to situate mobile phone use very specifically within the cultural context of Jamaica and its people’s social, medical, educational, and religious practices, Donner (2008) sets the task of synthesizing across cultural contexts to provide a literature review (based on a sample of research) studying mobile technology in the developing world. Some of the important conclusions that Donner (2008) reaches is that there is a wide range or variety of research to be considered in this multi-disciplinary study and that further research, while spanning geographical considerations, should seek to contextualize other issues: such as the context in which mobile technology operates (such as cybercafés or networks), how poorer and richer communities operate together, or how people must balance different uses of micro-coordination, health-related communication, education, and religious or social practice and that these uses do not appear as segmented or partitioned off to the user but are part of a larger ecology. In contrast to Horst and Miller (2006), Donner (2008) provided an interesting and intentional method for going about some of the work of synthesis in a much more nuanced way than we have seen in some of the other readings seeking to make connections across large regions or age groups.

Alternatively, both the Ureta (2008) and the de Souza e Silva, Sutko, Salis and de Souza e Silva (submitted) article focused on case studies of mobile phone use in Chile and Brazil, respectively. Ureta (2008) discusses three factors in the relatively high cell phone use of about 68% stemming from increased distance from social networks, accessibly low rates/prices for cell phone use, and low physical mobility. Ureta (2008) relates that Chile has some similar practices to other developing countries in using context-specific beeping (pinchazos) and  being very aware of time spent talking or only using the mobile device to receive calls. However, the main point that Ureta (2008) proposes is that even though we frequently discuss mobile devices in terms of mobility, this is often a position that assumes many things such as high frequency of cell phone use and physical mobility. However, the people interviewed in Ureta’s (2008) study claimed that their mobile phone instead remained for the most part in the home, as physically constrained as the users themselves were.

Rather than the physical/mobile/spatial aspects, de Souza e Silva et al. (submitted) focused more on the complex relationships involved in cell phone appropriation in Brazilian favelas where legal and “parallel power” and high and low income are in close proximity. Some of the distinctions made in Brazilian cell phone appropriation and use involve the idea of diretoes, when any call can be placed under 10 minutes without activating triangulation, or the pai-de-santo use methods of beeping to reallocate call expenses to those who can afford to pay for them. In all four articles there is a common theme of a focus on the ecology of mobile phone use, not just restricted to a particular region or practice.

Questions I’m left with:
-How can we talk about some of the common issues between the African and South American case studies in terms of low-income users? What are some ways in which the practices are substantially different?
-Particularly in Ureta’s (2008) piece, how does the ontological immobility of mobile phones affect our understanding of the mobile device technology?
 

The readings this year focused on the growth of wireless in Africa, a developing country.  Much of the reading focused on how the new mobile Africa will enhance economic development.

 

Kyem and LeMaire examined the possible impact of mobile phone on socio-economic development in Africa.  They state that simple ICT applications aren't enough to increase socio-development itself.  There needs to be other complimentary resources to drive the enhancement, such as roads, capital, and production and distribution of goods and services.  Like other countries, mobile connectivity helps to connect people despite geographic hurdles and proves better because it reaches never every corner of the globe.  Because I'm interested in family communication, I'm always questioning how these devices affect communication within the family.  The scholars addressed this issue.  It seems that, like any technology, there are pros and cons in Africa in regards to family and mobile technology.  Phones may be taking away from the collective body of the family; Africans nations are known to have a more collectivist approach to the family.  However, while the phones may be taking away from the collective body, it is enabling them to be connected with friends and others that they may never have had the opportunity to communicate with (This is the same with teens in the US).  Additionally, if used correctly and efficiently, phones can be used to positively affect health care services because of immediate contact, data searching/collecting, etc.

 

Donner also discussed mobile phone uses in Africa.  We often tend to call mobile phones a substitute for land line phones.  However, Donner warns against that.  It is true that a great deal of the use of mobile phones is to communicate by voice, as landlines were, but more consideration should be place on how the mobile enhances communication beyond that of the landline.  Donner goes on to describe some ways in which Africans use their cell phones.  Like other collectivist countries, sharing mobiles is a big deal.  We don't see this much in the US and I believe its because of two reasons: many people can afford their own cell phones and we are a individualistic nation prided on competition and personal growth.  In Africa, this may be the only way some people are able to make phone calls.  Also, "beeping" is a form of communicating.  This practice is that of intentionally missing calls.  This gives the person being called hints as to why they are being called.  If given some attention, this process could really develop into a way that many people communicate with each other through mobile phones. I do agree with Donner about future areas of research, including delving into more specific areas of the mobile's use in different regions.

 

James and Versteeg take a different approach and try to conceptualize why information on mobile phones in Africa is contradictory.  In a gist, what the scholars get to is that we don't fully distinguish between mobile phone subscribers, owners, those with access, and actual users.  In doing this, we have associated certain characteristics with groupings that didn't necessarily deserve it.  Additionally, the scholars wish to explain the effects of mobile telephony on development in Africa.  They propose that the best way to do this is to look at actual mobile phone users.  Like Donner, they address sharing as being a big part of the African mobile "culture," but suggest that more data is needed.  This additional data includes how many people the phone is shared with, how often they are shared, etc.  Finally, it was interesting to me how the cell phone may be reshaping the phone booth in Africa.  They are becoming one in Africa (mobile phones and phone booths) because cell phones are being used by many people in the same fashion that phone booths are.

