Educación rural como escenario de libertad

This section deals with topics that in different ways addressed what participants perceived as shortcomings when we explored whether there was anything they had hoped to do at iREACH, but were unable to. We also invited participants to talk about how problems they faced at iREACH had affected their interest. These topics and a direct question about ideas for improvements quickly moved to complaints and suggestions for overcoming problems.

As alluded to in section 7.1.4, iREACH suffered from serious service quality issues. Another major impediment faced by those wanting to use iREACH was that there was only one computer per hub and several participants expressed their and other villagers’ frustration over wasting time waiting, sometimes after having travelled for up to 30 minutes to reach a hub. Some of the adult participants said they had given up on coming, as the hubs were always full of students. Although the purpose of this research is to explore iREACH’s contribution to development outcomes, formative factors are important, insofar as they might become powerful obstacles to using the facility.

As the number of villagers using iREACH was quite small, probably representing some 15% of the population, we were interested in understanding why more people did not use it, particularly if there were any impediments to use. As shown in Table 12, the motives for non- use spanned a wide spectrum. When turning to non-users in FGs for answers in 2009, the most

frequently cited reasons were: ‘busy with schoolwork and/or family obligations’, whether home

duties and/or income generating work. Contrary to a common misconception (Chambers, 2006), poor people’s time is often very precious, as confirmed by participants, who explained the poorest had to work hard and did not have time to use iREACH. This was exacerbated through

fewer family members remaining in the villages, as lack of local employment opportunities had

led many to migrate. Other reasons included: ‘did not know about iREACH, afraid to damage

computers, insufficient literacy and other skills, cannot speak English and want to give opportunities to children’. A few thought they lived too far from a hub, but not everyone living

in the proximity was a user. For example, someone in the Kep women’s group had never visited the hub located across the road from her house. Participants in two groups saw no need for and/or benefits of using iREACH. The only self-confidence related reason given in 2009 (in two groups), for non-use was fear of breaking the computer, despite iREACH having addressed such fears through intermediation by the CFs, obviating the need for people to use computers by themselves, so this reason might reflect ignorance of how iREACH operated.

Survey

Reasons for non‐use 2009* 2010** 2010*

Too busy  55% 47% 59%

No need, no interest, not important 36% 59% 16%

Equipment and service related issues 18% 65% 10%

Perceived insufficient knowledge  18% 24% 10%

Afraid and shy 18% 29% 4%

Living too far away from hub 18% 24% 0%

Did not know about iREACH 9% 0% 5%

Too poor (don't know about free serv 0% 6% 4%

* Non‐users asked why they don't use iREACH

** Question related to why not more people use iREACH Focus groups

Table 12: Reasons for non-use

As we changed the nature of the question in 2010 to reflect participants’ perceptions of non- use by community members in general, rather than their personal non-use (‘why don’t more people use iREACH’), the responses are not directly comparable. Some 30% of the groups, all

of them in KCM, gave reasons linked to fear (e.g. ‘afraid to use new technologies, afraid to

break computer and have to pay for it, afraid to go to a private house and commune hall, shy’).

A male participant in the Kep commune council group was of the view that women would not enter a hub with many men. Participants in a majority of groups (65%) related non-use to frustrations stemming from unsatisfactory technical performance and insufficient number of computers. Many complained about long waiting times for accessing computers and one participant in the Kep NGO group reported that she had heard from others that they travel to an Internet café in Kampot (a 45 minute drive) rather than attend iREACH. This was confirmed by a frequent user in the Kep youth group, who was aware that many villagers considered iREACH a waste of time. A few participants gave the more altruistic reason of non-users wanting to give preference to children. In addition to similar reasons as those given in 2009, in 2010, the issue

of some villagers’ reluctance to attend hubs in private homes and council offices was raised. As discussed in section 3.1.5.5 similar reasons for non-use have been noted at other ICT4D initiatives.

Similar issues emerged from the survey, with the highest proportion (59%) giving reasons related to being too busy.

Unless iREACH can address the unsatisfactory operational conditions, it is questionable whether its early benefits can sustain interest. They may instead undermine confidence in the system, thereby affecting iREACH’s ability to deliver on what appeared a promising start in terms of contributions to the CES.