Last Question – Focus Group Web Test (Open Access Questions)

October 19, 2011

Thank you for your rich responses the last few days. They have been very insightful in increasing my understanding of the opinions of graduate students at the University of Minnesota. It seems that while many of you see some promise to Open Access Journals (OAJs), there seems to be a concern regarding their quality and their sustainability. Below I include three additional questions that would help me to better understand your attitudes and concerns. Once again, thank you for your time.

A – You have just written an article and you have three choices to where you are able to submit your article:
1) to an OAJ where the university would cover the writer’s fee (if there is a fee) to submit the article.

2) to an OAJ where the writer or the grant agency that is sponsoring him or her has to pay a processing fee to submit the article.

3) to a traditional, toll-access journal (TAJ) where institutions and individuals must subscribe to access its articles or must pay individually for every article, but the writer submitting the article does not have to pay (since the university libraries pay a subscription to access the TAJ, the TAJ does not have an article processing fee).

Which one of these three journals would you choose as the site through which to submit your article and what are some of the reasons you would chose this journal (please indicate what would be the most important aspect in making this decision)?  How much does the journal status as an OAJ or TAJ plays a role in making your final decision?

B – To what extent are you aware of who owns the copyright for an article that you publish and the author’s right to retain copyright? Many individuals are not aware of their copyright options. To what extent are you aware of what the SPARC Author Addendum or Creative Commons licenses can mean for you? What license do you usually use for your creative works?

C – Projecting yourself two, five and ten years into the future what role do you see open access playing for academia and society? What do you feel are the strongest factors in bringing about change or maintaining the status quo or bringing about another alternative? To what extent do you think there is a generational difference in the support for openness, and open access journals?

——
Thank you so much for your participation! Your answers have been very helpful. Unfortunately, because of time limitations we will not be able to discuss your opinions and concerns about copyright. But it would have been very interesting to learn your opinions regarding Creative Commons, Copyleft and the sense of ownership over your production. This is a related but separate discussion, relating to the difference between free as in “gratis” or free beer and free as in “libre” as in free speech.

A couple of links that you may find interesting are the Directory of Open Access Journals website (http://www.doaj.org/) and the Study of Open Access Publishing (http://project-soap.eu/). Thanks!

First Online Focus Group Questions – Open Access (Krueger’s Course)

 October 19, 2011

Day 1 –

– What are your top three news websites and the top three websites where you access academic articles? (It could be from an academic journal directly [such as IRRODL] or  from an online system for archiving academic journals [such as JSTOR]?

– Are these sites open to the public? Can they only be accessed with a subscription or membership? Does the site being open play a role as to whether or not you access it? Can you think of one major information website that you currently do not use, that you would use if it was open? With this in mind, to what extent is the ability to access information freely on the internet influencing the type of information you consume? (not at all, some (little), a lot, a great deal)?

Day 2 –

For today, it would be helpful if you could share with us what you understand by a) open access journals, b) open content (on the internet), c) open courseware, d) open education resources, and e) open education? If you are not familiar with one of these terms, share with us your lack of familiarity with the term, but give it your best shot and attempt to explain it. What do you think they mean? Please do not read other’s responses or search online for an answer before responding.

Thank you for responding the previous question. If you are curious about the meaning of those terms please visit the following sites: open access journals, open content (on the internet), open courseware, open education resources, and open education.

Now that you have increased your familiarity with the different definitions, a) what do you think of the open access movement? b) What do you consider to be some of the strengths of open access journals? c) What do you consider to be some of the limitations of open access journals? d) When you think of an open access journal, what quality is the most important?

Day 3 –

1)     – To what extent do you think open access encourages or discourages innovation?

2)     – To what extent do you consider open access journals sustainable?

3)     – To what extent would it be possible to write a good article on your topic using only open access journal articles? Why is it or why is not possible?

4)     – To what extent do you feel openness increases the quality of scholarship? (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

Day 4 –

A – You have just written an article and you have three choices to where you are able to submit your article:

1) to an Open Access Journal where the university would cover the writer’s fee (if there is a fee) to submit the article.

2) to an Open Access Journal where the writer or the grant agency that is sponsoring him or her has to pay a processing fee to submit the article.

3) to a traditional, toll-access journal (TAJ) where institutions and individuals must subscribe to access its articles or must pay individually for every article, but the writer submitting the article does not have to pay (since the university libraries pay a subscription to access the toll-access journal (TAJ), the TAJ does not have an article processing fee).

Which one of these three journals would you choose as the site through which to submit your article and what are some of the reasons you would chose this journal (please indicate what would be the most important aspect in making this decision)? How much does the journal status as an Open Access Journal or Toll-Access Journal play a role in making your final decision?

—–

B – Projecting yourself two, five and ten years into the future what role do you see open access playing for academia and society? What do you feel are the strongest factors in bringing about change or maintaining the status quo? To what extent do you think there is a generational difference in support for openness, and open access journals?

——

C – To what extent are you aware of who owns the copyright for an article that you publish and the author’s right to retain copyright? Many individuals are not aware of their copyright options. To what extent are you aware of what the SPARC Author Addendum or Creative Commons licenses can mean for you? What license do you usually use for your creative works?

——

Second Online Focus Group Questions – Open Access – Krueger’s Course

October 19, 2011

Day 1

– What are your top three news websites (CNN, NYT, Fox, etc) and the top three websites where you access academic articles? (It could be from an academic journal [such as IRRODL] or from an online system for archiving academic journals [such as JSTOR], an online directory [such as DOAJ ] or an academic journal search engine [Such as Google Scholar]?

– Are the sites you mentioned open to the public? Can they only be accessed with a subscription or membership? Does the site being open play a role as to whether or not you access it? Can you think of one major information website that you currently do not use, that you would use if it was open? With this in mind, to what extent is the ability to access information freely on the internet influencing the type of information you consume? (not at all, some (little), a lot, a great deal)?

Figure 1 – From Cameron Neylon’s Presentation

(http://www.viddler.com/explore/CameronNeylon/videos/3/)

– How often do you use Google Scholar to find articles? Above there is a screen shot of an individual using Google Scholar from his private residence trying to find and download relevant articles. When conducting a query, many of the articles he found were only available with a subscription. What do you think will happen if you conducted a similar query? To what extent is the lack of access to information a problem? (not at all, some (little), a lot, a great deal)?

Day 2 

For today, it would be helpful if you could share with us what you understand by a) open access journals, b) open data, c) open content (on the internet), d) open courseware, e) open education resources, and f) open education? If you are not familiar with one of these terms, share with us your lack of familiarity with the term, but give it your best shot and attempt to explain it. What do you think they mean? Please do not read other’s responses or search online for an answer before responding.

Thank you for responding to the previous question. If you are curious about the meaning of those terms please visit the following sites: open access journals, open data, open content (on the internet), open courseware, open education resources, and open education.

Now that you have increased your familiarity with the different definitions, a) what do you think of the open access movement? b) What do you consider to be some of the strengths of open access journals? c) What do you consider to be some of the limitations of open access journals? d) When you think of an open access journal, what quality is the most important?

(Slideshare – Julien Sicot – http://www.slideshare.net/jsicot/open-science-open-access-science20-de-nouvelles-modalits-pour-la-communication-scientifique)

Thank you for your response. Please look at the graphs above. When looking at the differences between the traditional publishing system and the open access publishing system, what surprises you? Does it modify your opinion of the open access movement? Are there any additional strengths and weaknesses that you would like to include to your considerations? 

Day 3 

(Slideshare – Cameron Neylon – http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-access-open-data-open-research-presentation) 

1)    – To what extent do you think open access encourages or discourages innovation? Looking at the model copied above, what do you see the limitations and strengths that the Web 2.0 provides for Open Access Journals and Traditional/Toll-Access Journals?

2)    – To what extent do you consider Open Access Journals to be sustainable? What do you think needs to happen for them to be sustainable?

3)    – To what extent would it be possible to write a good article on your topic using only open access journal articles as sources? Why is it or why is not possible?

4)    – To what extent do you feel openness increases the quality of scholarship? (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

5)    After watching the video below, to what extent do you feel that individuals anywhere in the world should have access to the same articles? As a University of Minnesota student, do you feel you should have greater access than the average person? Should every person have access to the same information? Is there a difference between privately sponsored research and publically sponsored research in terms of access by the public?

–        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE63BYWdqC4&feature=relmfu (This video is an advert, please watch this video with a critical lens)

Day 4

(Slideshare – Cameron Neylon – http://www.slideshare.net/CameronNeylon/open-access-open-data-open-research-presentation)

1) – You have just written an article and you have three choices to where you are able to submit your article:

a) to an Open Access Journal where the university would cover the writer’s fee (if there is a fee) to submit the article.

b) to an Open Access Journal where the writer or the grant agency that is sponsoring him or her has to pay a processing fee to submit the article.

c) to a traditional, toll-access journal (TAJ) where institutions and individuals must subscribe to access its articles or must pay individually for every article, but the writer submitting the article does not have to pay (since the university libraries pay a subscription to access the TAJ (toll-access journal), the TAJ does not have an article processing fee).

Which one of these three journals would you choose as the site through which to submit your article and what are some of the reasons you would chose this journal (please indicate what would be the most important aspect in making this decision)? How much does the journal’s status as an Open Access Journal or Toll/Traditional Access Journal play a role in making your final decision?

2) In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in subscriptions costs to journals. Some of them cost of $20,000 per yearly institutional subscription. As a result some companies currently earn a profit margin between 15 and 35%. Because of the rising cost of subscriptions, many universities have reduced their number of subscriptions. To what extent should journals benefit from selling a subscription to their journals when, at times, the research used to write the articles had been previously paid for by the government and its tax payers?

3) Projecting yourself two, five and ten years into the future what role do you see open access playing for academia and society? What do you feel are the strongest factors in bringing about change or maintaining the status quo? To what extent do you think there is a generational difference in the support for openness, and open access journals?

Day 5

4) To what extent are you aware of who owns the copyright for an article that you publish and the author’s right to retain copyright? Many individuals are not aware of their copyright options. To what extent are you aware of what the SPARC Author Addendum or Creative Commons licenses can mean for you? What license do you usually use for your creative works?

Vertical Discourse Analysis of ICT Policies: Policy Borrowing from the International to the Regional to the Local. A study of the policy recommendations from the World Summit on the Information Society (2003-2005), and their impact on Latin American regional ICT policy recommendations, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia’s national ICT plans.

10/19/2011

“Like the generations before us, we may be preoccupied with specific and possibly ephemeral events and trends, at the risk of overlooking what only many years from now will be seen as the fundamental dynamic of our age” (Beniger, 1986, p. 3)

Technologies have shaped the course of human kind throughout history (Adas, 1990)[1]. Faced with obstacles, “modern men [made] use of sophisticated technology to remake their environment and change their social systems in ways intended to advance… the development of society as a whole” (Adas, 1990, p. 413) After a technology is adopted, returning to a stage where this technology is no longer utilized is often a difficult, if not impossible, endeavor (McClellan & Dorn, 2006). Beginning with the mastery of fire, the development of simple stone tools during the Paleolithic age, and the subsequent development of more advanced stone tools during the Neolithic age, technologies have transformed the life of man[CEHD1]  to such an extent they define the ages in which we live (Toth & Schick, 2007). Technological progress, particularly since the industrial revolution, has led to the acceleration of the rate of change and rate of human progress (McClellan & Dorn, 2006; Kurzweil, 2005). Modern technologies and the promise of future innovations may eventually lead to a better world for everyone (Sachs, 2005).

