Author Archives: Linda Raftree

How can we build better partnerships for global health?

For our Tuesday, July 27th Salon, we discussed partnerships and interoperability in global health systems. The room housed a wide range of perspectives, from small to large non-governmental organizations to donors and funders to software developers to designers to healthcare professionals to students. Our lead discussants were Josh Nesbit, CEO at Medic Mobile; Jonathan McKay, Global Head of Partnerships and Director of the US Office of Praekelt.org; and Tiffany Lentz, Managing Director, Office of Social Change Initiatives at ThoughtWorks We started by hearing from our discussants on why they had decided to tackle issues in the area of health. Reasons were primarily because health systems were excluding people from care and organizations wanted to find a way to make healthcare inclusive.

Posted in Aid & Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Buckets of data for MERL

(I’ve been blogging a little bit over at MERLTech.org. Here’s a repost.) It can be overwhelming to get your head around all the different kinds of data and the various approaches to collecting or finding data for development and humanitarian monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL). Though there are many ways of categorizing data, lately I find myself conceptually organizing data streams into four general buckets when thinking about MERL in the aid and development space: ‘Traditional’ data. How we’ve been doing things for(pretty much)ever. Researchers, evaluators and/or enumerators are in relative control of the process

Posted in Aid & Development, Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

IVR, Facebook and WhatsApp: tech and M&E at AfrEA

Our latest Technology Salon, at the African Evaluation Association (AfrEA) Conference in Uganda on March 29th, focused on how mobile and social media platforms are being used in monitoring and evaluation processes. Our lead discussants were Jamie Arkin from Human Network International (soon to be merging with VotoMobile) who spoke about interactive voice response (IVR); John Njovu, an independent consultant working with the Ministry of National Development Planning of the Zambian government, who shared experiences with technology tools for citizen feedback to monitor budgets and support transparency and accountability; and Noel Verrinder from Genesis who talked about using WhatsApp in a youth financial education program. Using IVR for surveys Jamie shared how HNI deploys IVR surveys to obtain information about different initiatives or interventions from a wide public or to understand the public’s beliefs about a particular topic. These surveys come in three formats: random dialing of telephone numbers until someone picks up; asking people to call in, for example, on a radio show; or using an existing list of phone numbers. “If there is an 80% phone penetration or higher, it is equal to a normal household level survey,” she said

Posted in Aid & Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Microwork and Impact Sourcing: Can they help resolve youth unemployment?

Our Tech Salon on Thursday March 9th focused on the potential of Microwork to support youth economic empowerment. Joining us as lead discussants were Lis Meyers, Banyan Global; Saul Miller, Samasource; and Elena Matsui, The Rockefeller Foundation. Banyan Global recently completed a report on “The Nexus of Microwork and Impact Sourcing: Implications for Youth Employment,” supported by the Global Center for Youth Employment and RTI, who also sponsored this Salon. (Disclosure: I worked on the report with the team at Banyan) Definitions: To frame the discussion, we provided some core definitions and an explanation of the premise of microwork and its role within Impact sourcing. Business Process Outsourcing (BPO): the practice of reducing business costs by transferring portions of work to outside suppliers rather than completing it internally.

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Responsible Data Case Studies

Development, humanitarian and human rights organizations increasingly collect and use digital data at the various stages of their programming. This type of data has the potential to yield great benefit, but it can also increase individual and community exposure to harm and privacy risks. How can we as a sector better balance data collection and open data sharing with privacy and security, especially when it involves the most vulnerable? A number of donors, humanitarian and development organizations (including Oxfam, CRS, UN bodies and others) have developed or are in the process of developing guidelines to help them to be more responsible about collection, use, sharing and retention of data from those who participate in their programs. I’m part of a team (including mStar, Sonjara, Georgetown University, the USAID Global Development Lab, and an advisory committee that includes several shining stars from the ‘responsible data’ movement) that is conducting research on existing practices, policies, systems, and legal frameworks through which international development data is collected, used, shared, and released. 

Posted in Aid & Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Insights on using ICTs in equity-focused evaluation

At the 2016 American Evaluation Association conference, I chaired a session on benefits and challenges with ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation. The session frame came from a 2016 paper on the same topic. Panelists Kecia Bertermann from Girl Effect, and Herschel Sanders from RTI added fascinating insights on the methodological challenges to consider when using ICTs for evaluation purposes and discussant Michael Bamberger closed out with critical points based on his 50+ years doing evaluations. ICTs include a host of technology-based tools, applications, services, and platforms that are overtaking the world. We can think of them in three key areas: technological devices, social media/internet platforms and digital data.

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Rethinking Informed Consent in the Digital Age

This post is co-authored by Emily Tomkys, Oxfam GB; Danna Ingleton, Amnesty International; and me (Linda Raftree, Independent) At the MERL Tech conference in DC this month, we ran a breakout session on rethinking consent in the digital age. Most INGOs have not updated their consent forms and policies for many years, yet the growing use of technology in our work, for many different purposes, raises many questions and insecurities that are difficult to address. Our old ways of requesting and managing consent need to be modernized to meet the new realities of digital data and the changing nature of data. Is informed consent even possible when data is digital and/or opened? Do we have any way of controlling what happens with that data once it is digital?

