In March 2010 Global Impact Study team members working on the in-depth studies, survey, and inventory activities gathered to harmonize impact indicators and discuss the project’s approach to communications knowledge sharing. We outlined our proposed approach to communications and knowledge sharing and in the discussion that followed researchers expressed the need for an internal communication space where Global Impact Study members can ask questions, request feedback, and share resources, reports, and any other materials that are not ready or intended for public consumption. TASCHA has established a Dgroup for this purpose.

For more information you can download the communications and knowledge-sharing presentation, or view photos from the workshop.

The primary output of the workshop was a shortlist of areas for in-depth studies to undertake at the beginning of phase two of the project. Workshop participants formed groups and drafted proposals for the studies. The groups are currently finalizing their proposals, with the first in-depth studies planned for early 2009.

Browse all in-depth study updates »

Tentative plans include having a one-day meeting for the Research Working Group, followed by a two-day meeting for the Research Working Group and the Country Research Teams. There may also be an optional fourth day held as a working session.

• Review the country teams’ sample data submissions and comments on the inventory, information mapping, and research designs. The Research Working Group will then outline an updated plan for pre-testing to be done during August and September 2008.
• Articulate ideas of Research Working Group members about possible research designs.

Planning for the meeting is still underway.

The University of Washington iSchool Dean welcomes workshop participants to Seattle.

The workshop began with presentations about the public access environments in each of the pilot countries. This included:

• Landscape analysis — What are the major types of public access points (libraries, cybercafes, telecentres)? What is the scale? Who funds them? What are their missions? Who goes to them? What are some of the major activities that people do in these centers? Are there other distinguishing characteristics?
• Story gathering & visual representation — What does public access look like? How do people describe the best possible outcome case of people using the center? The average/typical case? The worst case?
• Data availability — What data exists about public access in the country? Types and number of venues, user numbers and demographics, and any other data that can be collected.

Following this, members of the Research Working Group presented a number of methodological approaches for consideration, including:

• Inventory and taxonomy (George Sciadas)
• Outcome mapping (Ricardo Ramirez)
• Most significant change (Ricardo Ramirez)
• Retrospective study (Mike Best)
• Quasi-experimental designs (Mike Best)

Research design brainstorm

Dividing into three groups with the Country Research Teams, participants developed hypotheses based on the characteristics of each country’s public access environment. Several ideas came out of this process, including the role of infomediaries, the gender of operators, and types of restrictions on computer usage.

The general conclusion? More information is needed to develop research questions that the Country Research Teams can confidently state represents the most important and relevant dimensions of public access to study in their respective countries.

Operationalizing the overarching research questions

Francois Bar, chair of the Research Working Group, presented a reformulation of the overarching research questions in terms that will lead to better operational research designs.

• Is there impact? YES/NO. If so, how much?
• Could we do it better? YES/NO. If so, how much? (relates to differing program design conditions)
• Is there something else we could do to achieve equal impact? YES/NO. If so, how much? (covers the cost/benefit question)

Next steps: parallel activities to develop research designs

Workshop participants underscored the need to undertake a number of parallel activities that will allow the project to develop a set of research designs.

• Research Working Group — Undertake information ecology mappings in a number of communities and conduct other related background research
• Research Working Group — Develop research designs based on own experiences
• Center for Information & Society — Complete a review of the literature to uncover documented impacts, novel methodologies, and knowledge gaps

The Research Working Group will meet during the summer to review preliminary findings and research designs from the Research Working Group. A second global workshop will be scheduled in the fall to finalize the research strategy for phase two of the project.

• A more focused set of research questions
• A plausible overarching framework model that can be used to operationalize the research objectives of the project
• Better understanding of the historical, current and possible future landscape of public access to ICTs in Lithuania, India, Chile, and South Africa
• The importance of including least developed countries as part of the pilot when testing the research methodology
• Suggestions on ways to build a stronger gender perspective into the project design/framework and a better understanding how gender can also affect it
• Clarified the interest and availability of participants on the different research and advisory roles identified for the project (through interviews)
• Broader understanding of issues that need to be considered in the use of possible theories and methodologies for the research (but also affirmed the benefit of combining more than one approach)

Workshop outputs:

• Workshop Final Report, IDRC
• Presentation: Assessing the impact of public internet access in Lithuania, Ugne Rutkauskiene & Kestutis Juskevicius, Bibliotekos pažangai (Libraries for Innovation)
• Presentation: A Research Design Framework on Public Access & ICTs: Exploring the India Context, Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change