The Paleolithic period accounts for 99% of human history, and it defined an age for our specie[CEHD2] [CEHD3] , yet as modern technologies continue to transform society their half-life becomes ever shorter (Kapp & McKeague, 2002). Technologies such as photography and telegraphy (1830s), rotary power printing (1840s), the typewriter (1860s), the transatlantic cable (1866), and the telephone (1876), had a major impact on information and telecommunication transfer, yet they have since either experienced major changes or been replaced by a more advanced technology all together (Beniger, 1986; Toth & Schick, 2007). How exactly the Neanderthal civilization perished is still debated,[CEHD4]  however, what we know for certain is that their dominance over Euro-Asia waned over time, leading to their eventual assimilation or extermination. Their demise is likely linked to their inability to match the technological advances made by homo sapiens sapiens[CEHD5]  (Headrick, 2009). Technology was then, and continues to be, a major determinant over who will succeed following a clash of civilizations. “Making and using tools and the cultural transmission of technology became essential to the human mode of existence and was practiced in all human societies” (McClellan & Dorn, 2006[CEHD6] ). Since history began to be written down, the defeat of one civilization over another can, in many instances, be linked to the capabilities of technologies, whether they are theoretical or organizational in nature, such as a more advanced code of law, mass schooling, democracy or whether they are actual physical tools such as the development of bronze weapons, written language, the firearm, or nuclear power. Technology has driven the “advance” of our species and has permitted us to be able to provide for over six billion people who inhabit the earth simultaneously.

However, despite their promise, technology has also allowed us to extract natural resources at an unsustainable rate (Clover, 2008; Kunstler, 2006). We have also increasingly extinguished species, and millions of individuals have died or may lose their life in a future conflict in the name of science and progress (Black, 2001). Conspicuous consumption and increased consumerism have exacerbated these problems, which, to some, can be best addressed through the development of new technology. Issues such as obesity and unsatisfactory looks are solved through cosmetic surgery. In an ever more technologically dependent world, we have become increasingly reliant on our own technologies, yet their improvement on individuals’ happiness has been questioned (Marks, Abdallah, & Simms, 2006).  Over time, failed technologies have lost favor and been discontinued, yet before this time arrives their cost can be great. Technologies are also developed regularly and many of them will not be adopted by the majority of the population (Rogers, 2003; Kelley & Littman, 2005).

However, as technological development increases in its rate of improvement and innovation, and we live in a state of rapid, continuous development, it is important to remain vigilant of these changes, and to develop a national policy that not only encourages the adoption of the best technologies available but also encourages the development of new technologies (Schaller, 1997; Christensen, 1997). According to Castells (1999) by ignoring recent global changes, and not taking part in the Information Society, a country could marginalize itself, becoming part of the ‘Fourth World’ (Castells, 1999, p. 10). To others, however, new information communication technologies (ICTs), such as the television, the computer, the internet, multiplayer video games, and the cell phone are having a detrimental effect on our health and our children’s, as well as isolating us from our natural environment, leading to a rise in obesity and other social problems (Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Anderson & Bushman, 2001[CEHD7] ).

Currently, higher levels of educational achievement are promoted for the economic prosperity and human development of societies (Birdsall, Levine, & Ibrahim, 2005). Also countries have increased their efforts in recruiting and training science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) students by offering them financial benefits for migrating or returning to their country of origin (USCIS, 2011; Rovai, 2008). Because of its enduring impact on the future, one of the technologies that has increasingly been transferred and emulated has been educational technologies (Ramirez & Meyer, 1980; Gatto, 2003). Since the spread of mass education, governments have amended and developed policies to reach a level of educational achievement comparable to other nations, resulting in a growing ‘world culture’ or increasing international isomorphism. For Ramirez and Meyer (1980) mass education partly spread from the development of nation states and their desire for legitimacy and citizenship formation (Ramirez & Meyer, 1980).

Increasingly interconnected and competing for resources[CEHD8] , some of the technologies that have led to increases in productivity and learning in a particular country are then borrowed internationally and enacted as policies by different nation-states, with the hope of improving test scores and national educational standards[CEHD9]  (Baker & Letendre, 2005; Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Policy transfers, policy borrowing, policy bilingualism, externalization, and policyscape are theories that are used to explain the internationalization of various policies within the education policy literature (Carney, 2009; Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006; Baker & Lete[CEHD10] ndre, 2005; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2009). These theories are themselves technologies [CEHD11] which attempt to explain the international transfer of policies, another type of technology.

Having shaped the history of the past, and currently rapidly changing, modern education policy researchers would benefit from studying the implications of technology[CEHD12]  today, and what it will mean for education in the future (Cairncross, 1997; Donner, 2008; Katz, 2008). Particular types of policy that have been borrowed and implemented in recent years are ICT policies[CEHD13]  (Thompson, 2004; Castells, 1999; Avgerou, 2003). Thompson’s (2004) study focused on the growing interrelationship between ICT discourse and the development discourse, explaining that, while by some ICT has been seen as a way of addressing all ‘development’ problems, others have emphasized how many countries have had limited influence as to whether or not to adopt pro-ICT policies and reforms. Seeing ICT as a way through which to address development problems has resulted in the increased financing of ICT related projects over other projects that have been shown to obtain positive development results. As mentioned within the WSIS[CEHD14]  Geneva 2003 and WSIS Tunis 2005 documents, ICTs have the potential to improve standards of living internationally, increase the rate of communication and information exchange as well as improve the quantity and quality of both formal and informal educational resources available.

ICTs are also increasingly playing a role in international affairs, global culture and academia. The stock market serves as one indication of these changes. Developed only in 2003, Facebook has over 500 million members. Google, Apple and Microsoft, three major technological businesses, are each valued at over $150 billion dollars[CEHD15] . Colleges and universities have also increasingly invested in ICT. Attempting to obtain a competitive advantage, a growing number of students are attending school online, accounting for 29.3% of the student body in 2009 (Allen & Seaman, 2010), a pattern that is expected to continue to increase. In an arms race, college tuition continues to rise as institutions compete to strengthen their appeal and diversify their product (Ehrenberg, 2002). Some of the technologies that account for the increased costs of tuition are investments in ICTs. Universities across the United States and the world are allocating more and more funds to purchase projectors, servers, fiber optics, broadband access, and provide access to online books and libraries, tablets, and other recent technological tools, which may give their students an advantage as they enter into the Information Society[CEHD16] . Sometimes technologies are adopted without a clear objective in mind or a well define plan for their implementation (Chapman & Mahlck, 2004; Warschauer, 2004). Yet, as it is argued by world culture theorists[CEHD17] , modernization scholars, and proponents of policyscape, these developments are increasingly spreading across the globe and influencing local cultures (Carney, 2009)[2]. They are also likely to continue spreading, increasing international isomorphism[CEHD18]  (Baker & Letendre, 2005). Least spoken languages are expected to continue dying and traditional ways of living in other cultures will continue to be eroded, some will soon disappear completely[CEHD19]  (Harrison, 2010)

As recommended by the World Bank, and InfoDev, the technology and innovation arm of the World Bank, countries have been encouraged to improve their ‘e-readiness index’[3]. Thompson (2004) concludes that the World Bank offers no alternatives to the “existing development order, and ICT is seen by the bank as key to its future expansion” (p. 115). The World Bank’s ICT-enhanced notion of the future is common among intergovernmental and multinational organizations who seldom mention a desire to move away from an increasingly interconnected world. Increasing in relevance as a growing source of information for children, ICTs will likely play an ever greater role within education policy (Prensky, 2001; Cobo & Moravec, 2011; Kamenetz, 2010). ICTs are a major ingredient in the increasingly globalized and internet connected world, and in international development circles, as evidenced by the emergence of ICT for Development (ICT4D) studies (Friedman, 2007; Chapman & Mahlck, 2004). The comparative education society [CEHD20] stands to benefit from better understanding the ICT discourse and its implication for education[CEHD21] [CEHD22]  (Wilson, 2003).

Borrowing elements from vertical-case study analysis, by framing the study as a vertical analysis of ICT policy from the international, to the regional to the national level, and illustrating the regional impact of ICT policy recommendations by analyzing and comparing the national ICT policies of Colombia and the Dominican Republic (DR[CEHD23] ), this paper uses elements from critical discourse analysis (CDA) to illustrate how the recommendations of the WSIS have been implemented similarly across countries in Latin America.  Nation-states emphasize the need to increase access and transform their culture and country into a more influential participant in the information society, however within the policies, there is scant criticism over the foreign nature of the technological adaptations and their possible detrimental effects over local cultures are rarely mentioned (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2009; Castells, 1999). The DR, Colombia and other countries in Latin America would perhaps benefit from a process of hybridization of international ICT with local traditional technologies to create a form of development that takes advantage of these new technologies to improve living standards and quality of life but that also preserves their national identity. However, to date, national ICT policy has centered primarily on improving international standards and competition, at the expense of consideration of local cultures and traditions[CEHD24] . [CEHD25]

The WSIS, eLAC, the Dominican Republic and Colombia’s ICT Positions

Beginning with the 2003 United Nations (UN) World Summit (WS) in Geneva and the release of the Geneva Action Plan (GAP-03) and followed by the 2005 UN WS in Tunis and the drafting of the Tunis Commitment (TC-05), along with other publications, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has promoted the reduction of the digital divide. It advocates for increased digital inclusion into the information society and, through it, the improvement of government, the economy, civil society, and education around the world. The WSIS was endorsed by UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 and attended by close to 50 heads of government and 82 Ministers, as well as many other high level functionaries from 175 countries. Discussion focused on the steps that needed to be taken to achieve an “Information Society for all” (WSIS, 2006). The UN holds a WS on a different topic every year. As a WS, the WSIS serves as a space where proposals can be developed that deal with an issue of global concern on an international, cooperative level. As a WS it is highly visible and can have a strong impact in terms of advocacy and for the development of guidelines for countries and regions to follow. Two documents are traditionally developed; a “declaration of principles” and a “plan of action”. This paper analyses the “plan of action” which traditionally “might define high-level policy initiatives, set milestones for implementation, or call for funding of program areas” (Klein, 2004). The WSIS was a participatory conference which included six preparatory committees and regional committees. These committees met between December 2001 and December 2003 and, lasting much longer than the summit itself, they are considered the place where the “most intense activity occurs” (Klein, 2004[CEHD26] ). The WS itself typically lasts a couple of days during which heads of state deliver speeches and ratify the documents produced during the preparatory committees. The WSIS included ‘local voices’ by including various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and members of Civil Society Organizations (CSO), as well as the participation of the public within their regional meetings. While Cammaerts and Carpentier (2005) contribute to better understanding the limitations of CSO participation within the WSIS and its inability to accomplish ‘full participation’, they considered the WSIS to have been more open for participation than previous WS. The forum has allowed individuals to be part of the discussions through the internet, and included a substantial number of perspectives within its framework (Cammaerts & Carpentier, 2005)

Since 2005, the WSIS has held two additional forums (2010, 2011) and has transformed into a source of continued publications regarding digital access and the digital divide, as well as an online environment where a discussion regarding steps needed to meet the goals of the Information Society continues to take place (http://groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2011/Home.aspx)[4][CEHD27] . The Information Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency, oversees the WSIS and is charged with enabling the sustained growth of telecommunications and information access so that all states can benefit from the “emerging” information society and global economy. The WSIS and the ITU are principal sources of policy recommendations regarding ICT adoption worldwide. They are responsible for monitoring ICT conditions internationally as well as developing and following up on the GAP-03, to meet the challenge of transforming the world into a global “inclusive information society” (WSIS, 2003). Despite the rapid change in technological development, the goals of the GAP-03 continue to be of significant global importance today. Dealing with issues such as access and inclusion to digital technologies, and outlining a list of objectives, goals, and targets, the plan encourages nation-states to address some of the challenges that have arisen as a consequence of the rapid rate of innovation and change within the ICT industry. GAP-03 emphasized the need for a larger role for governments in ICT development, infrastructure development, increased access, increased capacity, increased security, the creation of an enabling environment, improvements in all aspects of life (e-commerce, e-science, e-learning, e-health, etc), strengthening of ethics, increased role of media and, of particular interest to this study, the need for international and regional cooperation, for promoting greater dialog among cultures, including linguistic diversity, identity, and the development of local content.

