Social Diffusion of Kiosks in South India

Social Diffusion of Telecenters

Running Head: SOCIAL DIFFUSION OF TELECENTER USE

Social Impact and Diffusion of Telecenter Use:A Study from the Sustainable Access in Rural India Project

Introduction

Telecenters or kiosks have generally been defined as places or centers that provide shared public access to information and communications technologies for meeting the educational, social, personal, economic, and entertainment needs of the community (Fuchs, 1998; Harris, 1999; Proenza, 2001). Telecenters have gained prominence as the primary instruments for bringing the benefits of ICTs to poor communities where the technological infrastructure is inadequate and costs of individual access to these technologies are relatively high. They provide opportunities for access to information by overcoming the barriers of distance and location, and by facilitating access to information and communication, they have the potential to foster social cohesion and interaction (Young, Ridley, & Ridley, 2001).

Most of the evaluations of telecenters have focused on their operational aspects, such as their technical, financial, and managerial performance and sustainability(Etta & Wamahiu, 2003; Young, Ridley, & Ridley, 2001). There have been relatively few studies examining their social impacts on the communities they are situated in. Some researchers have looked at the social impact of the community telecenter initiatives largely through anecdotal evidence (Holmes, 2001). Some others have examined their impacts on poverty reduction (Gerster & Zimmerman, 2003; Ulrich, 2004).

As most of the studies on telecenters till date have focused on their operational and sustainability aspects, a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their planning and evaluation have largely been missing from the debate (Roman, 2003). Roman (2003)provides a very cogent theoretical framework for planning and evaluation of telecenters using the theory of diffusion of innovations byRogers (1995). He describes three principal attributes of innovations which could be very useful in telecenter research: relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. He also underscores the importance of socio-structural environment in innovation diffusion and adoption. In one of the early attempts to understand telecenters within the diffusion framework, Johnson (2003) examines how incorporating a gender dimension into telecenter design can enhance their diffusion among women.

In this study, we examine the social impact and diffusion of telecenters under the Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) project in Tamil Nadu,India. This project aims at rural social, economic, and political development by providing comprehensive information and communication services through computer and internet kiosks in rural communities. Starting in November 2001, the project had established 77 such kiosks by June 2004in rural communities in Melur Taluk (an administrative unit within adistrict) of Madurai district in Tamil Nadu. The number of kiosks was 39 in June 2003 when this research was conducted. The kiosks offer a number of services including basic computer education, e-mail, web browsing, e-government, health, and agricultural and veterinary applicationson a fee-for-service basis.

Though the kiosks have been in operation for well over a year in many communities, they are still being used by only a relatively small percentage of the village population. Our principal focus here is to examine why kiosk use has not been able to diffuse among a wider section of their communities. In examining this, we chiefly employ the theoretical framework for diffusion of innovations by Rogers (1995,2003) for analyzing and understanding diffusion of kiosks. In particular, we analyze how the principal attributes of innovations, such as relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity, affect diffusion within the community.

This case is particularly interesting in that it is one of the first projects in Indiathat aimed at establishing commercially sustainable telecenters in rural communities. The lessons learned from it can help us understand how best to enhance the social acceptability and reach of the telecenters and to realize their long-term social and economic sustainability and development goals.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: first, we describe the overall project briefly;next we discuss the methodology employed in our empirical study; then we present our data analysis and discuss the results; next we analyze the findings within the theoretical framework of diffusion of innovations, and finally we conclude.

Description of the Project

The SARI project is a collaborative venture of research from several organizations: the Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.), Madras; BerkmanCenter for Internet and Society, HarvardLawSchool; Georgia Institute of Technology; I-Gyan Foundation; and n-Logue Communications Pvt. Ltd. It uses a Wireless-in-Local Loop (WLL) technology to provide internet connectivity to rural villages.

The internet connectivity is offered to the local community at kiosks, which are run as a self-sustained business with cost recovery through service charges. A majority of the kiosks are locally owned and operated by self-employed entrepreneurs, while some are operated by self-help groups of a local non-governmental organization. Technical support for the kiosks is provided by n-Logue Communications. The project had established 39 village kiosks by August 2003 when this field study was conducted.Out of these 39 kiosks, 20 were being run by local self-employed entrepreneurs while the remaining 19 were being run by a local NGO.

Figure 1 shows the location of Melur where the kiosks are located.

