IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v46y2016icp58-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspectives on context, design teams and diffusion of technological innovations in low-resource settings: A practical approach based on sub-Saharan African projects

Author

Listed:
  • Kisaalita, William S.

Abstract

A human-centered design approach for creating science/engineering-driven solutions or innovations, referred to as “connect-the-dots,” is presented. Dots symbolize the best questions and the connections reveal the best order in which these questions should be answered. In this approach, the number of customer or user behavioral changes are critically analyzed, revealing the overall context in which the solution or innovation will operate; especially to undergraduate students creating solutions to problems from settings that are less familiar, from cultural, economic, and geopolitical viewpoints. Solutions or innovations that result in minimal user behavior changes are preferred. Additional benefits include better incorporation of systems theory thinking, ease with which team multidisciplinarity and diversity can be identified, and seamlessly integrating design and research.

Suggested Citation

  • Kisaalita, William S., 2016. "Perspectives on context, design teams and diffusion of technological innovations in low-resource settings: A practical approach based on sub-Saharan African projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 58-62.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:46:y:2016:i:c:p:58-62
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X16300495
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    2. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Rojhat Avsar, 2021. "Rational Emotions: An Evolutionary Perspective," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 297-314, July.
    4. Helena Fornwagner & Oliver P. Hauser, 2022. "Climate Action for (My) Children," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(1), pages 95-130, January.
    5. Moore, Alexander K. & Lewis, Joshua & Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2023. "Benevolent friends and high integrity leaders: How preferences for benevolence and integrity change across relationships," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Newman, George E. & Jeremy Shen, Y., 2012. "The counterintuitive effects of thank-you gifts on charitable giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 973-983.
    7. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    8. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    9. Canh Thien Dang & Trudy Owens, 2017. "What motivates Ugandan NGOs to diversify: Risk reduction or private gain?," Discussion Papers 2017-11, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Grossman, Zachary & van der Weele, Joël & Andrijevik, Ana, 2014. "A Test of Dual-Process Reasoning in Charitable Giving," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt4tm617f7, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Hasford, Jonathan & Farmer, Adam & Waites, Stacie F., 2015. "Thinking, feeling, and giving: The effects of scope and valuation on consumer donations," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 435-438.
    14. Roland Bénabou & Armin Falk & Luca Henkel & Jean Tirole, 2020. "Eliciting Moral Preferences: Theory and Experiment," Working Papers 2020-17, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    15. Johnson, Samuel G.B. & Park, Seo Young, 2021. "Moral signaling through donations of money and time," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 183-196.
    16. Xu, Alison Jing & Rodas, Maria A. & Torelli, Carlos J., 2020. "Generosity without borders: The interactive effect of spatial distance and donation goals on charitable giving," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 65-78.
    17. Chen, Josie I. & Foster, Andrew & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Identity, trust and altruism: An experiment on preferences and microfinance lending," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Michael Jones & Deserai Crow, 2017. "How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Gabriele Paolacci & Gizem Yalcin, 2020. "Fewer but poorer: Benevolent partiality in prosocial preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 173-181, March.
    20. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    21. Pinar Yildirim & Andrei Simonov & Maria Petrova & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2024. "Are Political and Charitable Giving Substitutes? Evidence from the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 8030-8043, November.
    22. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:46:y:2016:i:c:p:58-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.