 

Castells, as usual, does a nice job of giving a broad over in the subject area; this subject area included mobile devices in developing countries.  He first describes leapfrogging which is were developing countries are "leapfrogging" or passing over land lines because of infrastructures and going straight to wireless.  He goes on to state that the important thing for first time users is connectivity rather than mobility.  Actually, some families, because they only have one phone for the entire household, leave the phone in one location so that everyone may be able to use it.  This takes away from the mobile aspect of the device and simply focuses on the connectivity function of the mobile phone.  Castells also says that it's "ironic" that poor people spend a higher portion of their income on cell phones.  However, to me, this makes perfect logical sense.  The price of cell phones are the same for rich people as well as poor people.  Since poor people make less money, they will have to sacrifice a great percentage of their earnings to pay for the cell phones.  Maybe Castells would have been better off saying that poorer people sacrifice financially for cell phones more than rich people do.

James and Versteeg

This article called, "Mobile Phones in Africa", talks about how mobile telephony in Africa is rapidly reducing the digital divide with developmental countries. Talking about the digital divide in connection to developing countries is a reoccurring theme throughout all four of the articles. One thing these authors say brings up many questions in my mind regarding this quote, "At the same time it is possible to subscribe to mobile phone services without actually buying a phone. It is possible, in particular, just to but a pre-paid SIM card, which can be used in other people’s telephones." Can this be done in the US as well as in Africa? If so is this hindering or helping the promotion of the mobile phone to those in low economic standing? Why are pre-paid mobile phone cards so much more popular in developing countries and lower income countries? I have a friend from Ireland and she lived and died by her pre-paid phone card. It seemed like it would be cheaper for her to just get a cell phone, but she explained to me that she could not speak to her parents back in Ireland for the States from a regular cell phone, without paying a hefty price. I can see her need for the pre-paid phone card, but do Africans have this same need for them or are there other reasons they are so much more highly used beside the few mentioned by the articles?

In this article the authors repeatedly said there are better ways to find information on mobile phone use in Africa. To study the usage of mobile phones, why are the researchers looking at the amounts of technologies that are being used in Africa instead of the number of phone calls being made and received by mobile phone users? It would seem more logical to look at the time, location, and amount of phone calls themselves with in these developing countries sense not everyone owns a cell phone and because the number of cell phone owners is less than the number of cell phone users.

Castells

The chapter called "Wireless Communication and Global Development: New Issues, New Strategies" by Castells reviews key issues in mobile communication and development. It looks as some of the strategies being developed in developing countries to meet connectivity needs in low income communities and it offers some case studies of alternative modes of mobile communication access in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In this chapter Castells says, "An empirical study of mobile telephony in Africa concludes that mobile phones can have significant beneficial impacts on economic growth, in some cases as much as double their impact in developed countries." I wonder, can we see economic growth in the US in connection to the growth of cell phones? I think the rise of the2G, 3G, and 4G phones have fallen in one of the US’s lowest economic times.

As well as the other three articles this chapter mentions the resource called "beeping," which is a popular practice in developing countries which enables poorer mobile phone users to communicate at the expense of wealthier owners.

Donner

"The Social and Economic Implications of Mobile telephony in Rwanda" discusses the social and economic implications of the rapid adoption of mobile telephony in Sub-Saharan Africa, drawing particularly on examples from Rwanda. It contrasts some experiences of three groups of people; telephone owners, those who use public telephones, and those without access to telephones at all. These researchers also highlight ways in which mobile adoption has different implications in an environment of limited landline availability. In this article they seem to believe that there is a theme of a rapid increase of mobile telephone users in the region of Africa. Along with this argument the authors use a wide variety of statistics to prove their case. This week’s articles were all quick to throw out statistics about mobile phone use in Africa and there is a common theme of discussing the rapid increase of mobile phone telephone users in the Africa regions.

In this article the author makes an interesting statement, "The mobile is not simply a complement to the landline for those who possess both. It is competitor for the same calls." I had never thought of the cell phone and the home phone in this way before. Donner also brings up the notion that the consumers in a given country in the long run have the ability to put a downward pressure on the prices on both the cell phone and land line.

Kyem and LeMaire

The "Transforming Recent Gains in the Digital Divide into Digital Opportunities" article discusses the mobile phone boom in Africa as done Donner in his article. This document also talks about how the technology of the mobile phone facilitates the democratic process as groups can use the enhanced communication tools for political and community action thereby reducing the reliance on conventional and often government controlled media. This is a topic that was not talked about much in the other articles and would be a good topic for other researchers to branch on of and investigate deeper.

Kyem and LeMaire ask, "What does the closing of the digital divide through increasing subscriptions to mobile phones mean to economic development on the continent?" What is this digital divide they are talking about and how could mobile phones be bridging the gap?

These two researchers feel that the mobile phone is a powerful enabling technology whose impact can range from enhanced financial transactions, wealth generation and its distribution, improved education, and expansion in democratic practice. How has the mobile phone enhanced the education of children in poverty stricken regions of Africa?

