The Economist trashes the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in a recent column. The tone is negative from the start with the title One Clunky Laptop Per Child the reader quickly gets the idea. The main argument is however strange. The criticism is not about the idea but is focused squarely on the technology that has been produced. The Economist goes so far as to call the idea brilliant.
The problem with this approach is that with its focus on the technology the field is left open to the idea that the project would have worked if the computer had been better. This approach ignores the problem that simply chucking technology at people will automatically solve problems.
Laptops are not really what is needed to help children in developing nations. What they need is schools, tables, chairs, paper, books, teachers, pencils and the infrastructure to attend a school. Laptops, even cheap ones, are a luxury.
The OLPC has been criticized before read more on Wikipedia.
I’m not sure they are right about the product. Just because it’s not right for the Economist people, doesn’t mean it’s not right in poor countries. And about needing tables – sure, but that’s not a problem everywhere. For some schools the OLPC idea might be just perfect.
Different countries have different problems. Thinking that the OLPC will solve poverty is unrealistic, but I still think these kind of technology-empowerment projects is a good thing for the poor nations. Now, if we can only set free more important technologies for the poor world, including energy, food storage and other important solutions.
Yes I agree that different countries have different problems but I dislike the tech attitude of the OLPC. Technology is not enough to help people learn computers. The focus and fascination with the technological side of the project creates the risk that no matter how great a device they create it will fail since they have forgotten to understand what the users need, want and accept.
My main point is that the idea of creating a cheap computer and handing it out to children is a simplistic view of how learning takes place.
Well, it’s not really like they’re just handing it out to poor kids, is it. This project is in cooperation with local schools and authorities. There is always the risk of handing over a bunch of computers, which no one can run in a couple of months, just like we have been handing out tractors and other quick-fixes in the past.
I feel that the OLPC is different. They don’t just give away end-user technology, but also everything that’s needed to continue the work on the local level. That’s what I mean by empowerment and it is what makes the free software philosophy interesting from a global development-perspective.
We are in agreement on the Free Software philosophy and its benefits for development.
But the OLPC is a gadget not a philosophy or a software infrastructure. The OLPC is too focused on the gadget where the focus should be on the users. To the right group the OLPC will provide a fantastic opportunity but I am concerned that the focus on the shiny gadget will lead to the “wrong” groups getting the gadget. Especially in countries whose education budgets are already straining.
[...] perspektiv – att skapa en billig, hållbar och användbar laptop. Men projektet fick pedagogisk kritik. Skulle barn automatiskt lära sig om de fick teknologi? Kostnader (även låga) på teknologi [...]