The WSIS TC-05 reinforced these objectives by advocating for the reduction of the gender divide within the digital divide, highlighting the importance of giving special attention to the needs of marginalized and vulnerable voices, as well as reaffirming the need for governments to increase access to information communication technologies (ICTs) and the needs for ICT access to become increasingly “universal, ubiquitous, equitable and affordable” throughout the world (WSIS, 2005). The TC-05 articulated the importance of ICT policy in contributing to the free exchange of information, the improvement of human rights, democracy and in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Following the TC-05, the issues identified by the WS were rearticulated by regional organizations, among them the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). ECLAC is responsible for organizing conferences and intergovernmental meetings, as well as analyzing global issues through a regional lens. Through ECLAC, Latin American countries periodically discuss the topics raised by WSIS 03 / 05 and changes that have taken place as a result of progress towards achieving their objectives or global technological advancements. To address some of the most pressing issues Latin American (LA) governments came together to develop a regional action plan (RAP). The 2005 RAP or eLAC-05 discusses regional information communication practices and their implications for economic development. ECLAC has held three forums since 2005; eLAC-05, 2007 and 2010, where Latin American and Caribbean member states have agreed on a set of initiatives based on “common public policy challenges” (ECLAC, 2011). Since the original meetings, there have been a number of follow ups and reports that have illustrated some of the achievements made since the publication of the RAP as well as updated the objectives in the light of these advances. Over time newer technologies, such as broadband access, have increased in importance. This paper analyses both the eLAC-05 and the eLAC-10 policy recommendations (ECLAC, 2005; ECLAC, 2008).

This study also analyzes policy discourse at a national level. While LA countries share a number of commonalities, their levels of ICT development vary considerably. As a result, despite borrowing policies from the WSIS and eLAC recommendations, governments have also emphasized issues of specific concern in their country within their national ICT policies. Along with those voices, the national-level discourse also includes notable silences. Regional competition and the desire to play a greater international role within the global Information Society have also led to a selective policy borrowing and policyscape, leaving issues such as the development of media content by marginalized communities or an emphasis on gender equality as minor issues within the broader national ICT policy. To have a greater understanding of the ICT discourse in Latin America, its origin, policy congruencies and differences, this study provides a three tiered vertical analysis by also deconstructing the discourse of the Colombian 2008-2019 ICT National Plan (CNICT-19) and 2007-2010 ICT Plan of the DR (2007 E-Dominicana or DRICT-10) (MINTIC, 2008; CNSIC, 2007). These countries represent two economies within LA that have supported a movement towards a free-market economy and have a strong relationship with the United States. Having openly embraced the transformation into a knowledge economy and striving to become a more prominent player in the information society, they have enacted similar pro-ICT policies. However, by illustrating various national indicators and some of the differences between the two countries, this study hopes to show why the DRICT-10 and the CNICT-19 have noticeable differences in their objectives and discourse. [CEHD28]

The DR has increasingly transformed into a primarily urban and service-oriented economy. Primarily through the growth of tourism, the service industry has risen to over 66% of GDP. This change has been beneficial to the D.R.’s economy, which has grown steadily since the 1980s, having an average economic growth rate of 5.43% from 2007 to 2009 and a per capita GDP of $8,300 (CIA, 2010). Free trade policies have led to the improvement of aggregate economic statistics for most Latin America countries, including the D.R. (UN Millennium Project, 2005). However, in 2008, 42% of the population lived below the poverty line (World Bank, 2008). In 2007, 11.2% of the population continued to live on less than a dollar a day (UNESCO, 2010), and the country had an unemployment rate of 14.9% (CIA, 2010). The literacy rate remains below the regional average of 91% at 88.2% and total public spending on education (% of GDP) is low, at a level of 2.2% in 2007, compared to a world average of 4.6% in 2006 (World Bank, 2010). To a large extent, the government has focused on increasing access to ICTs for the general population[CEHD29] . Greater investment and emphasis on ICT development has contributed to the rapid expansion of Internet use in the D.R. in recent years, increasing from 183.687 Internet accounts in 2006 to 508.603 Internet accounts by June 2010.  Based on the average users per Internet connection, INDOTEL believes that 33% of Dominicans, or 3,214,371 people, had access to the Internet by June 2010 (INDOTEL, 2010). The D.R. has a cell phone use rate of 0.91 cellular phones per person[CEHD30]  (INDOTEL, 2010), and mobile phone coverage is increasing in rural areas.

Colombia’s economy is more diverse than that of the DR with 38% of GDP originating from the industrial sector and 52.7% from service industries (CIA, 2011). Colombia is the third largest exporter of oil to the United States. As a development plan, the Colombian government recently instituted a locomotive policy, whereby, the government will concentrate on extractive industries, agriculture, infrastructure, housing and innovation to promote economic growth. In Colombia 17.8% of the population lives on less than 2 dollars a day and 7% lives on less than a dollar a day (World Bank, 2010). The country had an unemployment rate of 11.8% in 2010, and 75% of the population lives in urban areas. It has a population of 44,725,543 people, with a GDP growth rate of 4.4% in 2010. Per Capita GDP was estimated at $9,800 in 2010 (CIA, 2011). Investment in education is higher than in the DR, accounting for 4.8% of the GDP. In terms of ICT, mobile phone penetration grew drastically from 17.7% in 2003 to 83.5% in 2009. Computer ownership per household is at 22.6%, television ownership at 87.4%, and 15% of households have access to the internet (DANE, 2009) The Colombian government has invested 4% of GDP in ICT developments (World Bank, 2011). As illustrated with other ICT variables within Table 1.1 (Annex) and Picture 1.1 (Annex), Colombia exhibits a greater overall level of access to ICTs than the DR but not in every sector of ICT development. With a number of similarities but also some important differences in terms of history, geography, and socio-economic structure of the state, both the Colombian and the Dominican policy emphasize different aspects of the WSIS and eLAC policy suggestions.

CNICT-19 emphasizes e-government development and the administration’s attempts to increase participatory elements within its ICT initiatives. CNICT-19 encouraged anyone interested to provide suggestions that could, perhaps, be incorporated into the policy development process. By contrast, the DRICT-10 focused to a greater extent on the importance of education and explained in more detail how certain projects were aimed at reducing digital exclusion. Providing a detailed overview of how ICTs would play a role within their education plan may be a consequence of their underperformance on international education tests and evaluations, and the visibility of the subject within national debate. In addition, in alignment with the recent establishment of a dedicated ICT agency and the growth of the sector in the DR during the government of Leonel Fernandez, the 2007 ICT national plan explained how different recently established government agencies such as INDOTEL and ITLA are interrelated and how their cooperation, as well as the success of various of the government initiatives, was essential for a smoother, quicker transition into the knowledge economy. The analysis below will show that .Colombia’s plan seemed to be primarily interested in comparisons with other nations across the globe and regionally and highlighted their desire to become one of the three most developed economies in the region in terms of ICT. In contrast, the DR’s plan…A[CEHD31]  large portion of Colombia’s ICT plan focused on regional comparison. The document repeatedly addresses the need for greater access, but does not elaborate in detail as to how ICT would increasingly be included within education. Part of this may be the result of having met certain goals as a government, and problems which are visible to other countries, no longer being as widespread in Colombia, have therefore become “invisible”.

Methodology and Methods

Despite marginal differences in emphasis, every country in the region, and most countries in the world, have invested in ICT technologies and hope to increasingly provide broadband access to their citizens, improve rural inclusion and, as was promoted by the GAP-03 and TC-05 WISI policy recommendations, play a larger role within the global Information Society. In this sense, the world appears to be increasingly flat, where certain ideas transcend borders as policyscapes, resulting in a more homogenous world, supporting the claims of world systems theorists. Policyscapes or increased similarities and isomorphism between policies being implemented internationally is a common factor of modern policy implementation. ICT policy in particular may closely align with this phenomenon. As mentioned by Carney (2009) policyscapes or certain “policies and practice are of transnational character. They are globalized messages projected across educational spaces and translated in ways that resonate in particular contexts” (p. 68). A similar joined vision is alluded to in the eLAC website:

“Contrary[CEHD32]  to other divisive issues in the development agenda, the use of ICTs does not appear to arouse controversy. International cooperation and the sharing of experiences in this development area are welcome by the vast majority of governments and other interested parties. Disagreements may arise over specific issues, but the desire to collaborate is never at issue. The use of new technologies in development strategies has turned out to be a unifying issue which has encouraged and accelerated integration and cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean.” (ECLAC, 2011)

Yet, various variations within the discourse also indicate that the nation-states, when possible, tailor-fit policies to their needs (Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006). The national discourse of ICT in Latin America is “glocal” and should be perceived as such. As Carney (2009) himself indicates, the way in which policies are borrowed or translated is significant and has national development implications, at times not being much more than “discursive borrowing” (p. 81). The extent to which a policy is borrowed can vary greatly, from being transferred literately to being borrowed in name only[CEHD33]  (Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006).

However, parallel to the increasing isomorphism, there are also noticeable and critical differences in the way policy recommendations are borrowed. To better discuss some of these differences, this study borrows elements from vertical case studies by looking at an issue in the macro or international level, the meso or regional level and micro or local level simultaneously. It also borrows elements from CDA by analyzing the discourse through a critical lens. As with vertical case studies, there are three levels of analysis usually included within a CDA, the micro-level or an analysis of the text’s syntax, the meso-level or the text production and consumption, and the macro-level or the broader societal issues, this study currently emphasizes primarily the micro, text-syntax and content-analysis of the CDA (Stemler, 2001; Fairclough & Holes, 1995). The macro level is discussed in the introduction to this article which the broader controversial discussion surrounding technology, its influence, importance, and its limitations. Aspects of the meso-level are analyzed within the section containing historical and relevant information about the WSIS, ECLAC, and the DRICT and CNITC plans. Nevertheless, most of the study focuses on the micro level of analysis (Fairclough & Holes, 1995). A further study should emphasize in greater detail why particular issues were favored by the DR and Colombia within their national policies over other suggestions from the WSIS and eLAC documents.

With ICT being grounded in a particular location, this study provides a background for ICT policy in the DR and Colombia, as well as details about the WSIS and eLAC policy development, analyzing ICT policy at three different levels simultaneously; the national, the regional, and the local. As stated by Vavrus and Barlett (2006) vertical case study provides “a means of comparing knowledge claims among actors with different social locations in a vertically-bounded analysis” (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2006, p. 92). While a vertical case study would usually focus on only a single country, by focusing on two countries this study hopes to provide an additional point of comparison[CEHD34] . Both countries share the same regional and international ICT policy recommendations as well as a similar cultural heritage. Yet, while this study discusses some of the differences between the DR and Colombia, a more detailed discussion of the ICT and development history would be needed to conduct the in depth study which is typical of a vertical case study. Nevertheless, while it is not a vertical case study under the traditional interpretation of the theory, it is informed by the idea of looking at an issue or a policy in a vertical manner.

