Overview » Executive Summary

Our Recommendations

Further research

The overwhelming conclusion of both our literature review and our interviews is that many areas urgently need more, and better, research. Given the nature of our sources, some of this sentiment is to be expected: researchers in any field tend to claim a need for more research.

As independent observers, however, we concur with the conclusion that research on the risks associated with ICT adoption has been relatively neglected. In contemporary American society, value is often measured in terms of "progress” — a concept strongly influenced by corporate interests with new technology to sell us. Yet we recommend caution in interpreting marketers' claims about the value of ICTs. When the stakes are so high (in terms of both resource commitment and potential social effects), decisions should be based on evidence other than bald assertions by those with the loudest voices.

We recognize that the Kellogg Foundation does not fund primary research. There are numerous ways, however, in which Kellogg projects can both contribute to and derive value from such research.

• Projects involving ICTs could include an evaluation component. By documenting the ability (or inability) of ICTs to meet the stated goals of specific projects, Kellogg could contribute valuable lessons to others considering similar investments.
• By encouraging and monitoring further research, Kellogg could improve its funding decisions and provide sound advice to grantees. By identifying key risk areas, Kellogg grant officers would also be able to ask grant recipients the right questions, in order to evaluate the success or failure of their projects.

» Next: Evaluate, and track findings for future projects