These four articles develop and expand on the issues surrounding mobile phone and mobile communication utilization throughout Africa. There is a common theme throughout all of the articles, which was on the many functions and uses mobile phones have in Africa. The idea of "beeping" was also a constant topic in the four as well. They only discussed this topic briefly, but it was a very interesting concept to me. I looked it up for my Wiki this week so if anyone else was interested in this form of communication as well, you should check out my Wiki. It would have been nice if the authors had described the process of "beeping" in more depth. However, overall in total the four articles are very in depth on the topic of the uses and functionality of the mobile phone in Africa.

Jessica Vincent

   

     Last week we concentrated on learning about cases and development of mobile telephony in Asia. This week the readings centered around mobile phone affects on developing and already developed countries. The developing African countries are the primary focus of these readings, and reveal a common theme: mobile telephony may be the answer to closing the digital divide and promoting development (Castells et al. 2006).

     The Castells et al. chapter for this week addressed some of the key issues in the development of mobile communication, some of the ways that mobile phones deploy connectivity in developing countries, and reveals case studies about the role and access of mobile phones/communication in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. First, Castells et al. listed and explained some of the key issues in the development of mobile communication. The issues addressed under this section were the leapfrogging development, effects on economic development, the mobile digital divide, mobility vs. connectivity, designing technology for developing markets, costs vs. benefit, and social uses vs. business uses. To engage some of the specifics under the key issues in the development of the mobile phone I am going to talk about what I found most interesting addressed under each of these specific issues. First, according to an author cited in Castells et al., “one of the most important identifiers of the potential development impact of mobile telephony could be its contribution to moving developing countries as close as possible to a universal telecommunications service” (Coyle, 2005). Next, there is still a wide gap between the developed and developing countries in regards to diffusion levels and technology that is being used. Also we spend a lot of time talking about a digital divide but there is also a rural-urban divide present as well within developing countries. Furthermore, in developing countries there is more of an emphasis on the idea that people want to be connected vs. the ability to be mobile. Lastly, it is not clear if the mobile will really be a greater benefit for “poor users” as opposed to the fixed land lines. In the social uses vs. business uses I thought it was interesting that they are generally the same across developing and developed countries. Second, after Castells et al. talked about some of the key issues they went into talking about alternate uses and modes of access. Some of the things addressed in this section were prepaid systems, scaled down products and services, Wi-Fi for internet access, shared access and maintenance, and beeps/remittances. Some of the specifics I thought were important mentioned under these headings talked about how focusing on prepaid mobile telephony shifts responsibility and the ability for developing countries to develop telecenters and cybercafés to enable wider access. Finally, Castells et al. talked about case studies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. According to Castells et al. (2006), “The Asian cases illustrate the development and use of alternate technologies to provide quasi-mobile-phone solutions, as can be seen in China and India. The African cases describe the development of shared access models, using existing mobile-phone technology and infrastructure. Finally, Chile provides an illustration of the ways in which low-income families adopt the mobile phone in a Latin American country”. All in all, studying developing countries help use learn about the potential for new mobile technologies and how these countries are using it to meet what they want and are able to achieve.

      James and Versteeg focused on how mobile telephony is important in countries that lack a fixed line infrastructure. According to authors cited in this article, “mobile phones raise long-term growth rates…and their impact is twice as big in developing nations as in developed ones” (Waverman, Meschi, & Fuss 2005). Wanting to look at Africa specifically James and Versteeg expressed their disappointment in the fact that there is not consistent data on mobile phones in Africa and there are many differences in the figures revolving around the presence of mobile telephony in Africa. The goal of the article was to examine and clarify any discrepancies about the etxtent to which the mobile phone exists within Africa. In order to look at the extent of the mobile phone in the developing countries of Africa, James and Versteeg looked at mobile phone subscribers, mobile phone owners, and those who benefit/have access to this mobile technology.  James and Versteeg also looked at the implications. James and Versteeg realize that mobile phone subscribers did not capture mobile phone usage. Instead, they think that is more relevant to look at the penetration rate. For instance, the highest penetration rates are found in Reuniion, Seychelles, Mauritius, and South Africa. Also, while there are mobile phone subscribers, this does not mean that they own a phone. However, a Celtel Spokesman revealed that he believed those who have subscriptions will be the first to buy a SIM card and also a mobile phone. But, there will still be more people that will buy SIM cards and just borrow someone else’s mobile phone. Interestingly enough, the sharing of mobile phones is a common theme I have noticed across all developing countries as I read all of these articles. Furthermore, James and Versteeg argued that information on access to mobile phones was easier to collect because it looks at the range of people that could “potentially” use a mobile phone if they are in range of a mobile network. Unfortunately, even though 97% of people in Tanzania have access only 2.5% are owners and 5% are users. This information still does not show the importance of mobile phones in Africa. Then they move to talking about their definition of mobile phone users which is a person who uses the mobile phone at least once every 3 months and this counts whether or not they own or share the phone. James and Versteeg note that if someone wanted to really look at mobile phone sharing they should look at commercial vs. noncommercial uses. Also, the importance of the mobile phone will vary across each African country. Some conclusions that they came revolve around the idea that both quality and quantity of mobile phone usage is lower in developing countries and African phone users pursue a multiple communications strategy. Lastly, they addressed implications for data collection and implications for the digital divide.