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Developing and operationalizing Responsible Data Policies

This post was written with input from Maliha Khan, Independent Consultant; Emily Tomkys, Oxfam GB; Siobhan Green, Sonjara and Zara Rahman, The Engine Room. A friend reminded me earlier this month at the MERL Tech Conference that a few years ago when we brought up the need for greater attention to privacy, security and ethics when using ICTs and digital data in humanitarian and development contexts, people pointed us to Tor, encryption and specialized apps. “No, no, that’s not what we mean!” we kept saying. “This is bigger. It needs to be holistic.

Posted in Aid & Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

ICTs in Evaluation Practice

Over the past 4 years I’ve had the opportunity to look more closely at the role of ICTs in Monitoring and Evaluation practice (and the privilege of working with Michael Bamberger and Nancy MacPherson in this area). When we started out, we wanted to better understand how evaluators were using ICTs in general, how organizations were using ICTs internally for monitoring, and what was happening overall in the space. A few years into that work we published the Emerging Opportunities paper that aimed to be somewhat of a landscape document or base report upon which to build additional explorations. As a result of this work, in late April I had the pleasure of talking with the OECD-DAC Evaluation Network about the use of ICTs in Evaluation. I drew from a new paper on The Role of New ICTs in Equity-Focused Evaluation: Opportunities and Challenges that Michael, Veronica Olazabal and I developed for the Evaluation Journal. The core points of the talk are below

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

M&E of Tech in humanitarian and development work: How can we do it better?

I used to write blog posts two or three times a week — but things have been a little quiet here for the past couple of years – that’s partly because I’ve been ‘doing actual work’ (as we like to say) trying to implement the theoretical ‘good practices’ that I like soapboxing about. I’ve also been doing some writing in other places and in ways that I hope might be more rigorously critiqued and thus have a wider influence than just putting them up on a blog. One of those bits of work that’s recently been released publicly is a first version of a monitoring and evaluation framework for SIMLab. We started discussing this at the first M&E Tech conference in 2014.

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Unpacking digital privacy, security & safety in the development space

Crowdsourcing our Responsible Data questions, challenges and lessons. (Photo by Amy O’Donnell). At Catholic Relief Services’ ICT4D Conference in May 2016, I worked with Amy O’Donnell  (Oxfam GB) and Paul Perrin (CRS) to facilitate a participatory session that explored notions of Digital Privacy, Security and Safety. We had a full room, with a widely varied set of experiences and expertise. The session kicked off with stories of privacy and security breaches

Posted in Aid & Development, ICT4D, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Responsible open data: an oxymoron? Discuss!

At our April 5th Salon in Washington, DC we had the opportunity to take a closer look at open data and privacy and discuss the intersection of the two in the framework of ‘responsible data’. Our lead discussants were Amy O’Donnell, Oxfam GB; Rob Baker, World Bank; Sean McDonald, FrontlineSMS. I had the pleasure of guest moderating. What is Responsible Data? We started out by defining ‘responsible data‘ and some of the challenges when thinking about open data in a framework of responsible data.

Posted in Aid & Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Global Development and the Internet of Things

Our March 18th Technology Salon NYC covered the Internet of Things and Global Development with three experienced discussants: John Garrity, Global Technology Policy Advisor at CISCO and co-author of Harnessing the Internet of Things for Global Development; Sylvia Cadena, Community Partnerships Specialist, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) and the Asia Information Society Innovation Fund (ISIF); and Andy McWilliams, Creative Technologist at ThoughtWorks and founder and director of Art-A-Hack and Hardware Hack Lab. By Wilgengebroed on Flickr [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia CommonsWhat is the Internet of Things? One key task at the Salon was clarifying what exactly is the “Internet of Things.” According to Wikipedia: The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical objects—devices, vehicles, buildings and other items—embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity that enables these objects to collect and exchange data.[1] The IoT allows objects to be sensed and controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure,[2] creating opportunities for more direct integration of the physical world into computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit;[3][4][5][6][7][8] when IoT is augmented with sensors and actuators, the technology becomes an instance of the more general class of cyber-physical systems, which also encompasses technologies such as smart grids, smart homes, intelligent transportation and smart cities. Each thing is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system but is able to interoperate within the existing Internet infrastructure.

Posted in Aid & Development, ICT4D, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

New report: Opening Governance

Photo: Duncan Edwards, IDS. A 2010 review of impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives, conducted by Rosie McGee and John Gaventa of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), found a prevalence of untested assumptions and weak theories of change in projects, programs and strategies. This week IDS is publishing their latest Bulletin titled “Opening Governance,” which offers a compilation of evidence and contributions focusing specifically on Technology in Transparency and Accountability (Tech for T&A). It has a good range of articles that delve into critical issues in the Tech for T&A and Open Government spaces; help to clarify concepts and design; explore gender inequity as related to information access; and unpack the ‘dark side’ of digital politics, algorithms and consent. In the opening article, editors Duncan Edwards and Rosie McGee (both currently working with the IDS team that leads the Making All Voices Count Research, Learning and Evidence component) give a superb in-depth review of the history of Tech for T&A and outline some of the challenges that have stemmed from ambiguous or missing conceptual frameworks and a proliferation of “buzzwords and fuzzwords.” They unpack the history of and links between concepts of “openness,” “open development,” “open government,” “open data,” “feedback loops,” “transparency,” “accountability,” and “ICT4D (ICT for Development)” and provide some examples of papers and evidence that could help to recalibrate expectations among scholars and practitioners (and amongst donors, governments and policy-making bodies, one hopes).

Posted in Aid & Development, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed