Ethics, Technology and International Development: the case for a critical realist philosophical approach.

Technology is ubiquitous in even the most far-flung corners of the planet. Moreover, technology is fast becoming more advanced and we are likely to see the increasing incidence of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality, and quantum computing over the coming decade. This will result in significant changes to the way we live, learn, and work.

This ubiquity and potential of technology is of particular importance in developing countries in the Global South. It is also of great importance to researchers and students working in the ever-growing academic field of information and communication technology for development, commonly abbreviated to ICT4D (Walsham 2017). This field is concerned with ICT-based interventions in developing countries and the use of ICTs for socio-economic and international development (Heeks 2018, Walsham 2017). There is little doubt that these are exciting times for the ICT4D researcher, the ICT4D student entering the field, and the ICT4D practitioner as there is now potential for technology to have real and lasting impact in some of the poorest countries in the world. Increasing bandwidth and the rollout of fibre and 4G networks across many developing countries, combined with cheap and powerful smartphones built specifically for the African market, means that there now exists a critical mass of infrastructure which presents the possibility of addressing many of the challenges outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including the eradication of poverty, zero hunger and good health. Over the coming years advances in technology will mean that the mobile phone will be able to carry out remote diagnosis of various medical conditions and diseases, faster and more reliable transfer of larger amounts of data and information, more sophisticated monitoring and control of data, and the ability to conduct a variety of medical scans with the phone itself.

Now exists a critical mass of infrastructure which presents the possibility of addressing many of the challenges.

This has led to the emergence of the new sub-field of ethics in international development and ICT4D (commonly abbreviated to E4D) where researchers consider questions related to the ethical implications of implementing advanced technologies in the Global South. This theme fits very well with what has become known as the political and ethical turns in ICT4D (Heeks & Wall 2018) and has been partially driven by the use of Amartya Sen’s work and the renewed interest in ethics and social justice within the wider development community (Oosterlaken, 2015). It also involves researchers engaging more with issues of power, rights, and justice in ICT4D. Walsham (2012) suggests that ethical and political questions should include asking how we can use ICTs to support the poor of the world, and whether mobile phones can enable the poor to access the Internet and thus reduce poverty. It also involves the ongoing conversation around personal data and the ethical use of firewalls, data encryption, and biometrics. Such technologies give rise to many privacy concerns around data protection and the potential of Governments to monitor, harm, and supress their citizens. This also includes consideration of the common practice of sharing phones in developing countries where it is not uncommon for a household or neighbours to share a single phone (Rotheram-Borus, Tomlinson et al. 2012) and the associated data protection implications.

Such technologies give rise to many privacy concerns around data protection and the potential of Governments to monitor, harm, and supress their citizens.

This increasing engagement with ethics in ICT4D has highlighted the limitations of current methodological approaches and now we see the emergence of critical realism (Bhaskar, 1975) as a way of raising and interrogating ethical questions in ICT4D. There are a number of compelling reasons for this. Firstly, as Sayer & Norrie (1997) suggest, at a basic level the emancipatory impulses of critical realism resonate with the ideas of ethics, and critical realism would thus be supportive of work on ICT4D and ethics. However, at a deeper level it could be argued that the foundations of rights, ethics and justice in the ICT4D field lie within the structures of society, and thus these all derive from and are largely determined by social structures (Heeks & Renken 2018). Thus, critical realism becomes uniquely appropriate for work on ICT4D and ethics given its combined desire to both understand and progressively change the social structures that envelop ICT4D.

In addition, Heeks & Wall (2018) discuss the particular value of critical realism to current trends in ICT4D research. It is suggested that the paradigm supports the recent search for causality within ICT4D, and in addition supports the political turn in ICT4D by exposing the structures and mechanisms of power that underpin application of ICTs in development contexts while still allowing space for consideration of human agency. Additionally, the paradigm further supports the ethical turn in ICT4D by seeking the outcome of a more just and equitable society, and by necessitating investigation of the social structures that underpin rights, ethics and justice.

The foundations of rights, ethics and justice in the ICT4D field lie within the structures of society.

However, despite the appropriateness of critical realism to the study of ICT4D and E4D, there are a number of shortcomings associated with the paradigm as well as many practical reasons which may prevent its widespread use in practice. Perhaps most important is the perceived complexity of the paradigm. This is a topic of much debate in the literature with many suggesting that critical realism is time-consuming, difficult to operationalize, complex, and often difficult to understand (e.g. Reed 2009, Fleetwood 2014, Smith 2018). In addition, the claim is made that many key concepts contained within the critical realist paradigm are vague and poorly understood. Also of great concern is the lack of methodological clarity associated with the paradigm. Furthermore, the long established “philosophical duopoly” of positivism and interpretivism in ICT4D means that expertise in critical realism does not as yet exist, or where it does exist is likely to be at early stages of development. This may create a negative cycle around the use of critical realism which will inhibit the use of the paradigm in academia.

This is a topic of much debate in the literature with many suggesting that critical realism is time-consuming and often difficult to understand.

Despite these shortcomings and challenges, we hope that critical realism will gain traction within the fields of ICT4D and E4D, as well as in the social sciences more widely, and that this will lead to deeper, richer and more nuanced discussions of ethics, power, rights, and social justice in international development and ICT4D. In addition, there is a broader advantage of the critical realist philosophical approach becoming more widely used in these fields. This involves encouraging researchers and students to think carefully about the research paradigms used in their research. It is noted that explicit consideration of research paradigms is rare in ICT4D publications (Heeks & Wall, 2018), and thus any consideration of paradigms is to be welcomed. Indeed, according to (Heeks & Bailur, 2007) “explicit recognition of research philosophies can help researchers’ self‐development, their capacity to analyze the work of themselves and others, and the academic credibility of a research field” (p. 252). Additionally, the emancipatory leanings of critical realism resonate with the ideas of ethics (Heeks & Wall, 2018), and critical realism thus almost forces the researcher to consider ethics and the ethical implications arising in any case. If the arguments that we are making are accepted we would be very happy to see the increased use of the critical realist paradigm for the consideration of ethics in international development and ICT4D (as well as in the broader field of social science). If not, at least we have started the debate on the most appropriate philosophical approach to raise and interrogate ethical questions in these fields.