     According to Kyem and LeMaire (2006), the gap separating the developing and developed countries that were also touched on in the previous articles is shrinking. Surprisingly, Africa experienced the highest mobile cellular growth of all continents between 1994 and 2004. This statistic then raised two important questions identified by Kyem and LeMaire: what does the closing of the digital divide through increasing subscriptions to mobile phones mean to economic development on the continent? Will the narrowing of the information telecommunication gap via mobile phone usage bring an socio-economic dividend to African countries? In order to answer these questions, Kyem and LeMaire explore economic potentials, social potentials, and conclude with ways that ICT adoption in African countries can be strengthened. For instance, mobile phones have a greater ability to overcome geographic barriers, enable digital compression, and take place of other forms of communication that are far removed from the majority of people. Furthermore, telecommunications transforms the way individuals, businesses, and society in general works and communicates. It also lets businesses play a critical role in global economy. Mobile technologies also attract industries to rural areas; improve banking services, cuts down costs and time of collecting information for economic decisions, and lets producers track price information. According to the International Telecommunications union, “ the advent of the anywhere, anytime mobile phone technology, allow users to construct their own ‘at-home’ environment regardless of where they find themselves in physical place” (Kyem & LeMaire 2006). Some other potential uses and impacts of the mobile phone in Africa is the effect  on the provision of health services/educational services and its ability to connect people with the government. I thought it was interesting how they talked about the role of the mobile phone as a link in the chain of the economic development process as opposed to just simply a connection between two people. I also thought it was interesting how Kyem and LeMaire pushed the argument that while mere access to ICT is not enough for development to occur and more needs to be done to keep a decrease in the digital divide.  According to Kyem and LeMarie (2006), “studies such as this that demonstrate the uses and benefits of ICT thus have a crucial role to play in sensitizing policy makers on the continent about the development potentials of the mobile phone and other ICT infrastructure.” 

      Lastly, Jonathan Donner’s chapter explores the social and economic implications of the mobile phone in Sub-Saharan Africa (particularly Rwanda). Donner uses three groups of people to look at the different implications of areas with limited landline availability. The people in the three groups were micro-entrepreneurs and the groups were labeled: private phone owners, new mobile-only users, and people who do not own a mobile or landline. The private phone owners are the smallest of the three groups. A private owner is someone who has made a landline or mobile handset purchase. Then landline purchases are reserved for the most prosperous. I think that this is interesting because you would think that landlines would be open to more Rwandan citizens and the mobile phones saved for the more prosperous because it is an “advanced” technology. The second group of people consists of people who have never owned a landline. For these people the mobile phone represents connectivity, mobility, security, and a means for status displays. The introduction of prepaid planes is a significant factor for the increase of mobile phone usage in Africa. Donner than talks about three types of people in this group who credited the mobile phone as causing significant changes in the productivity of their business. According to Donner, “most of these productivity gains come from the ability to rapidly exchange information between people who are beyond convenient travel distance.” The social benefits of the phone are also important reasons for the adoption of the mobile phone in this group. This group also revealed that “beeping” allows more users to keep mobile phone subscriptions. Basically in order for beeping to occur, an individual places a call and then hangs up before the person on the other end picks up. The missed call will mean something to the person on the other end, whether it is call me back or pick me up now. The only downside indicated to being a mobile only user is mobile theft. The third group of people does not have mobiles or landlines because they either do not have the financial means or access to a mobile signal. I thought it was surprising that people did not have access to a mobile signal since we have previously read that the mobile phone is supposed to overcome geographic boundaries. However, even though phone ownership is not present it does not mean that people are not using phones. According to Donner, “by looking beyond where mobiles are working to where they are not, we can underscore that mobiles are but one part of an evolving telecommunications landscape that is the result of complex interactions between technologies, regulatory frameworks, geography, and user demand.” Taking a look at these three groups allows researchers to conclude that mobile usage does provide social and economic benefits. While it may be early to determine any set long-term impacts, Rwandans are optimistic about the potential for mobile phone usage to improve their lives (Donner).  In addition to the Rwandans, it has become evident to me that mobile phone usage can improve lives in all African countries and the social and economic benefits gained could help to close the digital divide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Kimberly A Burke

 

 

 

     

     

     

     

 

Donner’s (2005) article about the use of both mobile and public landline phones in Rwanda serves as an important reminder about how the digital divide works. While we have spent a significant portion of this course in mobile technology looking to the near present, near future, and far future of smart phones and ubiquitous computing it is still important to remember how social and economic practices are affected in countries with low adoption rates where even basic phone use is still new. Also, an important point that Donner (2005) makes is in pointing out the network exernality at work in phone usage, where the greater rate of penetration or the more people with mobile phones increases the benefit to all phone users. In other words, neither Afsa (who braids hair) nor Annette (with her Ugandan restaurant) would receive as much benefit from owning a mobile phone if their customers did not also have access to mobile phones. This makes future studies of mobile technology and telephony in Africa interesting because while the United States, Asia, and Europe may have reached penetration rates constituting saturation, as Donner (2005) points out, there are still 25 percent of the population in Rwanda without access to phones or who choose not to be users. Therefore, future telephony studies have the opportunity to further investigate how increased penetration of phone use restructures or affects social practices and/or phone practices.