Fig. 1: Location of Melur in India

(Source: modifications by the authors)

Services Offered by the Kiosks

The kiosks provide a host of applications and services to the rural people, which include computer education; email/voice mail/voice chat; e-government services such as obtaining birth and death certificates from government offices; agricultural, veterinary, and health services; web browsing, etc. They provide internet content in the local language in these areas. The services are based on a self-sustaining commercial model with the charges ranging from Rs. 10 (approx. US $0.22) for sending an email to Rs. 100 (approx. US $2.2) for one hour of basic computer education everyday for one month. To deliver these services, the project has developed partnerships with several public and private agencies. These include tie-ups with the state government to provide e-government services, with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural and VeterinaryUniversity for providing agricultural and veterinary services, and with a private eye hospital for providing eye check-ups. It is this broad array of services that attract users, including those who are illiterate, to the kiosks.

Research Methods

We have used a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques for our study. We conducted a comprehensive survey of 132 kiosk users in five villages and collected data on their demographic background, educational status, and theaffordability and desirabilityof the kiosk services. In addition we also used data from a survey conducted by the SARI project officials in these villages which covered all the user and non-user households in the local communityserved by the kiosks. The selection of the users was done using a two-stage sampling process. In the first stage, we used the purposive sampling technique to select the villages based on the length of operation of the kiosk in the community and whether they were being run by self-employed entrepreneurs or by the NGO. The five kiosks selected were in operation from 10 to 18 months as of June 2003. Three of the five kiosks were run by the NGO while the remaining two were run by self-employed local entrepreneurs. The villages selected thus represented 12.8% of all villages that had kiosks. In the second stage, we selected the users from the records maintained by the kiosk operators. For this study, we interviewed all visitors who had used the kiosks during the month of May 2003. We found that this sample of users constituted around 10% of all users who had used these five kiosks since their inception. We believe this represents a fairly random sample of users for statistical analysis and drawing inferences about the user population as a whole for these villages. We also collected quantitative data from the local government Taluk office records, government census records, and surveys of the village kiosk operators.We conducted the field work for this project during July-August 2003 and the data we analyzed was for kiosk usage from November 2001 to June 2003.

Our main sources of qualitative data were from structured and open-ended interviews with kiosk operators, SARI project officials, and government officials in the Taluk and the district office. We interviewed eight government officials including the state government secretary of information technology and every official involved in the project at the district and taluk levels. We also interviewed 4 SARI project officials including the project manager stationed at projectheadquarters in Chennai and 3 local officials stationed at Melur. We also interviewed the 12 kiosk operators to understand the methods they employed to create awareness about the kiosks among the users and the procedures used for provision and delivery of various kiosk services.

The interviews with the users were conducted in the local Tamil language by trained graduate students from a local university. Each of these interviews took around 30 minutes to complete. The interviews with the kiosk operators, and the government and the project officials were conducted by one of the authors in both English and Tamil. These interviews took around one hour each to be completed.

Data Analysis

We have used descriptive statistical techniques to analyze the demographic profiles and the social and educational status of the users. We have also used statistical techniques such as one-sample inference for means and proportions to conduct a comparative analysis of the socioeconomic profile of the kiosk users and that of their respective village communities. This technique allows us to draw statistically valid conclusions about whether the kiosks are being used by the entire community or whether their usage is limited to only certain segments within them. We present and discuss the results below.

Overall Reach of the Kiosks

In the five villages surveyed, the kiosks reachedfrom3-14% of the village population and around 11-26% of the village households (reliable figures for one village, Ulagapitchampatti, on percentage of households reachedare not available) (Figure 2). These figures are calculated from the total number of users at these kiosks since their inception. Thus, for example, the total number of users at Thiruvadavur kiosk since its inception represents 4.9% of the total population and 20% of the total households within the hamlet. We calculated these figures based on the records maintained by the kiosk operators. The results show that majority of the village community is yet to use the kiosk services, though the minority that have used it is sizeable.

Fig. 2: Overall reach of the kiosks within their communities.

Socioeconomic profile of the kiosk users and the village community

We first present a comparative analysis of the demographic profiles of the kiosk users and their respective village communities for each of the five kiosks and for all the five kiosks together. This analysis is presented in the Tables 1 to 6 in the Appendix.The figures show the estimated 95% confidence interval for each of the demographic characteristic based on a one-sample inference for means and proportions and the corresponding population mean and proportion for that characteristic. A population mean lying outside the 95% confidence interval indicates that the overall village community is significantly different in that characteristic from the population of the kiosk users. We discuss these results below for seven variables indicating the demographic and socioeconomic status of the kiosk users and the overall village population: age, gender, religion, caste, income, ownership of household assets, and educational level.

Age Distributionof KioskUsers

An overwhelming majority of the kiosk users areyoung. Most of them are below 30 years (Fig. 3). The average age of the users is 20 or below in four of the five villages with 95% confidence interval ranging between 11.8 to 23.2 years (Tables 1 to 5). The average age of all users in all five villages combined is 19.2 years (Table 6). With the sole exception of Ulagapitchampatti, over 90% of the users are below 30 years.This indicates that the kiosk users are significantly younger than communities taken as a whole. We think that the significantly different age profile in Ulagapitchampatti, when compared to that in the other four villages, is due to the extra efforts made by the operator in creating awareness about the kiosk services through vigorous canvassing among all sections of the village population.