Borrowing from CDA an interest in analyzing inequalities through discourse, the “structures of dominance, discrimination power, and control,” as well as investigating the social construction of meanings, this study critiques the WSIS policies for their lack of consideration regarding the implications of ICTs for local cultures and their influence on the import to export ratios of nation-states (Wodak, 1995, p. 204). While guidelines for an inclusive ICT policy are discussed, ICT expansion itself is never questioned but rather promoted, despite a long history within ICT4D of failed attempts to introduce technology in certain sectors, especially within education[CEHD35] . In addition, while the WSIS has increasingly encouraged participation, the level of participation to date can best be categorized as limited, and the achievements of the WSIS have been, and should be, questioned (Hamelink, 2004; Cammaerts & Carpentier, 2005). This study serves as the beginning of a detailed discourse analysis of the UN WSIS policy. A future study should further discuss national ICT emphasizing their prioritization for improving international standards over preserving traditions by including local technologies and perspectives within their ICT development policies.

In addition, a future study could include a comparison between policy discourse and changes in national conditions. As both the CNICT-19 and the DRICT-10 plans begin with an overview of current national conditions and both documents determine the year 2010 as one of the benchmark year. By researching these years, we could analyze the statistical data from the time the policy was drafted until 2010. This study offers an opportunity to observe if there are any correlations between the discourse, and statistical changes in ICT conditions. Discourse is innately political and by choosing to emphasize certain elements within the discourse, certain ICT objectives may be more successfully addressed. A future expansion of this study will analyze such statistical changes to compare how this has affected the focus of national ICT plans, and government expenditure on ICT, in an attempt to find correlations between the statistical changes and the policy discourse.

Word Frequency Analysis

To better visualize common topics within the different policy documents that were selected, I conducted a word frequency analysis of all of the documents and analyzed which words were frequently mentioned across the different texts. Word clouds were also developed to supplement the word frequency analysis[CEHD36] . While these tables are not discussed within this paper, they were retained at the end of the document as a reference and an additional tool in understanding the differences and similarities between these policy documents. Please refer to Table 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and Pictures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 within the Annex section of the study. Words that included dashes or words with Spanish accented syllabus could not be counted by the word frequency software. The word cloud of the CNICT-19 includes the text repeated within the footer of every page of the document therefore increasing the frequency of a few words that would not be as common within the document’s text were it not for their repetition in the footer. This problem was corrected in the frequency tables but it was not removed from the world cloud’s graphical representation[CEHD37] .

Major Themes within the Policy Documents

            After reading and coding the six documents analyzed in this study, the following categories stood out as important policy elements of the WSIS recommendations that were further discussed or at times overlooked in the drafting of the regional policy recommendations, and the national ICT development plans. It is possible that other categories would also have stood out as relevant to a different researcher[CEHD38] . However, as important as the topics addressed, this section also illustrates how certain policies were borrowed while others were not seen as relevant to the national development plans. In can be argued that while there is a high level of isomorphism, there are also important national differences. A comparison of regional policies will likely highlight a similar selective policy implementation between regions. The major themes discussed below are: development and ICT; upcoming objectives and deadlines; development of national e-strategies; sustainable national e-strategies; connecting and using ICT in educational environments; increased access to television and radio services; facilitate the use of all of the world languages through the internet; cultural diversity – identity, traditions and religion; older people, the disabled and the marginalized; barriers and gender; e-government – a transparent and supportive framework; e-systems and e-strategies; prevention and security[CEHD39] .

Development and ICT

“Development” was one of the most commonly mentioned words in the documents. Development within WSIS is seen as an instrument to promote economic growth, full employment and competitiveness. Movement or development towards an information society framed the WSIS meetings and the subsequent discussions at the regional and national level. Using ICT and knowledge, WSIS encouraged states to “transform” themselves and the activities, interactions and lives of their citizens (WSIS, 2005, p. 1). These themes were then further developed by eLAC 2007, which encouraged regional cooperation to address national priorities through the collaboration of civil society, the private sector and academia. eLAC 2010 mentions its support of both WSIS forums and the possibilities of ICT to impact progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (ECLAC, 2008, p.1[CEHD40] ). The CNICT plan promotes the efficient use of ICTs in order to increase competitiveness and social inclusion while emphasizing the positive impact similar changes have had in other nation-states (MINTIC, 2008, p.20). Colombia’s plan also reiterated their commitment to both WSIS GAP-03 and WSIS TC-05. The DRICT plan envisions development primarily through fostering the DR’s transition into the globalized world and increasing international connections. The DRICT-10 cited both eLAC-07 and the WSIS Forums in 2003 and 2005 as providing a pathway towards development. ‘Development’ appears to be aligned within the policy documents with the increased access and use of ICTs.

Upcoming Objective / Deadlines

The documents reinstated the importance of the MDGs and the need to bring about significant changes by 2015. As an “important stepping-stone in the world’s efforts to eradicate poverty” (WSIS, 2005, p.1) and to meet the Millennium Development Goals, the WSIS TC-05 proposes a number of strategies, such as the need to “actively engage youth in ICT development programs” (ibid, p.4) and for ICT development that pays “attention to the needs of the marginalized” (ibid, p.3). However, no specific dates are mentioned. This approach at policy recommendation contrasts strongly with eLAC-07, where specific goals and deadlines are stated explicitly throughout the document. These policy recommendations include training “at least one third of teachers in the use of ICTs” by mid 2007 (ECLAC, 2005, p.1) or developing national, sub-regional, and regional ICT-based education networks by the end of 2006 (ibid, p.3). So far, eLAC has produced three different reports providing updated statistics that measure both the overall progress of eLAC, and country by country breakdowns of progress towards particular objectives. At a national level, the CNICT-19 established 2019 as the end point for the current plan, and the MDG deadline of 2015 is not mentioned within the document. Rather it states the need for every Colombian to be connected and informed by 2019 (MINTIC, 2008, p.4) and sets out a national objective for Colombia to be ranked among the top three countries in terms of the use of ICTs by 2019 (ibid, p.10). The DRICT-10 aims to achieve the stated improvements by 2010.  Among the targets set out are broadband access for all by 2010 (CNSIC, 2007, p.11) and all public institutions being connected to the internet by 2010 (ibid, p.11) offering its citizens access to financial and administrative information as well as ways in which to participate.

Development of National E-Strategies

Calling for local governments to play a greater role on ICT policy, the WSIS encouraged regional and national bodies to increase citizen participation by working with civil society organizations, as well as the private sector in drafting the most adequate public policy (WSIS, 2003, p.1, 6; WSIS, 2005, p. 1, 4, 5). eLAC-07 set a short term goal for November 2005 that every country would establish a mechanism to enable civil society’s participation (ECLAC, 2005, p.6). These goals were reiterated in eLAC-10, which also highlighted the importance of developing education programs with national certificates. The document emphasizes the roles of both civil society and the private sector in transforming national conditions (ECLAC, 2008, p.2, 13, 14). The importance of working together to meet the larger challenge is restated within the CNICT-19 plan (MINTIC, 2008, p. 86). The plan also calls for the participation of academia, and argues that, by collaborating, goals can be achieved at a faster rate (ibid, p. 101). The DRICT-10 plan similarly borrows the WSIS phrasing in encouraging the cooperation of civil society, the private sector, and the public sector in the design and application of projects for the promotion and use of ICTs by society (CNSIC, 2007, p.104).

Sustainable National E-Strategies

Arguing in support of sustainable e-strategies, as is promoted by the TC-2005, eLAC-07 promotes a reduction in the number of average users per ICT center to 20,000 for both private and public centers (ECLAC, 2005, p.1). eLAC-10 encourages the development of public-private partnerships with commercial providers in the hope of strengthening the regional market for digital services (ECLAC, 2008,p.12). These objectives are reiterated in the CNITC-19, which promotes the development of a monitoring and evaluation oriented strategy (MINTIC, 2008, p. 89). The DRICT-10 document advocates for a development plan that contributes to citizens’ wellbeing and progress (CNSIC, 2008, p.5).

Connecting and Using ICT in Educational Environments

“ICT can contribute to achieving universal education worldwide” (WSIS, 2003, p.5) is one of many objectives the WSIS GAP-03 promotes. In addition it argues for the increased connectivity of educational institutions, archives, cultural centers, libraries, and community access points (ibid p.3). By encouraging formal and informal education, ICT is seen as a way in which to promote lifelong learning (ibid, p.5). eLAC-07 also outlines various education related objectives, including the need to increase, and if possible to double, the number of public schools and libraries that are connected to the internet by mid 2007 (ECLAC, 2005, p.1). Another goal was to contextualize ICT use so that the technologies are relevant to the local population (ibid[CEHD41] , p.1). Fostering the growth of e-learning along with increasing the number of students with computers was also encouraged (ibid, p.1). The CNICT-19 plan also aimed to enable the inclusion of all students in the information society (MINTIC, 2008, P.8) and promotes the increased use of ICT both within formal learning and information learning. A flexible and global frame that encourages lifelong learning is proposed (MINTIC, 2008, p.3). The Colombian government’s goal for 2010 was to have a ratio of 1 computer connected to broadband internet per 20 students, and only 1 computer per every 5 students by 2019 (ibid, p.27). Colombia had made extensive progress from 2005 to 2007 when access increased from 55 students per computer to 35 students per computer (ibid, p.27). The DR had less ambitious goals in its DRICT plan, stating that it hoped to reduce the computer per student ratio to less than 200 students per computer (CNSIC, 2007, p.32). Also, the DR aimed to reduce illiteracy from 11.0% to a rate lower than the CEPAL average of 9.5% (ibid, p.27). More importantly they intend to increase investment in education as a percentage of national GDP above the 2004 level of just 2% (ibid, p.27).

Increased Access to Television and Radio Services

While WSIS GAP-03 emphasizes the need for televisions and radios to be accessible to all (WSIS, 2003, p.13), this concern is not so evident in the e-LAC publications. Instead their primary focus is the need for additional digital content, including educational content, to be developed[CEHD42] . This is also the main issue of concern in the CNICT-19 and the DRICT-10 plan. In Latin America, the widespread and increasing diffusion of television and radio technology obviates the need for policies focusing merely on increasing access, shifting the focus to how these technologies can best be harnessed as a tool for the spread of both formal and informal education, as well as serving to increase a person’s level of familiarity with digital literacies.

Facilitate the Use of All of the World Languages through the Internet

The preservation of least spoken languages and the possibilities for the internet in helping to maintain them has been explored by various programs, and it is also a concern for the WSIS. Developed originally in the United States, the internet is primarily an English environment, and has only gradually changed to include other major languages. However, there are few websites for speakers of least spoken languages and even sites in other major languages, such as the government web pages from Japan can be read both in Japanese or English.  WSIS GAP-03 encourages the development of content in different languages and “to put in place technical conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet” (WISI, 2003, p.2). The WSIS TC-05 declaration “further commit [it]self to promote the inclusion of all peoples in the Information Society through the development and use of local and/or indigenous languages in ICTs” (WISI, 2005, p.4). eLAC-07 also mentions the importance of stimulating content development in local and indigenous languages, and for individuals with disabilities, by mid 2007 (p.1), in addition to asserting  its support of the WSIS Forum’s statements on indigenous rights (ECLAC, 2005, p.6). This concern is less visible in the eLAC-10 document, but developing local content remains a priority. The creation of local content is also mentioned within the CNITC-19 plan (MINTEC 2008, p. 30, p.34), but there in all its 165 pages there is no mention of indigenous languages. Similarly the DRICT-10 plan mentions the need for content to be developed in Spanish (CNSIC, 2007, p.70), yet there is no mention of other cultures or the development of certain websites in Haitian Creole[CEHD43] . The DRICT-10 plan claims that although Spanish is the second most spoken language worldwide, Spanish websites account for only 4.6% of all web pages[CEHD44]  (ibid, p.70).