Following up on that point Kyem and LeMarie (2006) also note that it is not enough to simply treat the idea of the digital divide in terms of physical access but also in terms of access to skills and development policy and therefore into the social and economic uses aside from merely having the ability to access ICT. In considering these social and economic potentials in mobile telephony Kyem and LeMarie (2006) point out that the reason why mobile phones may have gained more of a stronghold in Africa in contrast to other points on the digital divide such as computers and internet use is because mobile phone technology is relatively simple to learn to use and therefore does not get wrapped up into as many other issues of digital literacy and can be more easily adopted by rural and less educated areas. Finally, Kyem and LeMarie (2006) highlight among some future potentials for an increased use of mobile phones the impact mobile telephony can have on health industries in Africa related to illnesses from AIDS to cholera. This was an interesting point also in how we think about technology and the internet as liberating us from ideas of the body/bodily. Here is another example of how that dichotomy of mind/body displays a lack of imagination in how the physical may be impacted by a greater usage of mobile phones.

In contrast to the focus on social and economic implications of mobile phones, James and Verteeg (2007) instead focus on what can really be known of Africa’s usage statistics based on practices of phone sharing, subscription information, and SIM card renting/sharing. In other words, are the numbers for penetration actually reflecting less mobile phone use than there truly is? One consideration that James and Verteeg (2007) make that I found particularly useful is to situate estimates of mobile phone sharing in a cultural context. For example, they claim that there might be more phone sharing in Namibia than South Africa based on different assumptions of cultural sharing practices. I think that similar to our discussion last week, it is very important to make these distinctions rather than simply resorting to more blanket statements based on region.

While Castells et al (2007) recapitulated many of the same points about how mobile technology creates affordances for low income communities in regions such as Africa where infrastructure costs of fixed-line telephony are too high, an interesting aspect of this chapter was the inclusion of region-specific case studies about minimal or modified mobile telephony projects. Particularly interesting was the mobile payphone franchise model in South Africa which offered the promise of $1,190/month in very good locations. (For perspective on this profitability, we as graduate students only make ~$1,200/month.)

Some questions for consideration on this week’s reading include:
-What could be said about some best practices for studying mobile technology use in countries or communities with non-western values of sharing and/or more creative ownership models? (This is a question James and Verteeg (2007) are concerned with.)
-What are the tensions between assumptions of mobile phone uses as leapfrogging in developing countries and the realities of mobile phone use capturing the effects of networked communication and the constraints of literacy, electricity, and internet?

The James & Verteeg (2007) article the authors surmount a well reasoned argument that current methodologies for mobile phone research in Africa are skewed.  They do eventually suggest that usage would be the best estimate measure in considering social practices and to assess the digital divide.  Although they still acknowledge even that methodology has problems at this time.  They hint at an issue similar to last week’s discussion questions – Is it possible for western academics (or any academic on the good side of the digital divide) to study and determine valuable usage reports on quality if they compare quality to western definitions?  Will researchers first determine what Africans consider as quality and then adjust studies appropriately?  James & Verteeg suggest that this has not occurred in studies on mobile phones in Africa, and therefore there is a significant research gap that must be addressed.  I would also say they imply that this research cannot be done from afar.  Compiling numbers for review and comparison just won’t succeed.  

Quite interesting to consider is how well James & Verteeg demonstrate the invalidity of several common methods researchers used to look at mobile phones in Africa.  Access, ownership, subscribership, quantity and quality are all deflated by the authors, and personally I was quite thoroughly convinced each one indeed has substantial flaws.  Clearly having read this first will influence the remaining readings!

Kyem and LeMaire (2006) propose we look at the digital divide through the lens of economic development.  I continually noted the authors used studies that referred to access (penetration) and subscription rates, yet never questioned their validity. 

The authors also threw a zinger in at foreign corporations by stating it was important to note that growth in mobile phones is “propelled by factors that have more to do with profits for foreign companies than the raising of economic and social wellbeing of Africans.”  Are corporations villains because they desire profits for their risks rather than just doing something that risks their capital position for the non-repaid benefit of another?  Would that statement (or the implied importance) have been made by the authors had the corporations not been foreign?  Would a non-profit be any better, if not even equal, in the ability to provide cellular service so that economic and social wellbeing is the concern before profit?  I don’t think so.  Hey, I believe democracy and capitalism together form the best dysfunctional system yet to be put in place.  So no, I don’t think the world has a Rawls based requirement to provide Africa mobile phones.      

I was very happy to get to the part of the Kyem & LeMaire article that places the onus on African governments.  They make a good point that ICT alone is not enough, and other drivers of economic development must coincide.  The same sentiment is found in the Castells et al chapter.  This would make it seem that mobile phone use should be a part of any African country’s economic development plan.  But one caution that was not discussed it whether or not Africans consider their state of living as lower in quality.  It sometimes felt that the authors had in mind creating an Africa that was just as technologically addicted to success and life as the world (considered modern in their mind of course) they live in.  Although I believe in democracy and capitalism and love my technological devices, I don’t fully believe that all others in the world should or must live in the same way.  Poverty and being downtrodden is bad, but we must be careful in how we define it and how we consider the definitions of not living in poverty.  Adding ICT in rural areas might also create new complications and shift power in ways that are just as bad.  What to do the African people in those areas want?  Are we just in deciding for them on the basis that they just don’t understand what they need?

