Content uploaded by Leon Gwaka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leon Gwaka on Mar 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Digital technologies and youth mobility in rural Zimbabwe
Leon Tinashe Gwaka
1,2
1
University of th e Western Cape, Cape Town,
South Africa
2
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
Correspondence
Leon Tinashe Gwaka, University of the
Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa; or
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Email: tinashegwaka@gmail.com
Funding information
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), Grant/Award Number:
AID‐OAA‐A‐13‐00018; University of Pretoria
Southern Africa Resilience Innovation Lab
(SA RILab); Makerere University School of
Public Health's ResilientAfrica Network (RAN)
Abstract
The adoption and use of digital technologies (DTs) in rural communities have an impact on several
aspects of the society. Using empirical evidence from selected villages of Beitbridge district in
Zimbabwe, this study examines the relationship between DTs and youth mobility. The different
types, causes, and motifs associated with youth mobilities are explored using qualitative research
methods including focus group discussions and community visioning workshops. Study findings
reveal challenges facing youths in trying to be mobile including social (mainly gender) inequalities.
Thus, women were found to be less mobile. Lack of infrastructure was found to be another key
challenge impacting youth mobility. The study however found that DTs are being adopted and
this has led to virtual mobilities, which is redefining youth mobility. The opportunities and chal-
lenges of integrating virtual mobilities and physical mobilities were explored. The study findings
are critical to various actors including ICT, education, and other sectors in that they show oppor-
tunities that need to be expropriated to enhance youth mobility, which is key to socio‐economic
well‐being of youths, as well as the challenges that can be faced through the ubiquity of DTs.
KEYWORDS
digital technologies (DTs), ICT4D, mobilities, virtual mobilities, youths
1|INTRODUCTION
Digital technologies (DTs) are part of the modern‐day societies in the 21st century (Steenbruggen, Nijkamp, & van der Vlist, 2014). Nearly every
aspect of our contemporary life has become linked to some form of technology, even in the least‐developed communities (Porter, 2016). Many
studies show that the digital divide in developing countries is disappearing, with others critiquing its existence (James, 2008). However, perspec-
tives on the digital divide can only be in context (Hayes & Westrup, 2012), as these vary according to the positionality of the researcher. Also, the
continuous emergence of new DTs incessantly creates digital divides even though some are only momentary in that there is always someone
lagging on technology adoption and use (Wilhelm, 2002; Xia & Lu, 2008). This is not a technology issue but rather an issue entrenched in the
societal inequalities.
The accessibility of DTs is revolutionary to most rural communities especially in Africa. For many years, studies have suggested that the
adoption and use of DTs have implications for and on societal well‐being (Gregor, Imran, & Turner, 2014; Hamelink, 1997). Existing evidence, even
though debated, show how the adoption and use of DTs (eg, mobile financial services, m‐Health, and e‐Agriculture) positively contribute to the
transformation of societies (Aker & Ksoll, 2015). On the contrary, other studies, eg, Wyche, Simiyu, and Othieno (2016), show that the adoption
and use of DTs in societies have, to some extent, led to the undoing of development in rural communities, for example, by exacerbating social
inequalities. These contrasting technology affordances are the proponents of the social determinism approach, which argues that DTs' impacts
on societies are not predetermined; thus, technologies can have either desired or undesired impact depending on how societies appropriate the
DTs (Luna‐Reyes & Gil‐Garcia, 2014). In support of this, the Social Shaping of Technology theory also suggests that the impacts of DTs on society
are shaped by the social processes within a society (Williams & Edge, 1996).