Cultural Diversity – Identity, Traditions and Religion

Apart from expressing a concern for preserving other languages, WSIS GAP-03 also hopes to stimulate “respect for cultural identity, traditions and religions” (WISI, 2003, p.9). This is encouraged through the creation of policies that support the respect, preservation, enhancement, and promotion of cultural diversity and cultural heritage within the Information Society. The WSIS TC-05 declaration also emphasized the importance of preserving indigenous traditions, their cultural heritage, and legacy (WSIS, 2005, p.4). In alignment with these concerns, eLAC-07 gives special attention to the MDGs that deal with multicultural content within universal primary education (ECLAC, 2005, p.5). eLAC-07 also stresses the need to develop “a network of social stakeholders that are committed to the production and diffusion of cultural goods that contribute to the reinforcement of regional identity and the development of local employment” (ibid, p.4), as well as greater access to local historical data. The document promotes the development of national knowledge networks and an increased relationship with regional networks such as RedCLARA[CEHD45]  (ibid, p.3). eLAC-10 concentrates on increasing local capacity for the production of local content (ECLAC, 2007, p.11). DRICT-10 includes culture and availability of cultural information as one of three key factors in increasing information access and knowledge, crucial for the transition to the Information Society (CNSIC, 2007, p. 8). The other two factors are infrastructure and access, and the development of human capital. The Dominican government hopes to achieve this target through “a series of activities and practices that favor the diffusion of information and propel its availability” (ibid, p.9). The document also includes a series of statements on how it intends to foster the increased consumption of information and content production. It also mentions the oral nature of culture the lack of consumption [CEHD46] of local content in comparison to other countries in the region, and the need to further document and preserve local culture (ibid, p.70). CNICT-19 focuses mainly on the transition to, or the development of, a national culture which uses and harnesses the power of ICT to encourage competitiveness, and the growing understanding of the nation’s reality regarding ICTs (MINTIC, 2008, p.50). CNICT-19 emphasizes the need to use ICTs in the most appropriate and relevant manner.

Older People, the Disabled and the Marginalized

An inclusive policy that increases access to ICTs was promoted by the WSIS GAP-03. This policy was re-phrased in WSIS TC-05 to include not only the old, disabled, marginalized, but also nomadic groups, migrants, displaced people and unemployed individuals (WSIS, 2005, p.3). eLAC-07 set a regional goal of training 2.5% of the working age population annually in ICT literacy, including content for individuals who are disadvantaged or marginalized (ECLAC, 2005, p.3). eLAC-10 focused on providing access to low-income sectors and remote or rural areas (ECLAC, 2008, p.7). The DRICT policy also concentrated on increasing access to ICTs for the vulnerable and low income households, as well as providing access to higher education (CNSIC, 2007, p. 48, 107). Similarly, the CNICT-19 plan  emphasized increasing ICT access for vulnerable individuals through the use of subsidies or other forms of government intervention (MINTIC, 2008, p. 108, 153). Increasing vulnerable populations’ access to e-government services is also one of the objectives of the CNICT plan.

Barriers and Gender

Concerns about increasing access to ICTs in terms of gender are also prominent within the documents. WSIS GAP-03 encourages “work on removing the gender barriers to ICT education and training and promoting equal training opportunities in ICT-related fields for women and girls” (WSIS, 2003, p.5). A gender sensitive curriculum (WSIS, 2003, p.10), gender-specific indicators (WSIS, 2003, p. 13), and gender equality (WSIS, 2003, p.8) are also encouraged. WSIS TC-05 further states that they acknowledge that a gender divide does exist (WSIS, 2005, p.3), and the need to develop programs that help women achieve full participation within the Information Society. eLAC-07 promotes the development of gender-specific indicators by mid 2007 as well as the development of ICT training that takes into account gender equity (ECLAC, 2005, p.3). eLAC-10 argues for the renewal of a mandate for a gender focused working group (ECLAC, 2008, p.3, 14) as well as policies combating gender discrimination (ibid, p.6). By setting up a regional working group which deals with issues related to gender and ICTs, eLAC hopes to promote the drafting of proposals for regional and national ICT initiatives that take gender into account. However, the DRICT-10 plan makes only a single statement pertaining to gender equity (CNSIC, 2007, p. 102), and surprisingly gender is not included as a concern within the CNICT-19 plan. Thus it appears that gender inequality, while a major concern at the international and even at the regional level, is only a marginal concern at the national level[CEHD47] [CEHD48] .

E-Government – A Transparent and Supportive Framework

E-Government and its applications in increasing transparency as well as creating a supportive legal environment for ICT were also promoted by the WSIS forum documents (WSIS, 2003, p.8). E-government was also seen as a way of increasing efficiency and “strengthening relationships with citizens” (ibid, p.8). By promoting transparency, WSIS GAP-03 also encouraged the publication of government documents openly on the internet by licensing them as part of the public domain (ibid, p.4). WSIS TC-05 does not mention government transparency yet it urges governments “to create public systems of information on laws and regulations, envisaging a wider development of public access points and supporting the broad availability of this information”  (WSIS, 2005, p.3). eLAC-07 subsequently set a goal of connecting half of urban governments and one third of rural governments to the internet by mid 2007 (ECLAC, 2005, p.2). It also encouraged the transfer of technologies and best practices related to e-government (ibid, p. 4). However, despite transparency being the title of a subsection, there is no additional mention of transparency, but rather a discussion on the increased use of ICTs within the government and its electoral system (ibid, p.4). eLAC-10 (ECLAC, 2008, p.14) reiterates the statements of eLAC-07 and these documents do both stress the importance of  transparent and democratic internet governance. CNICT-19 makes various mentions of the importance of transparency, to a greater extent than it is mentioned within both eLAC documents or the WSIS documents. CNICT contends that ICT can help the government increase its transparency, its level of citizen participation, and to offer better services to its citizens and businesses (MINTIC, 2008, p.30). The DRICT-10 plan encourages the “modernization” of the state and, through the increased use of ICTs within government and an increased level of transparency, hopes to eliminate corruption, promote democracy and governability (CNSIC, 2007, p.6, 9, 104[CEHD49] ).

E-Systems and E-Strategies

Apart from e-government, the WSIS also promotes the increased use of ICTs within other sectors including e-business, e-learning, e-health, e-employment, e-environment, e-justice, e-agriculture, e-science, among others. Through e-health it hopes to encourage the development of a more effective medical system with improved alert systems, and increased collaboration and access to the world’s medical knowledge (WSIS, 2003, p.8). E-environment includes the proper disposal of computer hardware (ibid, p.9). E-agriculture includes the use of best practices and public-private partnerships (ibid, p.9). E-Science includes providing every research unit with a reliable internet connection and the promoting of open access initiatives and peer-to-peer technology, among others (ibid, p.9). The WSIS TC-05 encourages the development of e-strategies for engaging youth (WSIS, 2005, p.4). eLAC-07, however, does not borrow much of the e-systems rhetoric, focusing instead on e-government and e-justice. eLAC-10, while mainly focusing on e-government, also discusses e-commerce, e-health, e-justice, and e-trade and the importance of private vs. public partnerships. The DRITC-10 and their e-system, e-strategy orientation is exemplified by the title of the report; e-Dominican. Within the report the implications of ICT for different sectors of society are explained, including e-government, e-health, e-justice, e-learning, e-instruction, among others. The CNICT-19 compares the growing use of ICTs to the industrial revolution in terms of its transformative influence, emphasizing how it has affected every area of everyday life (MINTIC, 2008, p.8). The plan also discusses various e-systems and their development through the use of a number of indexes including the e-readiness index (Ibid, p. 14-18). The government will also hold meetings regarding e-government, e-business, e-learning, e-health, e-employment, e-environment, e-agriculture, and e-science to discuss Colombia’s transition to the information age (Ibid, p.125). These are the same e-systems mentioned in the WSIS GAP-03.

Prevention and Security

Another common aspect across different documents was the emphasis given to preventing “abusive uses of ICTs, including racial discrimination, racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings” (WSIS, 2003, p.11). eLAC-07 calls for  regional studies regarding security and trusts of ICTs (ibid, p. 1). Regional dialogs are also encouraged to discuss issues such as cyber-security by mid 2007 (ibid, p.4). The eLAC-10 document invited countries to attend or ratify the Europe Cybercrime Convention and its Additional Protocol (ECLAC, 2008, p.14); however, Internet security is not a major concern of the eLAC-10 statement. The DRICT-10 policy also highlights the importance of increasing security. Security of the equipment given to schools is among its priorities (CNSIC, 2007, p.32), as well as the security of internet commerce, and a general climate of trust towards internet transactions (ibid, p. 98). Alongside encouraging this increased trust and security, the DRICT also hopes that e-commerce will increasingly play a role within the national economy (ibid, p.96). The government also developed and executed an awareness campaign regarding a recent law on crimes related to advanced technology enacted in 2007(ibid, p. 83). The CNICT-19 plan also discusses the need to increase security at the national level (MINTIC, 2008, p. 159). The digitalization of certain industries such as e-health, e-government, e-banking, e-commerce require a high level of information security for them to be increasingly trusted by the population. In addition, the CNICT-19 document includes a project for the increased use of personal firewalls, antiviruses, and antispyware (ibid, p. 102). This project includes the development of an index to measure national internet security and the development of a national policy document.

Conclusions

This study illustrates the degree of isomorphism within the ICT discourse at the international, regional and national levels. Through a content analysis, several of the subtle differences between the international recommendations, the regional, and the national level policy were explored. This study is incomplete as it does not critically analyze these difference[CEHD50] s. In addition, missing topics are not substantially explored. One of the aspects that is noticeable when analyzing these different documents is the emphasis that is given to economic growth and ICT expansion, while there is limited attention given to the cost benefit analysis of ICT initiatives in comparison to other development policies. Competition itself is not questioned. Development and increased access to ICT are intertwined within these documents. Development in these documents includes a linear perspective that has been questioned within the post-development discourse (Peet & Hartwick, 2009).

As analyzed through a study of TIMMS results, Baker and LeTendre (2005) illustrated the increasing isomorphism of educational policy, which included a growing investment by parents in ‘shadow education’. Yet, as countries look for ways in which to increase their international performance through higher TIMMS scores, the detrimental effects of the constant pursuit of academic achievement over a balanced or a “happy” life are not sufficiently discussed (Marks, Abdallah, & Simms, 2006). Among the detrimental or questionable effects of technology in education that are not discussed within the ICT documents are the growing disconnect between generations, as well as the disconnect felt by children of the “net” generation with respect to traditional schooling (Prensky, 2001). In addition, despite promoting the use of Open Source Software (OSS), the documents analyzed in this paper do not provide for a plan to reduce dependency on foreign technologies[CEHD51] [CEHD52] . If nations become constant purchasers of technology, rather than producers of it, increasing access to ICTs could serve to further increase dependency. Televisions, cell phones, computers, and internet access become increasingly ubiquitous, and they account for a significant percentage of children’s information intake, yet is this the only, or even the best, path towards development? The attraction to new ICTs may be inevitable, yet greater focus should be given to their most effective and efficient uses in ICT national policies. In addition, developing countries would benefit from regularly re-evaluating their possible future trajectories and periodically questioning whether the path they have chosen still represents the best option for the nation. Because of impending changes, and the rapid, perhaps exponential rate of technological development, we have to do our best to decide which technologies should be adopted, how should we promote their hybridization, and ask ourselves which goals do we want humanity, our increasingly interconnected species, to move towards? Is our emphasis on production and growth the best for the entirety of our persona? Development and technology are deeply interrelated and not all technological “advancements” should be encouraged. As every country on the planet continues to develop, since no single state has stopped developing, and using new technologies such as modifying their laws and theories, or upgrading their machinery, every country should be considered a developing country. Thinking of which country or which path towards development we are going to follow is an issue of great concern for all countries. Within this it is important to question to what extent the growing policyscape and world culture that has spread around the world is detrimental and ask what must nation-states do to develop in a way that is best for their future happiness? Where are they leapfrogging to[CEHD53] ? To me, as well as to others, the answer lies in increasingly emphasizing what makes us human, strengthening community oriented policies, and promoting greater equality between all. This is something that every one, every single one of us, should continuously strive towards. This position requires us to look not just at discourse but at broader socio-economic and power relationships through a critical lens.

