The ResearchGap Website features two interesting discussions on Mobile Technology. One paper examines Mobile technology in healthcare, while the other focuses on Mobile technology within banking, developing economies (a case of mobile banking culture in Ghana). These papers engage the paradox of why Mobile Technology, despite being relatively inexpensive, sufficiently sophisticated and seemingly well-positioned, has persisted in being of limited use particularly in healthcare. Fundamental systemic issues are attributed as the underlying obstacle to adoption of Mobile technology in the healthcare sector.
In my view, when placed side by side, mobile technology seems to yield differential outcomes in developing economies, contrasted with developed economies. I tend to agree that Systemic differences are the likely culprit behind the variance. In the case of developing economies, basic mobile technology has only recently become rapidly ubiquitous. For example in parts of Latin America, India’s and Africa’s technological hubs, much of the populace has access to basic mobile technology. Therefore systemic challenges for extension of mobile telephony for healthcare and banking to the underserved are rapidly becoming a well-occupied frontier, where funding remains the key constraint. Granted, such applications are at a very basic level. But again, such is compatible with resource-poor contexts. At a systemic level, perhaps rapid uptake of mobile technology in resource-poor contexts engages because there is an inherent consistency of basic architectures across the social and technological systems; Mainly the ‘basics’ of the mobile technologies are deployed in ‘basic ways’ for ‘basic’ healthcare and ‘basic’ banking, etc: In a word, ‘Keeping It Simple’!
So how is it that well-resourced developed economies, despite having highly sophisticated mobile telephony industries, and similarly highly techno-savvy healthcare and banking sectors, appear to struggle to establish convergences as effortlessly as we would expect? Is it possible that when technology is so highly advanced, competing alternatives as well as spikes in complexity, come into play to complicate the systemic puzzle? Is the crux of the systemic challenge of couched in the mandate to establish convergence across already mature, complex technologies that were originally designed for divergence?
True, in recent times electronic devices are increasingly being designed for convergence, but the complexities of social systems may yet have some catching up to do.
Elsie Gakere
www.CompletePhD.com
In my view, when placed side by side, mobile technology seems to yield differential outcomes in developing economies, contrasted with developed economies. I tend to agree that Systemic differences are the likely culprit behind the variance. In the case of developing economies, basic mobile technology has only recently become rapidly ubiquitous. For example in parts of Latin America, India’s and Africa’s technological hubs, much of the populace has access to basic mobile technology. Therefore systemic challenges for extension of mobile telephony for healthcare and banking to the underserved are rapidly becoming a well-occupied frontier, where funding remains the key constraint. Granted, such applications are at a very basic level. But again, such is compatible with resource-poor contexts. At a systemic level, perhaps rapid uptake of mobile technology in resource-poor contexts engages because there is an inherent consistency of basic architectures across the social and technological systems; Mainly the ‘basics’ of the mobile technologies are deployed in ‘basic ways’ for ‘basic’ healthcare and ‘basic’ banking, etc: In a word, ‘Keeping It Simple’!
So how is it that well-resourced developed economies, despite having highly sophisticated mobile telephony industries, and similarly highly techno-savvy healthcare and banking sectors, appear to struggle to establish convergences as effortlessly as we would expect? Is it possible that when technology is so highly advanced, competing alternatives as well as spikes in complexity, come into play to complicate the systemic puzzle? Is the crux of the systemic challenge of couched in the mandate to establish convergence across already mature, complex technologies that were originally designed for divergence?
True, in recent times electronic devices are increasingly being designed for convergence, but the complexities of social systems may yet have some catching up to do.
Elsie Gakere
www.CompletePhD.com
Posts
As per my comment in the 'Doing Research and Having Fun' post, I would like to ask for an hyperlink to the specific article in the research gap website. Many thanks.
ReplyDeleteIs there a reason why the 'user groups' listed in the article on healthcare only mentions 'doctors and nurses' and excludes allied health?
ReplyDeleteThe 'telerehabilitation' literature shows much promise for the remote delivery of allied health interventions (occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology, counselling, etc) using mobile technology. In my experience, allied health professionals working in community roles are often already engaged in activities that are defined as telerehabilitation / telehealth / e health in the literature e.g. store & forward (photos, clinical consult), phone-based clinical consults.