Donner (2005) notes the converging themes of telephone scarcity and mobile phone usage growth.  In doing so he splits users into three categories: private phone users; public phone users; and telephone non-users.  He further adds the subcategory of mobile only users and mobile bases payphones.  All in all, these fit in well with the constraints in research that James & Verteeg put forward and matched findings by Castells et al.  Another key finding in this article that goes against the economic goggles that Kyem & LeMaite propose to be used is that 70% of the respondent’s incoming or outgoing calls in Donner’s study were friends and family.

Quick question: is it really okay to cite a Vodafone study that basically concludes that Africa needs more mobile penetration, more investment in Telecom, and more free market competition (meaning less government regulation)? I haven’t read the Vodafone study, and I don’t doubt that it’s well done, nor do I think the researchers fudged data or anything like that. But it does seem strange to me to rely as heavily as Kyem and LeMaire do on a study sponsored by a group that has a strong interest in the findings. I also noticed that every time the researchers cited the study it was in reference to something that would help Vodafone. I know the study is most likely huge, most likely the type of study that has to be funded by a large telecom, similar to pharmaceutical studies. But as far as I can remember, Kyem and LeMaire never even note the possible conflict here. Just a minor point, but an interesting one.

James and Versteeg’s study was highly interesting because of what it couldn’t tell us. Basically, the only close to definitive statistics researchers have on cell phones in Africa are subscription statistics. Subscription statistics tell us very little about how cell phones are used or how many people actually have access to cell phones. Castells et al. address that issue with their discussion of “mobile payphones” where people rent out mobile phones or let people use them for a fee. If ten people use one of these phones a day, that’s ten people who have access to one subscription. But even usage statistics don’t tell us much because those ten people might use a cell phone, but they don’t have real access to a mobile phone in the ways we are accustomed to. They cannot build businesses when they have extremely spotty access to a phone, nor can they really connect with others when they’re mobile. Rather, these mobile phones come to resemble older payphone booths. People must go to them to make a call. Clearly, it’s not just access that matters; rather, it’s the type of access.

Donner’s article was an interesting examination of mobile phone use in Rwanda. One of the more interesting findings was that, drawing from Katz and Aakhaus’ concept of universal Apparatgeist, Donner found that much of the ways people use mobile phones in Rwanda mirrors how they are used elsewhere. Some uses are obviously location and context dependent. For example, people who never had a fixed landline use mobile phones more for the connectivity than for the mobility. But at its core, people use mobile phones remarkably similarly around the world. Take “beeping” for example. Because people have little money to call or text, and because it costs very little if no one picks up at the other end, people call just for haptic communication. We don’t use beeping because we don’t have to, but whether it is through SMS or beeping, the core use is the same: when people adopt mobile phones they crave haptic connection in new ways.

One quick note. Donner talks about how mobile phone adoption can help small businesses and entrepreneurs. He gives example through short vignettes, and I don’t think any of us would disagree that mobile phones can help certain business practices. But is there something to be concerned about here? In his vignettes, he identifies individuals who were preseumably doing well enough in the first place to purchase mobile phones. After they make that purchase, their business will likely approve if they use them well. In a way, could this widen economic gaps? People who can’t afford the phone plans in the first place will become even less able to compete with those who can.

Finally, Castells et al. make the important point that ICTs are not a magic bullet for development. Being able to call to arrange a shipment is awesome, but it doesn’t make much difference if the infrastructure to move that shipment isn’t in place. There are other cultural concerns that will shape how successful ICT deployment can be. For example, I spent 10 days in the Amazon with a tribe. No running water, no indoor plumbing, and almost no electricity. The telecom company had, however, built one hut that had generator powered electricity, a computer, and a dial-up internet connection. It was really quite amazing. But it didn’t do anything to make life better for most of the villagers. I would guess that about 80% of the people there were illiterate. So yeah…what does an illiterate person do with the Internet? Probably nothing. Just a quick reminder that dropping ICTs into a place won’t solve everything.  

Hjorth used South Korea as a good example of a participatory culture in his relation to gaming and asked the over-arching question of the role that mobile media and urban gaming can play in bringing new challenges to new media practice and theory.  One thing that caught my eye was the conceptualization of what "mobilism" and mobility are today.  Because of mobile communication, we may be forced to reconsider traditional definitions of these terms.  Technology must somehow be fused with these terms.  Before, being mobile may have meant having the ability to travel by way other than foot, or being able to relocate if needed; these are things that before hand would not have been possible.  However, with the rise of technology and in this case, mobile communication, we can now, and may, conceptualize these terms in a more modern sense.  When I think of being mobile, I immediate think of having the ability to "do things" on the go.  Those things may include surfing the internet, sending an email, or talking to someone (clearly all things that can be done through mobile communication).  Also important to me in this paper was the concept that modern mobile communication such as texting is sort of a "rebirth" of earlier forms of intimacy.  Now, we may text or give a gift on Facebook rather than write a letter, give a tangible gift, or send a postcard.  Hjorth called this a remediation of earlier forms of intimacy.  Thinking of it in this context makes sense to me.  As time passes, we must "modernize" how we do things and take in account the social practices of the society.  Plus, I personally would rather send a text message than have to write  out a letter and send it through the post office.  Finally, the concept of user-created content (UCC) is questioned in Seoul by a group called Dotplay Telecom.  The capitalist ideologies about UCC and global mobile media are critiqued.  To them, this form of hacking created democratizes the mobile phone and puts power/control in the hands of the user.  First, I'm not sure if they are actually talking about hacking as I know the term. Second, if they are talking about actually hacking into people's phone just to provide them with a sense of power, I'm not sure if this is the best method.  I'm mostly concerned about privacy issues rather than the empowerment of the individual.