(Despite my intention to include a discussion of open education resources, a more detailed analysis of ICT and education within the documents, as well as a more in depth study of the differences between the DR and Colombia, these topics were not analyzed as there were not within the scope of this paper and will instead be analyzed in a future iteration of this study)

Annex

*Hyphened words such as e- words cannot be analyzed by the word frequency software.

*Hyphened words such as Mid-2007, Mid-2006 as well as e- words cannot be analyzed by the word frequency software.

*These tables appear to be missing accented spanish words as can be seen in their related word cloud images (Picture 2.5, 2.6). A future study of word frequencies should use a program that can account for words that have been accented. Hyphened words such as e- words cannot be analyzed by the word frequency software.

[CEHD56]

*

*Included at the bottom of every page with the CNICT-19, the words National, Plan, Desarrollo, and TIC were mentioned over a hundred times more than all other words within the document. While the numerical values for variables were adjusted in Table 2.3, the values could not be changed when creating the word cloud.

Works Cited[CEHD57]

Adas, M. (1990). Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance[CEHD58] . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States. Newburyport[CEHD59] : The Sloan Consortium.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological Science[CEHD60]  , 353-359.

Attewell, P. (2001). The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of Education , 252-259.

Avgerou, C. (2003). The link between ICT and economic growth in the discourse of development. In M. Korpela, R. Montealegre, & A. Poulymenakou, Organizational Information Systems in the Context of Globalization (pp. 373-386). New York: Springer.

Baker, D. P., & Letendre, G. K. (2005). National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture And The Future Of Schooling. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Beniger, J. (1986). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Birdsall, N., Levine, R., & Ibrahim, A. (2005). Towards Universal Primary Education: Investments, Incentives and Institutions. London: UN Millenium Project.

Black, E. (2001). IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation. New York City: Crown.

Cairncross, F. (1997). The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

Cammaerts, B., & Carpentier, N. (2005). The unbearable lightness [CEHD61] of full participation in a global context: WSIS and civil society participation. London: Media@lse.

Carney, S. (2009). Negotiating Policy in an Age of Globalization: Exploring Educational “Policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review , 63-88.

Castells, M. (1999). Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development. Geneva: UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 114.

Chapman, D. W., & Mahlck, L. O. (2004). Adapting technology for school improvement: A global perspective. Paris: UNESCO.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

CIA. (2010). Dominican Republic – World Fact Book. Washington D.C.: CIA.

CIA. (2011, May 16). World Factbook – Colombia. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html

Clover, C. (2008). The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat. Berkeley: University of California Press.

CNSIC. (2007). Plan Estrategico E-Dominicana. Santo Domingo: Comision Nacional Para La Sociedad de la Informacion y el Conocimiento.

Cobo, C., & Moravec, J. (2011). Aprendizaje Invisible: Hacia Una Nueva Ecologia de la Educacion. Barcelona: University of Barcelona Press.

DANE. (2009). Indicadores Básicos de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación TIC. Bogota: DANE.

Donner, J. (2008). Research Approaches to Mobile Use in the Developing World: A Review of the Literature. The Information Society , 140–159.

ECLAC. (2005). Plan of Action for the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean – eLAC 2007. Rio de Janeiro: Comision Economica Para America Latina y el Caribe.

ECLAC. (2008). San Salvador Commitment: Adopted at the Second Ministerial Conference on the Information Society . San Salvador: Comision Economica para America Latina y el Caribe.

ECLAC. (2011, April 29). Why a Regional Action Plan? Retrieved April 29, 2011, from CEPAL – Programa Sociedad de la Informacion: http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/32548/P32548.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f-st.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl

Ehrenberg, R. G. (2002). Tuition Rising: Why College Costs So Much. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fairclough, N., & Holes, C. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The World is Flat. New York: Picador.

Gatto, J. T. (2003). Underground History of American Education. New York: Oxford Village Press.

Hamelink, C. J. (2004). Did WSIS Achieve Anything at All? International Journal for Communication Studies , 281-290.

Harrison, K. D. (2010). The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World’s Most Endangered Languages. Washington D.C.: National Geographic.

Headrick, D. R. (2009). Technology: A World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. IEEE Computer Society , 26-33.

IDB. (2010, February). ICT in Education: Disruptive Innovation. IDB Education , pp. 1-8.

INDOTEL. (2010). Conectividad Rural de Banda Ancha – Segunda Etapa. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://www.indotel.gob.do/proyectos-indotel/proyectos-indotel/conectividad-rural-de-banda-ancha-segunda-etapa.html

INDOTEL. (2010). Graficos Indicadores Estadisticos De Telefonia E Internet Al 30 de Junio de 2010. Santo Domingo: INDOTEL.

Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. White River Jct.: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Kapp, K. M., & McKeague, C. (2002). Blended Learning for Compliance Trainning Success. Princeton: EduNeering.

Katz, R. N. (2008). The Tower and The Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing. Boulder: EDUCAUSE.

Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Defeating the Devil’s Advocate and Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Klein, H. (2004). Understanding WSIS: An Institutional Analysis of the UN World Summit on the Information Society. Information Technologies and International Development , 3-13.

Krotoski, A. (2011, May 15). Being British: How has the internet affected our national identity? The Guardian .

Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002, February 23). Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor. Scientific American .

Kunstler, J. H. (2006). The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Grove Press.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Group.

Marks, N., Abdallah, A., & Simms, A. (2006). The (un)Happy Planet Index – An Index of Human Wellbeing and Environmental Impact. London: New Economics Foundation.

McClellan, J. E., & Dorn, H. (2006). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

MINTIC. (2008). Plan Nacional de las Tecnologias de la Infomacion y las Telecomunicaciones . Bogota: Ministerio de Comunicaciones – Republica de Colombia.

Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of Policy Borrowing in Education: Some Explanatory and Analytical Devices. Comparative Education , 451-461.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2003). Has “Growing Up Digital” and Extensive Video Game Playing Affected Younger Military Personnel’s Skill Sets? Retrieved November 1, 2010, from Marc Prensky: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Has%20Growing%20Up%20Digital%20Affected%20Military%20Skill%20Sets.pdf

Prensky, M. (2010). Why You Tube Matters? The Horizon , 124-131.

Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (1980). Comparative Education: The Social Construction of the Modern World System. Annual Review of Sociology , 369-399 .

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rovai, S. (2008). Recruiting high-tech managerial talents in China: an institutional perspective. Journal of Technology Management in China , 181-193.

Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.

Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s law: past, present and future. Spectrum – IEEE , 52-59.

Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational Import: Local Encounter With Global Forces in Mongolia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stemler, S. (2001). An Overview of Content Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation .

Thompson, M. (2004). Discourse, ‘Development’ and the ‘Digital Divide’: ICT and the World Bank. Review of African Political Economy , 103-123.

Toth, N., & Schick, K. (2007). Overview of Paleolithic Archeology. New York : Springer-Verlag.

UN Millennium Project. (2005). Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. London: Earthscan.

UNESCO. (2011). Shifting Focus to Open Education Practices – Opal Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2010). UIS is Statistics in Brief – Education in Dominican Republic. New York: UNESCO.

USCIS. (2011, April 30). Questions and Answers: Extension of Optional Practical Training Program for Qualified Students. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9a3d3dd87aa19110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2006). Comparatively Knowing: Making a Case for the Vertical Case Study . Current Issues in Comparative Education , 91-103.

Vavrus, F., & Bartlett, L. (2009). Critical Approaches to Comparative Education: Vertical Case Studies from Africa, Europe, The Middle East, and the Americas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vavrus, F., & Seghers, M. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis in Comparative Education: A discoursive study of “partnership” in Tanzania’s poverty reduction policies. Comparative Education Review , 77-103.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wilson, D. N. (2003). The Future of Comparative and International Education in a Globalised World. International Review of Education , 15-33.

Wodak, R. (1995). Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. Handbook of pragmatics , 204-210.

World Bank. (2010). Colombia at a Glance. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. (2008, September). Dominican Republic at a Glance. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from World Bank: http://devdata.worldbank.org

World Bank. (2010). Dominican Republic Indicators. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from The World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/country/dominican-republic

World Bank. (2011, May 16). Knowledge for Development. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from World Bank: http://info.worldbank.org/etools/kam2/KAM_page4.asp

World Bank. (2010). World dataBank: Dominican Republic. Retrieved from World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/country/dominican-republic

WSIS. (2006, January 17). BASIC INFORMATION : ABOUT WSIS. Retrieved April 23, 2011, from World Summit on the Information Society: http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html

WSIS. (2003). Plan of Action. Geneva: World Summit on the Information Society.

WSIS. (2005). Tunis Commitment. Tunis: World Summit on the Information Society.

Alfonso,

This is a  very interesting analysis and one that holds a lot of promise for further work.  With some further refinement, this would be a good piece to submit for publication to show how these ‘levels’ compare and contrast in terms of priorities for ICT. However, as noted in the margins, the beginning of the paper needs to be substantially revised to help readers focus on your main argument and on the data themselves, which are introduced late in the paper.  Moreover, the description of the study reorganized into one section.  The analysis itself, though, is certainly well done and will make for an important article or presentation. Paper grade: 26(-1 late)=25/30; Course grade=B+

Inviting Participants – Open Access Focus Groups!

October 17, 2011

Dear Fellow Students,

Open Access Week 2011 is just around the corner (z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). This year the University of Minnesota Libraries are planning a series of activities which we hope you are able to attend. Open Access Week promotes the increased publication in, and use of, open access journals, which allow anyone with an internet connection to access up to date research online, for free! This enables students, as well as researchers, doctors, patients, entrepreneurs, the public, and people in developing countries to be able to access the most updated research and, in doing so, make better decisions and time investments.  For more information visit about some student concerns regarding “Open Access” visit www.RighttoResearch.org.

To have a better idea of the concerns of graduate students at the University of Minnesota, I invite you to participate in a focus group on one of the following dates; October 20 and 21 (2 to 4 pm – East Bank – Room TBA), or October 24 (10 am to 12 pm – St. Paul Campus – Room TBA) to discuss this and other issues regarding graduate student publishing, and your opinions regarding open access and open content. Along with additional materials, these findings will be presented at an Open Access Week presentation on October 28, 2011 (http://z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). Refreshments will be provided during the focus group sessions.

To register to participate in the event please visit the following doodle poll (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011) and select the time which would be most convenient for you to attend. You will be asked to leave your email so that we can send you a friendly reminder the day before the focus group session you selected. If you would like to participate in the online forum group discussion instead please leave your contact information when completing the doodle poll. The online forum focus group discussion will take place between the 20^th and 25^th of October.  A different question will be posted each day for discussion.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso Sintjago

————————-

Dear ….

