October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

professional-level tools and resources of practicing scientists, researchers, and so on. Perhaps the best examples
among these 25 Laureates are the Lewis Center for Educational Research (2001 Laureate) and Gilbert Clark of
the Telescopes in Education Foundation (2005 Laureate). Each of these efforts allows teachers and their students
access to professional-level tools and resources (a radio-telescope through the Lewis Center, and several remotecontrolled
telescopes through Telescopes in Education). It’s easy to imagine the excitement felt by those students
when given the chance to work in such a facilities, doing work as real scientists would. At another level, the
work by Nepal’s National Society for Earthquake Technology (2004 Laureate) exemplifies the belief that people
may learn best when they get to do and see and touch rather than just listen. Their Shake Table provides a
powerful and direct way to instruct builders on the consequences of inadequate building techniques and
materials, and thanks to the ability to simply and cheaply simulate how different structures fare in earthquakes of
different magnitudes, turn what may seem as abstract concepts into memorable lessons.
Considering first the approach to technology as meaning more than computers and the Internet, a closer look at
the work of the Freeplay Foundation, the Barefoot College, Equal Access, and Brij Kothari’s Same Language
Subtitling is rewarding. In each case, the technology used is not a breakthrough technology except in the context
where it was being introduced, as in the regions of Africa where the Freeplay Foundation’s windup radios
addressed a major problem of lack of access to information because the cost of batteries made operating a
transistor radio too expensive. The Barefoot College in India broadens the definition of technology to include
both hardware (solar panels for electricity generation) and software (work processes that empower local
communities through harnessing of natural resources). Equal Access, on the other hand, relies on state-of-the-art
digital satellite radio broadcast and receiving technology (including a custom-designed portable receiver
intended for personal or small group use) to reach populations that cannot have access to education and
information through any other media. And Brij Kothari’s elegantly simple idea to leverage subtitling of televised
images (mainly the very popular music variety shows broadcast in Indian television) as a way to expose illiterate
populations to the song lyrics—that is, the written languages they have had little or no exposure to in their
limited schooling experience—thus supporting beginning literacy.
Each of these four examples relied on technologies invented by someone else, but the Laureates made creative
use of them to address specific needs they identified. Cardwell’s (1995, p.493) valuable distinction between
machines (temporary, replaceable by better machines) and structures (designed to be permanent) is applicable
here, for even the Laureates designing mainly hardware clearly understand the need to have appropriate
structures around them that enhance the likelihood of successful, long-term implementation. The ripple effects of
their work on the communities they serve are broad and deep, in some cases leading to significant changes in
living standards and quality of life.
Cases like the Costa Rican national educational technology implementation, headed by the Omar Dengo
Foundation (2003 Laureate), highlight the importance of vision and leadership in change processes of this
magnitude. “National leaders must advance a vision of change that can steer a political course that somehow
balances rapid development with social cohesion and cultural integrity” (Tipson & Frittelli, 2003, p. 10), a
challenge that can be easily biased in the direction of political self-interest and preservation of special interests.
Costa Rica is, along with Chile (Hepp, Hinostroza, Laval, & Rehbein, 2004), one of the few success stories in
Latin America where changes of this magnitude to national education systems have been accomplished,
surviving political changes that destroy similar efforts in other countries. The process is not over, even after
more than 15 years of sustained work in Costa Rica, a fact that serves to reminds us that change—and the
benefits derived from it— can be painfully slow even under the best of circumstances.
It’s also worth noting that most of the Laureates are working toward improvement of conditions of people at the
bottom of the pyramid (Prahalad & Hammond, 2002). The systemic efforts to employ technology to address the
needs of populations in dire need is evident in the work of organizations such as the Barefoot College (2002
Laureate), Freeplay Foundation (2001 Laureate), Katha (2002 Laureate), Schools Online (2001 Laureate), Equal
Access (2003 Laureate), Computers for Youth (2003 Laureate), Andrew Lieberman of the Asociación Ajb’atz’
Enlace Quiché (2004 Laureate), and Design that Matters (2005 Laureate). In all these cases, the goal is both to
focus on a specific population and then try to reach as many of them as possible. The technologies employed by
these Laureates have been chosen wisely, to address the needs of the people served and enhance the
multiplicative effect of the introduction of technology in their environment. In all these cases, technology is
playing multiple roles, increasing individual opportunity and contributing to social cohesion and development.
An underlying and often unstated assumption about ICTs is that “when designed and phased in with attention to
each aspect of the strategic framework, ICTs should be able to trigger a form of development dynamic—a
multiplier or “network effect” that generates an overall impact greater than the sum of the separate inputs”
(Tipson & Frittelli, 2003, p.11).
210