McLelland starts off with the proposition that many reviews of the Asians' use of cell phones simply refer back to Western uses and that there is a need to concentrate specifically on how this region uses cell phones.  The author does understand that there are still, in his review, some limitations; referrals are mainly to Japan, Korea, China, and the Philippines and not much towards other places including the very 'wired' Australia.  An interesting portion was on the use of the word Keitai, translated to us as the mobile phone in Japanese.  Although it is translated as such, there are cultural differences that need to be stressed.  These may include its design, function, uses, and meanings.  The Keitia is "an artifact located in specific national context" (p. 127).   This, to me, is where the importance comes in of distinguishing regional differences of the uses of cell phones.  I still think that the major uses of cell phones extremely similar across the globe, but the way the specific culture views the mobile phone and thinks about it can help to make some concrete differences of cell phone uses.  Finally, ironically, the devices thought to provide us with safety and the feeling of security can actually bring harm to us.  In cheap transit through the Philippines, petty theft and robbery may come to those who openly show and use their cell phones.  Additionally, cell phones in Asia also grey the boundaries between public and private.

Lastly, Bell deems China to be in the "age of the thumb" for two reasons. First, because as the name suggests, text messaging is extremely popular (the most popular) in China.  Secondly, because mobile technology is ushering in a new era in the history and culture of China.  Bell identifies 4 uses of cell phones in China: 1) objects for communication (yes….) 2) objects for information (yes…..) 3) a form of controlling your identity (ok….) 4) and as sites of anxiety and control.  I understand these uses but see them as being the same for Western societies and any other regions that use cell phones.

The readings were informative but I wasn't able to notice and regional differences of the uses of cell phones.  So my over-arching question in my brain is; Are we at a point yet that we are able to make clear distinctions about regional uses of cell phones??

     According to Bell, what it means to be mobile has distinct cultural meanings. This week we explore case studies of phone usage, function, and history in Asia. While the McLelland article brought up a lot of research discussed in previous reading in Castells et al., Hjorth and Bell introduced me to mobile media and detailed ethnographies of the Asian cell phone market. First, I will talk about the McLelland article and then I will move to Hjorth and Bell.

     In the McLelland article it is interesting how it revolves around the relationship between what McLelland was trying to teach students about the interrelationship between new technology and society/culture. McLelland quotes, “I try to encourage them to consider that technologies have a history and that the meanings underlying their deployment are highly cultural specific.” Interestingly enough, McLelland had some difficulty doing this because the students or permanently “wired socialites” could not remember a time before the mobile phone. Then McLelland moved to talking about how it was important for students to think about different technologies and how they are used and represent different geographical locations via case studies. It is mentioned that Castells talks about the difficulty of this task but it is still clear to researchers that technologies do have a significant effect in different regions. Then McLelland provides us with a collection of sources to help look at regional similarities as well as differences of the uptake of mobile communication. Fortunately for us our book by Castells et al. is the most useful source. In the chapter we read from our Castells book, it is important to note the 4 trends identified for mobile communication in different countries. Another source is Ito et al.’s comprehensive analysis of mobile telephony in Japan. This research talks about the Keitai and explores its design, functions, users and meanings. There is a focus on its role as “an artifact”. Other researchers, Matsunaga, Beck and Wade, focus on business models, policy developments, and technical/management issues (McLelland). Ling and Pedersen as well as Kim look at the emergence of the mobile phone in the Philippines. What is interesting about the Philippines is the idea that the sudden access to new technologies can be seen as revolutionary. With each of these sources or collections of texts McLelland also hopes to show how mobile communication will impact notions of time and space.

     Hjorth looks at the emphasis of “electronic individualism” in Japan and how the mobile gaming platform “dominates”. In South Korea there is a strong desire for online multiplayer games and has had influence on gaming and mobile technology in mainland China. Hjorth uses South Korea to look at the “participatory culture” and the rise of mobile media and urban gaming. Then Hjorth asks the question, “How do projects around mobile technologies and play seek to provide a space for rethinking the notions, practices, and politics of mobility?” Hjorth addresses this question by looking at how mobility has been conceptualized, looking at mobile media within technocultures, focusing on South Korea and the contextualization of the sociocultural space, and the political dimensions of mobile technology. Some of the concepts I found interesting in this article was the arguments about global media and the role of the local. According to Hjorth, “Through the role of location, based gaining in different contexts, and resistance toward that technology we can gain a sense of contemporary localities.” In each location, mobile gaming means something different. Furthermore, I also thought it was interesting when Hjorth discussed the many forms and practices of mobile media. I was left understanding that mobile media is a ubiquitous and pervasive technology. And Hjorth leaves us with the  argument that, “ the mobile phone communicates upon various levels-both literally (in the form of visual, textual, and aural mobile media) as well as symbolically (as a cultural artifact reflecting the user’s identity as well as social and cultural capital).”

