SERA Relationship Manager for the CSIR, Khungeka Njobe.

By Khungeka Njobe, CSIR Group Executive: R&D Outcomes & Strategic Human Capital Development

In keeping with the Alliance's goal of building significant research and technology transfer infrastructure and competence to support South Africa's economic success and sustainable development, SERA Relationship Manager for the CSIR - Khungeka Njobe - investigates the factors that influence a community's acceptance of certain technologies.

Themes such as the 'global village' and 'technology age' are almost clichéd if one looks at our society's reliance on all things technical. What was once viewed with great trepidation, such as the motor car, we can now hardly live without. Not to mention everything else we develop and use to make our lives easier and 'faster'. Government's belief that science and technology are crucial contributors to the advancement of South Africans stands firm enough to influence the GDP. Added to this, millions of rand are spent on research and development (R&D) by stakeholders, and calls for even greater investment in R&D and human capital development in the science sector have been made globally.

With the international community, and South Africa, so steadfastly continuing on the science, engineering and technology course, how is it that the rate of technology acceptance does not correspond with the rate of technology development? What are the factors that influence a community's acceptance of certain technologies regardless of an established need for the technology?

One case in point is the AmaDrum project, an initiative of the CSIR, the Department of Health, the Eastern Cape Development Corporation and Technology for Women in Business during the early 2000s. The need was clear and immediate: To curb the problem of a lack of clean drinking water as this results in cholera outbreaks and other water-related diseases.

The science behind the proposed solution was tried, tested and found to be successful. The intended beneficiaries were many and included the various affected communities as well as the small, women-owned enterprise contracted to manufacture and distribute the AmaDrum in the Eastern Cape - ostensibly a win-win situation.

One of the findings of a preliminary report showed that communities viewed the drums as an interim solution during the cholera outbreak and not as a product for permanent use. In this area where water was already scarce, the recipients also preferred tap (running) water, not drums and thus this solution was rejected by some. Although further lessons can be learned - ranging from issues of management, marketing and training - community acceptance is key.

A positive example is that of the FabLab. The CSIR's Technology Transfer for Social Impact office was contracted by the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Strategy to package and transfer the FabLab technologies to a facility in Soshanguve, a township north of Pretoria. The FabLab gives local users the ability to conceptualise, design, develop, fabricate and test different types of products from different materials, opening numerous possibilities for innovative solutions to common problems and needs, particularly in areas that have 'technological gaps'.

The transfer was completed and counts as one of the initiative's successes. Could a part of the success be attributed to the specific transfer process that was followed?

This included:

• Stakeholder and community mobilization and alignment
• Assessing the infrastructure in terms of readiness to absorb the technology
• Awareness creation and preparing the infrastructure for transfer
• Providing aftercare support
• Monitoring and evaluation to ensure social acceptance of the technology and to identify any facility changes that might have to be made.

In a paper by the Meraka Institute and MetaLAB (Sussex University), titled From Technologies to Social Enterprise Developers: Our Journey as 'ICT for Development' Practitioners in Southern Africa, the authors advocate a changed mindset where researchers and developers move from "researching, developing and deploying technology tools" to "establishing an ICT-enabled, sustainable community of enterprises".

It seems that a more 'collaborative; process is suggested where the intended beneficiaries are not simply the recipients of technological solutions, but also partners in as far as their views and buy-in are sought ahead of time and during the development process.

The paper further states that the study has confirmed the importance of a 'local champion' - some trusted community member with a good track record and entrepreneurial interest who acts as the community's access point. These champions would typically act as bridge builders between the community and technology development or implementation.

The authors categorise their learning about adoption phases for technology in a rural context as innocence (unchallenged, undisturbed and traditional), bewilderment (exposure to a new technology where the initial reaction could be to stall or avoid it), amazement (once skilling has taken place and the usability has been established), and mastery (where the long-term benefits are appreciated).

However, it is still not certain whether knowing and using the way people traditionally accept new ideas, products or services would have assisted in the AmaDrum Case where the community was expecting something else.

Although we are not acceptance theorists, it is to our advantage to understand how our technology could best be transferred and accepted. Literature on community or social acceptance is broad, specifically in the ICT arena and goes as far back as the 1980s. (See Dillon and Morris, 1996, for a review of theories and models.)

Three of the five characteristics put forward by Rogers (1995) seem to find resonance with other theorists, i.e. relative advantage, compatibility (with social practices and norms) and lack of complexity. Shackel (1991) hones in on utility, usability and cost. Alavi and Joachimsthaler (1992) suggest the most relevant factors to be cognitive style (of processing and using information), personality (taking risks or issues of control), demographics and user-situational variables. Davis et al (1989) in the technology acceptance model also cite perceived usefulness and ease of use as the major factors towards acceptance.

There is still no definitive answer, except for the fact that social or community acceptance of a particular technology, 'obviously' designed to improve lives, is not a given. At the CSIR we have to cast our planning nets wider to include intelligence about the intended recipients to help guide the development and implementation process and ensure user acceptance.

Source: CSIR Science Scope, Vol 2, No. 3, November 2007