I hope you are doing well. A friend from the U of M libraries recently asked me if I could speak about open access journals at the University of Minnesota and the concerns of U of M students regarding open access. Since then, I held a number of interviews with students but, after looking at the gathered information, we decided that it would be helpful to organize a number of focus groups to further discuss the subject.

I am currently organizing a couple of focus group sessions on the East Bank later this week to gain a better idea of the opinions and concerns of UMN students regarding open access journals and open content. Personally, my interest in the subject focuses on the impact they could have for developing countries as a way in which they would be able to have access to the most recent knowledge and contribute to its construction and conversation. Apart from wanting to learn more about the concerns of graduate students of CEHD, I am also highly interested in finding out more about the concerns of other international CEHD students. Would it be possible to perhaps share a flier with information with other CEHD students through the ISS listserv?

The focus groups will be held Oct 20 (2 to 4 pm), 21 (10 am to 12 pm), and 24 (10 am to 12 pm). The rooms are yet to be determined. The focus groups on Oct 20 and Oct 21^st will be held on the Minneapolis campus. We would like to invite any graduate student of CEHD that is interested in discussing this subject. The objective of these focus groups will be to find out their opinions and concerns. Students can register to participate in the focus group by emailing me at sintj002@umn.edu or by visiting the following doodle poll – (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011). Students that would like to participate in the online forum group discussion instead can leave their contact information when completing the doodle poll. The online forum focus group discussion will take place between the 20^th and 25^th of October. A different question will be posted each day for discussion.

Thank you for your time. Best wishes,

Alfonso Sintjago

———————————

Hi …..

I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to attend a focus group session this Thursday (Oct 20 – 2 to 4 pm – East Bank), Friday (Oct 21 – 10 am to 12 pm – East Bank) or Monday (Oct 24 – 10 am to 12 pm – St. Paul) to discuss open access journals and open content. UMN Open Access Week will be here soon and we are hoping to collect information about CEHD students and their research. I know this is short notice but after we looked at the data we had we noticed that we were missing a key component, namely UMN student perspectives. I hope you are able to join this discussion, please let me know if you would be able to join us or if you have a friend or another student from CEHD that may be able to come. We will provide refreshments and it should be a friendly and interesting discussion. Along with additional materials, these findings will be presented at an Open Access Week presentation on October 28, 2011 (http://z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). If you would like to participate in the online forum group discussion instead you can leave your contact information when completing the doodle poll – (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011). The online forum focus group discussion will take place between the 20th and 25th of October. A different question will be posted each day for discussion.

Thank you for your time. Best wishes,

Alfonso Sintjago

Alfonso Jose Sintjago
Phone #: 352-359-4026
UMN PhD Student – Comparative and International Development Education
Instructional Technology Fellow – School of Social Work

———————

Hi …..

I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to attend a focus group session this Thursday (Oct 20 – 2 to 4 pm – East Bank), Friday (Oct 21 – 10 am to 12 pm – East Bank) or Monday (Oct 24 – 10 am to 12 pm – St. Paul) to discuss open access journals and open content. As a member of GradSEHD I would be great to have your opinion and I thought perhaps you would be interested in participating. UMN Open Access Week will be here soon and we are hoping to collect information about CEHD students and their research. I know this is short notice but after we looked at the data we had we noticed that we were missing a key component, namely UMN student perspectives. I hope you are able to join this discussion, please let me know if you would be able to join us or if you have a friend or another student from CEHD that may be able to come. We will provide refreshments and it should be a friendly and interesting discussion. Along with additional materials, these findings will be presented at an Open Access Week presentation on October 28, 2011 (http://z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). If you would like to participate in the online forum group discussion instead you can leave your contact information when completing the doodle poll – (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011). The online forum focus group discussion will take place between the 20th and 25th of October. A different question will be posted each day for discussion.

Thank you for your time. Best wishes,

Alfonso Sintjago

Alfonso Jose Sintjago
Phone #: 352-359-4026
UMN PhD Student – Comparative and International Development Education
Instructional Technology Fellow – School of Social Work

——————————-

Hi ….

I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if we could talk sometime in the next few days at any time of your convenience? I recently interviewed Tryggvi for 2 hours about Reconsidering Development, Open Access journals and Open Content, and I would love to learn more about your opinions and the journey of reconsidering development. I will probably mention Reconsidering Development during a few minutes of the panel on Open Access that I will be part of on October 28 and it would be great to learn more about your position regarding open access before then. The presentation will be the 28^th of October. Let me know if it would be possible for us to meet before then. I attached a flier regarding a focus group session I will conduct this week to gather additional information. I would love to talk to you one on one but if you are able to attend the focus group, that would be great. We will provide refreshments and it should be a friendly and interesting discussion. Along with additional materials, these findings will be presented at an Open Access Week presentation on October 28, 2011 (http://z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). If you are interested you can register to participate in the focus group by emailing me or registering by via the following doodle poll – (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011). If you would like to participate in the online forum group discussion instead you can leave your contact information when completing the doodle poll. The online forum focus group discussion will take place between the 20^th and 25^th of October. A different question will be posted each day for discussion.

I hope your research is going well. Best,

Alfonso Sintjago

——————–

Hey ….

It was great to interview you. I am attaching some of the questions that I have been thinking about. It is still pretty rough but I guess between now and Thursday, I have to get them finished. Feel free to add any questions or change some of the questions if you think it would be helpful. I recently shared these same questions via Google Docs – http://tinyurl.com/66huz9p. Also, I will be conducting the focus groups this Thursday, Friday, and Monday. Attached is a flier for the event. Along with additional materials, these findings will be presented at an Open Access Week presentation on October 28, 2011 (http://z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). If you know any CEHD students who may be interested in going, it would be great if they could attend. Students can register to participate in the focus group by emailing me or registering by via the following doodle poll – (http://z.umn.edu/openpoll2011). Also, if you could send me the name or the email of the person and name of the other open UMN journal you mentioned that would be great. Thanks!

Best,

Alfonso Sintjago

——————

Hi, I look forward to meeting with you and discussing Open Access journals and Open Content. Please let me know if, and when, you will be able to attend a focus group session (Oct 20, 21, 24). If you are unable to attend a physical focus group, I encourage you to join the following online focus group forum to discuss Open Access between October 20th and 24th. There are a series of questions. We encourage you to answer all of them and respond to the comments of other participants. Thank you.

Best, Alfonso Sintjago

Focus Group – Graduate Students’ Voice – Open Access Week

10/15/2011

1)     You have just written an article and you have three choices:
1) completely free open journals or free open journals where the university would cover the writer’s fee to submit the article
2) open journals where the writer or the grant that is sponsoring him or her has to pay to submit the article
3) Traditional, toll-access journals where institutions and individuals subscribe for access and have to purchase articles, but the writer submitting an article does not have to pay.
Which of these three journals would you choose and what are some of the reasons you would chose this journal (please indicate what would be the most important aspect in making this decision)?  How much does the journal status as an open access journal (OA) or toll access journal (TA) plays a role in making your final decision?

All Original Questions  – Focus Group – Graduate Students’ Voice – Open Access Week

–        What is your favorite legal image, video, or music hosting site? Why do you visit this site?

–        Tell us what one of your passions is, and what attracts you to it?

–        What is your favorite news website?

–        Is this site open to the public? Does the site being open play a role in whether or not you access it?

–        To what extent are you supportive of the open access movement?

–        To what extent do you consider who produced a digital resource (a page, a picture, a video) when deciding whether or not to use it for a course?

–        To what extent are journal articles accessible for university students and individuals throughout society in general?

–        When considering where to publish an article, does the openness of the journal play a role in your decision?

–        To what extent do you think openness encourages innovation?

–        Have you ever felt your work had been plagiarized? Please describe the situation.

–        To what extent do you feel (from 1 to 5) a strong need to protect creative works with copyright?

–        To what extent do you feel information should be open and accessible to anyone in the world?

–        Projecting yourself two, five years into the future what role do you see open access playing for academia?

–        What do you consider to be some of the limitations of open access journals?

–        To what extent do you consider open access journals sustainable?

–        To what extent do you consider open access to be part of a movement? Perhaps part of a broader movement? What is it?

–        To what extent do you feel that copying an image, an audio file or a video file from a website is a violation of copyright?

–        To what extent do you feel it is different whether or not the purpose for borrowing a resource is for profit or non-profit objective?

–        What are some of the feelings that you experience when you are not able to access a resource (journal article) when you need it?

–        To what extent does open access or openness to information help or hurt the development of countries?

–        All things considered, can openness improve academia?

–        Suppose you had one minute to talk with someone about the importance of openness, what would you say?

–        To what extent do you feel openness decreases the quality of scholarship? (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

–        To what extent do you feel openness is unfair to traditional paid subscription journals?

–        Have we missed anything… Is there anything that we should have talked about but didn’t?

–        (Silent) List (Give them a paper) — what are some problems with openness, what are some of the positives aspects of openness?

–        To what extent do you feel the current publication system is fair? (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). [(also on a list) — what could be improved……]

–        In terms of promoting open research what grade (from A to F) would you give the University?

–        In terms of promoting open research what grade (from A to F) would you give the United States government?

–        In terms of promoting open research what grade (from A to F) would you give your department?

–        In terms of promoting open research what grade (from A to F) would you give grant giving agencies?

–        You have three choices… free open journals, open journals where you have to pay to submit, journals where individuals or institutions need to purchase articles, which one would you choose and why? How could that option be improved?

–        Pictures of different industries… (runway show, journal articles, movie, comedian, book) which one, in your opinion, would have the strongest copyright protection in the US and why?

–        Draw an emblem or a design pattern (as good as you can, you don’t have to be an artist but put some effort into it, perhaps a pattern that could be reused in some way) for five minutes.. .then pass it around to the next person who draws for five minutes… is this a violation of copyright?

–        Was that drawing that you received from the person beside you copyrighted? To what extent is the style original?

–        To what extent do you think sometimes you borrow ideas and you aren’t quite sure you remember where you heard them or if they are yours, but you use them or build on them anyway?

–        Map what qualities come to mind when you think of an open resource? When you think of an open access journal? What node is the most important?

–        Close your eyes… How do you imagine academia would be different if all journals were open?

–        Do a task before coming – Search for 4 relevant articles on a topic of your professional interest – were the most relevant articles open for you to use without your university access? Were any relevant articles open? How much did each cost for an individual?

–        Think back to the last papers you wrote, how extensive was the contribution of open access journals articles?

–        To what extent would it be possible to write a good article on their topic using only open access journal articles?

EDPA 5521

October 12, 2011

PROBLEM SET #2:  Compound interest, discounting, annualization and present value

1. Rather than pay you $100 a month for the next 20 years, the person who injured you in an automobile accident is willing to pay a single amount now to settle your claim for injuries.  Would you rather an interest rate of 5% or 10% be used in computing the present value of the lump-sum settlement?  Comment or explain. To calculate the present value of this stream of payments, use the formula in the textbook on page 93. Each payment of $1200 per year must be discounted by the appropriate factor. See #6, below, for an example. The most common error is to discount the entire set of $24,000 payments by the discount factor that is appropriate for the $1200 payments in year 20. This is clearly not appropriate, since the $24,000 payments are spread out over 20 years and each year’s payments must be discounted separately, by the appropriate discount factor. You would prefer a 5% discount rate because it results in a larger present value lump-sum payment.