     Finally, Bell opens up with the fact that the People’s Republic of China is the largest market for mobile phones. However, even though China is the largest market, the Asian cell phone market in general has had rapid growth. This growth can be attributed to high mobility, government regulation, a need to replace poor existing telephony, urbanization, good cell phone coverage, and efficient calling plans and pricing. According to Bell, “the impact of calling plans and pricing policies should not be underestimated.” Bell’s research project has focused on the ways that cultural practices shape people’s relationships with new communication technologies in urban Asia. Bell looks at the shaping of this relationship in regards to sites of production, consumption and resistance in urban life (more specifically where the cell phones are deployed, consumed, regulated, rejected, and naturalized). Bell talks about how social mobility is “critical” to the rapid growth of mobile phones and identifies four ways in which mobile phones function as cultural objects. Mobile phones function as cultural objects by being objects of communication, outlets to seek information, forms of identity politics, and sites of anxiety and control. Bell also explores the specific functions of cell phones. These functions are listed as but not exhausted to: talking, organizing co-presence, safety, and business/work related activities. The mobile phone also creates opportunities for location-based services (which we have a lot of knowledge of already!). However, while there are all these useful functions of cell phones Bell points out that they have also been blamed for divorce rates, teenage suicides, and government overthrow. It seems that the mobile phone can have an incredible impact on various aspects of life and like Bell points out I am too left questioning, “what is the cell phone”? To Bell, “they are more than pieces of technology, they are also constellations of social and cultural practice”, but I am still trying to figure out what it is to me. I think it is something I will try to explore in my wiki as well!

by Kimberly A Burke

 

I couldn’t help but notice the affirmative comparison that McLelland (2008) used for Castells et al. when referring to global culture and mobile technologies in relation to our class discussion and review of the same work.  Like our class seemed to agree, McLelland highlighted the fact that Castells et al. had difficulties in producing such an overview rather.  He continues to present great examples in how context is so important to understanding usage and meaning, which gets back to the point that once more plurality is important in discussion of culture and mobile technology.  A great example I don’t think we have yet examined was how Filipinos might prefer texting more for the privacy it affords compared to voice than the other possible factors such as value/price and ease of use.  And for the average Filipino user to send 8 text messages per day as the article states, that suggests to me that texting is not just for young Filipinos and the previous explanation of desired privacy stands strong.        

The first point that Hjorth (2009) made I didn’t fully agree with came on page 4 where the author references mobility and mobilism in relation to accessing the internet.  Hjorth states that “Accessing the Internet via the mobile phone creates a different sense of embodiment between online and offline co-presence than utilizing the stationary and bigger PC”, but I don’t think that fairly accounts for netbooks and small to medium laptops.  I am not convinced there is a different sensation in relation to mobility when a person uses a laptop to connect to the internet at a Starbucks than if they use their cell phone.  Nor would I agree that people surfing the net on their mobile phone are any more or less co-present than someone doing the same on a netbook.  I realize that Hjorth wasn’t referring to laptops or netbooks, but that just isn’t a fair comparison of forms of internet access.   Hjorth is not all wrong either, as that statement by itself is fine, but does not hold up when we look at the broader spectrum of devices able to connect to the internet.  I also think we could make an interesting comparison from how desktop PCs are/were shared devices in a household and how laptops and netbooks are individualized devices that offer some mobility as well.  Perhaps a question here is – does it matter what type of mobile (easily portable) device being used to connect to the internet when we consider online or offline co-presence?     

 

Hjorth was on target, in my mind, by highlighting how the mobile phone can serve as a symbol for the various forms of mobility (technological, cultural, social, political, and economic) within our global economy.  If Hjorth accepts that, then she should also accept a rewording that claims that capitalism is intrinsically and inevitably tied to any review of the mobile phone and social practices.  Is Hjorth right that the act of playing with mobile media (hacktivism or urban gaming) is proof of mobile media having become official players in politics and culture in furthering the postmodern movement?        

                Bell (2005) paints cell phones as communication and computational technological devices that are inherently mobile, very much able to be personalized, easy to use and cross many boundaries.   Yet Bell also defines cell phones as key players to cultural and social practices. 

Noticeable to me was the lack of seeing Asia as more than the southeast or pacific areas for the most part.  This was acknowledged by McLelland as well.  But southwest Asia (SWA) and some the remnants of the USSR should not be ignored.  SWA definitely uses cell phones and should have plenty of data for review in studies.  They also likely have a very different context for which to compare.  In general the week’s readings were interesting reviews of limited areas (in context of Asia) and may be easier to comprehend if compared to more at the same time.  Similar to when people try to learn a language I have been told it is easier to learn the third or fourth language as you are not stuck constantly translating back to the first and only contextual understanding of the word you are learning.  Can we better compare cultural practices once we better understand at least 3 significantly different viewpoints?