Existing studies on DTs' impacts on society have focused on a range of areas such as education, health, agriculture, and politics. Heeks (2014),
like Walsham (2017), shows the extent to which ICT studies on these different sectors has been done over the past decade. Considering Heeks'
(2014) and Walsham's (2017) perspectives, this paper attempts to contribute to the scholarship on the impacts of DTs on societies by focusing
on a fairly less‐studied area—particularly in the context of the study area—which is the youth mobilities paradigm (cf Barker, Kraftl, Horton, &
Tucker, 2009; Milbourne & Kitchen, 2014; Taipale, 2014). Despite several perceptions on what the term “mobilities”refers to, Buscher and Urry
DOI: 10.1002/isd2.12025
E J Info Sys Dev Countries. 2018;e12025.
https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12025
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/isd2 1of10
(2009) as well as Hannam, Butler, and Paris (2014) concur that mobilities refer to the movements of people, objects, information, and ideas—or
broadly, movement of things. However, this study focuses on the movement of young persons in rural communities—referred to as youth mobility
(King, Lulle, Morosanu, & Williams, 2016). The study focuses on rural youths considering that this group faces many challenges including limited
socio‐economic opportunities and yet “… being mobile is essential for taking part in social and economic life”Noack (2011, p. 79).
The adoption and use of DTs impact several aspects of a society to an extent that it is contributing to a shift in the movement of people,
objects, information, and ideas by creating new ways of coordination among people (Büscher, 2006). Specifically, recent technological innovations
such as mobile applications, mainly targeting young people, impact the movement of youths staying in both rural and urban areas. While physical
movement has been the focus of many studies on mobilities, emerging technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and interactive technologies call for
an extension of focus from physical to virtual mobilities. For instance, Guttentag (2010, p. 638) shows mobilities in VR showing that in VR, one has
the “… ability to move around and explore”as well as “… select and move objects.”Therefore, it can be argued that DTs have created new spaces for
movement known as the virtual environment enabling new type of mobilities known as virtual mobilities (Milbourne & Kitchen, 2014).
With continuous innovation, it is prudent to accept that newer DTs that can impact the mobilities of young people both in rural and urban
areas will emerge. These DTs, like any other technologies, will not have predetermined impacts; thus, these can present both new challenges as
well as opportunities within the mobilities paradigm. However, these challenges can best be met and the opportunities best exploited through a
“… more widespread and complete understanding of the relationships”between the emerging DTs and youth mobilities (Guttentag, 2010,
p. 648). As such, this paper explores the relationship between DTs and youth mobility in rural areas particularly to understand the new challenges
and opportunities presented by DTs and how these can best be overcome and met respectively.
2|RESEARCH CONTEXT
Existing studies on mobilities are biased towards developed countries as well as urban areas with limited studies available focusing on rural com-
munities such as Beitbridge, which are often inaccessible to many researchers. This research is a response to calls for diverse studies on mobilities in
varying contexts, eg, focusing on rural communities, marginalised groups, or even young people (Norman et al., 2015) and complementing limited
existing research on the relationship between DTs and mobilities (Van Wee, 2015). In the 21st century, young persons (also youths), for this study,
between the ages 16 to 35 years, are facing numerous socio‐economic, environmental, and political challenges and need to be on the move (mobile)
to look for opportunities (King et al., 2016; Langevang & Gough, 2009; Noack, 2011). Further to this, modern societies in which the youths are
growing are inundated and dependent on DTs, which can constrict or enhance the mobility of the youths (Le Vine, Latinopoulos, & Polak, 2014,
2016) since youths adopt modern technologies quicker than older people. The impacts of DTs such as mobile phones on the mobilities of youth
and even the elderly in rural communities are still emerging and complex (Norman et al., 2015; Porter, 2016). However, this research is even inter-
esting considering that other researchers have emphasised that new ICT services and applications do not yet have a clear‐cut functional equiva-
lence in the “physical”world (Van Wee, Geurs, & Chorus, 2013). Therefore, based on the arguments presented above, this study specifically
aims to explore and generate knowledge on the relationship between DTs and youth mobilities, and related complexities, in rural communities.
The study provides an overview of the profile of youth in the selected rural community of Beitbridge in Zimbabwe. An analysis of the mobility
of youth mobility in digital age is also provided. Further to this, the study provides similarities and contrasts between digital and physical mobilities.