2. Compute the future value of $800 invested for 12 years at 6% compounded annually.  Compute the present value of $1,200 due in 9 years at 11% annually. FV = 800 (1+.06)¹² = $1609.76 

PV = 1200/(1+.11)⁹ = $469.11 [Recall that the present value of $1200 due in one year is $1200/(1+.11). In other words, t=2. The present value of $1200 due in 9 years means that t=10]. The most common error is to assume that t=9.

3. Mr. Jones has $15,000 to invest for the future college education of his new granddaughter.  He wishes to know how much it will amount to if he invests it at 5% per year for 18 years.  What if he were to invest it at 8% for 18 years?

FV = 15000 (1 + .05)¹⁸ = $36,099.29  (t=19)

FV = 15000 (1+ .08)¹⁸ = $59,940.29 (t=19)

4. Ms. Olson wishes to be sure that she has at least $25,000 in 9 years when her daughter will begin college.  How much must she invest today to accomplish this purpose if the interest rate is 6% per year?  How much would she need if the interest rate is 9 percent per year?

PV = 25000/ (1+ .06)⁹ = $14,797.46 (t=10)

PV = 25000/(1+ .09)⁹= $11,510.69 (t=10)

5. In order to establish a fund that will provide a scholarship of $5,000 a year over four years, with the first award to occur now, how much must be deposited if the fund earns 6%?  How much is required if the fund earns 10%?

PV = 5,000 + 5000/(1+.06) + 5000/(1+.06)² + 5000/(1+.06)³ = $18,365.06

PV = 5,000 + 5000/(1+.1) + 5000/(1+.1)² + 5000/(1+.1)³ = $17,434.26

6. A local foundation helps the University to establish a new Center for the Study of Educational Efficiency and has agreed to pay $9,000 now and every year for another 10 years.  Because of a potential change in the leadership at the University, the Foundation wishes to discharge its obligation by paying a single lump sum to the University now in lieu of the payment due and all future payments.  How much should the Foundation pay the University if the discount rate is 7 percent per year?

PV= [9000/(1+.07)^1-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^2-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^3-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^4-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^5-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^6-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^7-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^8-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^9-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^10-1]+ [9000/(1+.07)^11-1]

PV= 9000 + 8411.215 + 7860.949 + 7346.681 + 6866.057 + 6416.876 + 5997.08 + 5604.748 + 5238.082 + 4895.404 + 4575.144= $72,212.24   

The foundation should pay the institution $72, 212.24 if the discount rate is 7% per year. This discount rate was applied to the initial payment and the subsequent 10 additional years using the PV formula. The most common error is to assume that there are only 10 payments of $9,000. Another error is to add up the payments and divide $99,000 by the discount factor that is only appropriate for the last $9,000 payment received in year 11.

7. Your school district, bowing to parent pressure, just purchased a new set of “smartboards” to install in classrooms, at a total cost of $170,000.  The system is expected to wear out in 5 years.  How much in costs for this equipment should be charged against calculating instructional costs each year when the district is borrowing funds at 6%?

From Table 4.1 annualization factors: 5 years at 5% = .2310; 5 years at 7% = .2439. Average these factors to obtain approximate rate for 6 years = .23745.

.23745 * 170,000 = $40,366.50 (see the textbook, pp. 64-70, for an explanation of the annualization factor)

8. Assume that you are asked to review the costs of a 5-year technology upgrade project for the Cranberry Schools. After doing a careful identification and specification of ingredients and their costs, you obtain the following costs:

Year 1: $12,000

Year 2: $12,500

Year 3: $21,000

Year 4: $16,000

Year 5: $31,000

What is the present value of this stream of costs for both a 5% and 10% discount rate. Compare the present values obtained with these calculations with a simple summation. Why do they differ?

Five year cost with 5% and 10% discount rates:

Without discounting, the sum of costs totals $92,500 and is different from the discounted totals because it does not include any discounting, meaning the time delay in spending for the second through fifth years is not considered. For those years the money could be invested and earn interest thus lessening the loss for those years.

9. Drinking beer!  Donna likes beer!  She consumes 24 cases of beer over the course of a year.  Her local store tells her that she can buy beer in disposable bottles for $12.75 per case or for $12.00 a case of returnable bottles if a $1.50 refundable deposit is paid per case at time of purchase.  She must buy all 24 cases at the same time and then return any returnable bottles at the end of the year.  If she is currently getting 9% per year on her savings, how much does she save by buying the returnable and thereby losing the use of her deposit money for one year.

Option 1: 24*$12.75 = $306

Option 2: 24*$12 = $288

Initial savings = 306-288 = $18

Deposit = 24*$1.50 = $36

Have $36 – $18 = $18 less to invest

Lost interest from deposit = $18 *(.09) = $1.62

Net savings = $18 – $1.62 = $16.38

10.  You have just won the powerball!  They are offering you either $1,200,000 a year for the next 12 years, or $10,000,000 today.  Which option will you select and why?  Would the decision likely be different if your rich grandfather won the powerball?

There are two methods of solving this problem. The first method is to compare the future value of the yearly payments with the future value of the lump sum payment.

METHOD #1. Select the $1,200,000 a year for the next 12 years. Assuming a 4% discount rate, the first $1,200,000 may be invest for 12 years at an interest rate of 4%. The next payment may be invested for 11 years at 4%. Etc. At the end of 12 years I will have a total of $18,752,205.22 (see below for calculations).

However, if I took the $10,000,000 today and invested it for the next 12 years at a 4% interest rate I would have a total of $16,010,322.19 which is much less money in the end.

Since my grandfather may not live to receive 12 years of payouts, he should elect to receive the immediate payment of $10,000,000.

            Compare this with the future value of $10 million in 12 years:

            10,000,000*1.04¹² = $16,010,322.19

This result holds for discount rates of up to 7.45%, far above typical discount rates of 3-5%. Beyond 7.45%, it is better to select the $10 million payment now.

METHOD #2. The second method of solving this problem is to compare the present value of the yearly payments with the present value of the lump sum payment.

PV= ∑ [1200000/(1+.03)^1-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^2-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^3-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^4-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^5-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^6-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^7-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^8-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^9-1]+ [1200000/(1+.03)^10-1] + [1200000/(1+.03)^11-1] + [1200000/(1+.03)^12-1]

PV= 1200000+ 1165049+ 1131115+ 1098170+ 1066184+ 1035131+ 1004981+ 975709.8+ 947291+ 919700+ 892912.7+ 866905.5= $12,303,149.00

Now compare this amount with the lump sum payment of $10,000,000 (which is, by definition, in present value terms). Clearly, it would be preferable to select the yearly payments. Again, the result holds for discount rates up to 7.45%.

The most common error is to compare the present value of the yearly payments with the future value of the lump sum payment. This is clearly not appropriate. You must either compare the present value of both options, or compare the future value of both options. Do not mix present and future values.

Open Access Pledge

… We hereby:

Call upon universities to support Open Access

• We believe universities should adopt policies that ensure Open Access to their faculty’s research, such as the policies adopted at Harvard University and Stanford University.

Call upon governments and research funders to support Open Access

• We believe research agencies should adopt policies that ensure Open Access to publicly funded research, such as that of the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
• We believe charitable funders likewise should adopt policies that ensure Open Access to their funded research, such as that of Autism Speaks and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Call upon researchers to support Open Access

• We believe researchers should publish in Open Access journals, and/or deposit their peer-reviewed manuscripts in Open Access repositories.

Commit to support Open Access in our activities

• We will undertake activities, in our membership and on our campuses, to educate students about Open Access and to engage them in efforts supporting Open Access.

CEHD Graduate Student Opinions about Open Access Journals and Open Content

October 29, 2011

Thank you for your participation in this online focus group session. Your responses are very helpful in understanding the opinions of graduate students at the University of Minnesota regarding open access journals and open content. Below there is a brief report based on your comments. If you feel this report misrepresents the group’s opinions you can email me at sintj002@umn.edu and express your concerns. The report is organized by the questions and the day in which they were posted, and it concludes with a brief synopsis as well as a list of suggestions about possible next steps to follow.

What Are Your Sources of Information? (Day 1 Summary)

In general, graduate students seem to primarily access sources of information that are available to them because they are graduate students at the University of Minnesota. While access is important to them, and most of the news sources they access are open to the public (NPR, CNN, or the open sections of the NYT), they felt that, as university students, they were able to access most of what they wanted at present. However, they are generally worried about the level of access they will have once they finish their graduate degrees. At times, when attempting to access sources outside of the university without using a VPN client, some students seem to have difficulties accessing relevant sources. One individual used their partner’s account to access sources when she was not a student of the University of Minnesota.

What are Open Access and the Open Education Movement? (Day 2 Summary)

There was a general understanding among participants that “open” implies that materials are accessible to anyone and that it is free or generally free. While “open education” used to refer to education that anyone was able to attend, rather than free education, “open” today seem to be understood as meaning more accessible or free to access to the forum participants. This new interpretation of “open” matches the changes that have been seen in the discourse of distance teaching and learning rhetoric in recent years. There was some familiarity with MIT’s open courseware movement, and the meaning of some terms seemed to be intuitive. When discussing some of “open education’s” potential, participants mentioned how, while it would be beneficial in terms of access, quality remains a major concern. Also, a journal being openly available online does not mean that anyone can access it since a user is still faced with problems of connectivity and digital literacy concerns. Increasing the quality of open access journals by strengthening their peer review system seemed a common concern. While in other fields, peer-review validity is debated, peer-review was not questioned as a quality standard by the focus group participants; rather it was seen as the goal or the level of quality to be emulated.

Opinions of Open Access Journals and Experiences (Day 3 Summary)

When discussing whether or not open access journals increase or decrease innovation, the responses of participants varied, with some support for a positive impact on innovation, particularly because there are more ideas influencing individuals. However, another student expressed how, for financially motivated individuals, open access journals might discourage innovation. In terms of quality, the responses were also divided between a belief that openness increases others’ ability to test, question and add to existing findings, but that it also increases what is out there, and the feeling that the internet has allowed for large amounts of information of limited quality to be posted. So far participants also felt that, while a person could publish in an open access journal in their field, and that there are articles that could be used to write a publishable paper, the quality and quantity of open access journal is not yet comparable to that of toll access journals.

Opinions About the Future of Open Education (Day 4 Summary)

While many of the participants saw the open access movement as a positive influence for the future of academia and felt that its quality would improve over time, when presented with the question as to where they would most likely publish in the future, in general, participants felt that publishing in a well ranked or well respected journal was more important than publishing in a journal based on its level of openness. There was general support for greater openness and change or a modification of the system. In general, the participants did not feel that they should have to pay to publish, even if they may consider doing so, but rather one participant mentioned that instead she should be paid to publish. With scholars both writing and reviewing articles, the system is seen by some as unfair. While they were generally uncertain as to whether Open Access Journals will dominate or gain ground in relation to Toll Access publishing, they were enthusiastic and openly supportive of the idea.

Conclusions and Suggestions

Open access journals and open content was a topic that seemed important to participants but one about which they had limited prior knowledge. Various times they expressed opinions supporting both of these comments. While they appeared to have a strong support for the idea or the concept of open access journals and open education, they were generally hesitant to mention whether the open access movement will transform academia or it will remain a minor arena for publication. To most of the participants open access’ potential for improving education and academia was clear, but they still questioned whether it would initially impact the quality of scholarship and innovation in a negative way.  This perception is very relevant to this study as it is the researcher’s opinion that a greater awareness of the open access movement will help increase its support within the University of Minnesota. The study will hopefully continue to explore these themes, possibly contributing to greater discussion of, and support for the open access movement among University of Minnesota faculty members, students, and staff. Additional focus groups should also be carried out to ensure further saturation of responses and the improvement and relevance of the report. Visibility can improve quality.