GEO: How is e-waste being circulated globally and within small geographic spaces, disguised as a “donation” or charity act? How do shortages, environmental damage from mining for digital tech components color the tech-for-good initiative? Read more about GEO: How is e-waste being circulated globally and within small geographic spaces, disguised as a “donation” or charity act? How do shortages, environmental damage from mining for digital tech components color the tech-for-good initiative?
GEO: How does the “debris” of a tech-for-good project contribute resources to the community? How do they pollute the community? How does its success or failure, interpreted from various perspectives, color the material afterlives of artifacts? Read more about GEO: How does the “debris” of a tech-for-good project contribute resources to the community? How do they pollute the community? How does its success or failure, interpreted from various perspectives, color the material afterlives of artifacts?
ECO-ATMO: How do climatic differences (between the place where artifacts were designed, manufactured, and deployed) create opportunities for beneficiaries to appropriate intervention? Read more about ECO-ATMO: How do climatic differences (between the place where artifacts were designed, manufactured, and deployed) create opportunities for beneficiaries to appropriate intervention?
ECO-ATMO: How does precarity caused by climate change color the desire of the beneficiaries for “aid” or their faith in technological solutions? Read more about ECO-ATMO: How does precarity caused by climate change color the desire of the beneficiaries for “aid” or their faith in technological solutions?
TECHNO: What technical conditions support the belief that innovations in tech for resource-rich markets “trickle down” to being targeted for use with marginalized communities? Read more about TECHNO: What technical conditions support the belief that innovations in tech for resource-rich markets “trickle down” to being targeted for use with marginalized communities?
TECHNO: How do technical and physical infrastructures constrain the possibilities of tech-for-good projects? Read more about TECHNO: How do technical and physical infrastructures constrain the possibilities of tech-for-good projects?
DATA: How do reports produced about the promise and/or results of tech-for-good projects circulate? How are tech-for-good projects constrained by the ways their results are/can be measured? Read more about DATA: How do reports produced about the promise and/or results of tech-for-good projects circulate? How are tech-for-good projects constrained by the ways their results are/can be measured?
EDXO: How does one become an expert in tech-for-good/ICTD? How is one trained to carry out ICTD? What is the cannon? What stories are told? What mentor-mentee relationships can be characterized? Read more about EDXO: How does one become an expert in tech-for-good/ICTD? How is one trained to carry out ICTD? What is the cannon? What stories are told? What mentor-mentee relationships can be characterized?
NANO: How/ do technologists see themselves as for-good? How/ do beneficiaries see themselves as being helped? As co-designers? As designers? As participants? How does ICTD produce intervener and beneficiary subjectivities? Read more about NANO: How/ do technologists see themselves as for-good? How/ do beneficiaries see themselves as being helped? As co-designers? As designers? As participants? How does ICTD produce intervener and beneficiary subjectivities?
MICRO: What practices illustrate gratefulness? An expectation for gratefulness? What practices constitute the “for good” part of the intervention? In what ways are interactions between technologist, technology, and beneficiary ritualized? Read more about MICRO: What practices illustrate gratefulness? An expectation for gratefulness? What practices constitute the “for good” part of the intervention? In what ways are interactions between technologist, technology, and beneficiary ritualized?