Fig. 3: Age distribution of kiosk users. A (*) indicates that the proportion of users less than 30 years of age is significantly higher than that in the village population at 95% confidence level.

Gender of Kiosk Users

Most of the kiosk users are male (Fig. 4). The proportion of male users varies from 65.5% in Thaniyamangalam to 90% in Kidaripatti and is far higher than the percentage of males in the village population (Tables 1 to 5). The proportion of male kiosk users in all the five villages combined is 74.2%, which again is far higher than the same in the total village population (Table 6). This again indicates a significantly different kiosk user profile when compared to that of their respective village communities at large. Most of the women users at the kiosks are girl students who come for computer education. (See Best & Maier (2006) for a broader analysis of women’s usage patterns within the SARI project.)

Fig. 4: Genderdistribution of kiosk users. A (*) indicates that the proportion of male users is significantly higher than that in the village population at 95% confidence level.

Religion of Kiosk Users

All the kiosk users belong to the majority Hindu religion, except in two kiosks, Ulagapitchampatti and Thiruvadavur (Fig. 5). In these two villages, the proportion of non-Hinduusers is not statistically different from that in the overall village population (Tables 1 and 2). In Thaniyamangalam, the village population itself contains only 0.2% non-Hindus(Table 4). However, the remaining two kiosk villages, Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, have significant non-Hindupopulations (4.1% and 19.2% respectively) but still have no non-Hindukiosk users. The proportion of non-Hindu users is lower than that in the overall village population even when we combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6).

Fig. 5: Distribution of religion of kiosk users. A (*) indicates that the proportion of non-Hindu users is significantly lower than that in the village population at 95% level of confidence.

Caste of Kiosk Users

In collecting data on caste of the users, we followed the official method of classification of castes into backward castes (BC), most backward castes (MBC), scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes (ST), and forward castes (FC) (also classified as ‘other’). SCs and STs are traditionally the most socially and economically disadvantaged communities in these villages. Most of the users belong to the numerically dominant castes in these villages, namely, the backward castes (BC) (Fig. 6). The proportion of SC users is not significantly differently from that in the overall village population when we combine the data for all the five villages (Table 6). However, the situation is different at the individual village level. In three villages (Ulagapitchampatti, Thiruvadavur, and Thaniyamangalam), the proportions of SC users are statistically significantly lower when compared to those in the kiosk village population (Tables 1, 2 and 4). However, in Keelaiyur and Kidaripatti, the majority of the users belongs to the scheduled casts and the proportions are statistically significantly higher compared to those in the village population. Discussions with the users and the kiosk operators indicate that location of these two kiosks, closer to the places where SC households exist,is an important factor in attracting more SC users. These operators have also made extra efforts in contacting the SC households and motivating them to visit the kiosks. However, just canvassing among the SC households does not appear to be sufficient in attracting them to the kiosk. This was corroborated by the kiosk operator in Thiruvadavur, who stated that despite her best efforts in motivating the SC households to come to the kiosk, not many SC users had availed of the kiosk services as they lived far away from the kiosk. Thus, location of the kiosk seems to play a more important rolein attracting SC users, compared to just canvassing.

Fig. 6: Caste of kiosk users. A (*) indicates that the proportion of SC users is significantly lower than that in the village population at 95% confidence level. A (**) indicates that the proportion of SC users is significantly higher than that in the village population.

Income of Kiosk User Households

For the purposes of this survey, we divided the monthly household incomes into five ranges: less than Rs. 500 (about $US 11) per month, between Rs. 500 and 1,000, between Rs. 1,000 and 2,500, between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 5000, and more than Rs. 5,000. Most of the user households are in the middle to upper income groups (with monthly incomes more than Rs. 1,000), except in one village, Ulagapitchampatti (Fig. 7). Only Ulagapitchampatti seems to attract a large proportion (78.8%) of low income users (those with monthly household incomes of Rs. 1000 or below) (Table 1). In the other four villages, this proportion varies from 15.4% in Thiruvadavur to 33.3% in Thaniyamangalam. We think that the significantly higher proportion of low income users in Ulagapitchampatti is due to the extra efforts made by the kiosk operator in contacting the poor households in the village. This was also confirmed by the kiosk users. As no reliable data on actual income levels of the kiosk village area population was available, it was not possible to statistically compare the income levels of the kiosk users with that of their respective village communities. But qualitative evidence (discussions with kiosk operators and SARI project officials) points to generally higher income levels of the users when compared to that of the overall village population.