The study also explores the concept of mobility surveillance before developing a conclusion.
3|RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 |The research site—Beitbridge
This study is situated in the Beitbridge district of Zimbabwe focusing on selected villages within the district. As depicted in Figure 1, the study area
is located at the border of Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa. Due to its location, the study area is a hub of socio‐economic activities due to
many people in transit between South Africa and Zimbabwe every day. The socio‐economic activities in this area are diverse, but the majority of
these revolve around services linked to the border—including legal and illegal. Beitbridge falls under the “rurban”banner as it has both the charac-
teristics of rural and urban set‐up, and in this study, the term “rural”is not meant to create “imagined geographies”(Norman et al., 2015) but simply
refer to resource constrained societies with limited contemporary infrastructure.
In Zimbabwe, districts are administrative areas that are further subdivided into wards, which are also further divided into villages. This study
was conducted in 4 purposively selected villages of ward 15, which are Mapayi, Shabwe, Dumba, and Old Nuli. The proximity of these areas to
physical borders (Beitbridge border post) as well as the Limpopo River that divides Zimbabwe and South Africa also encouraged their selection.
Data for this study were collected from November 2015 as part of a larger ongoing interdisciplinary project in Beitbridge. The ethical clearance
for the project—Mobile Solution for Marginalised Communities (MOSMAC)—was granted by the University of Pretoria. Further clearances for
the research were also obtained from the local gatekeepers, ie, the District Administrator's office, the Rural District Council, and the District Police
office. The local traditional leadership also provided clearances to collect data within their areas.
2of10 GWAKA
3.2 |Research method
Studying complexity concepts such as mobilities requires well‐thought research methods. Fortuitously, there are many studies on mobilities and
this study profited from the research methods in these previous studies (cf Buscher & Urry, 2009; Langevang & Gough, 2009; Porter et al.,
2010; Porter, Hampshire, Munthali, & Robson, 2011). Overall, the ethnographic techniques were applied in conducting this research (see Kannisto,
2016). The study uses a case study approach following Dufty‐Jones' (2015) indication of how limited case studies on rural mobility studies are. To
collect data, the researcher conducted community visioning workshops in the study area. Three workshops were conducted at Mapayi, Shabwe
(combined with Old Nuli), and Dumba. Essentially, community visioning refers to “… a process involving a group of people coming together to
develop common ideas about what they would like their community to be like in future and to plan how to achieve it”(Chitakira, Torquebiau, &
Ferguson, 2012). During the workshops, the researcher facilitated discussions on problems facing the youth, brainstorming potential solutions
to these problems, and mapping out the youths' desired futures teasing out the positioning of DTs. From the community visioning workshops,
research participants for the focus group discussions were identified. In terms of focus group discussions, a focus group guide was developed
for the study. The discussions focused on youths, their role in the community, their desires, use of DTs, and everyday life practices. In these focus
group discussions, the role of the author was to facilitate the discussions rather than influencing the discussions. In all, 3 focus group discussions
have been conducted. A summary of the data collection is presented in Table 1.
Also, the researcher connected to some of the research participants using the social technologies (Facebook and WhatsApp), and this has
enabled the researcher to walk with (virtually) the research participants and engage in conversations with the research participants in a more relaxed
way. Furthermore, the researcher continues to participate in the community practices, for instance, attending livestock auction (Gwaka, 2017),
attending local entertainment shows, and eating at the local eating places. By doing so, the researcher continues to interact with the research
participants as a participant‐researcher (Murthy, 2008). The involvement of the researcher in these practices may, to some extent, affect the data
collection process due to “immersion”of the researcher in the situation. However, this can be overcome in several ways, eg, Krauss (2012) provides
useful guidelines on how to attain “self‐emancipation”while performing the research.
TABLE 1 Summary of data collection
Timeline Data Collection Method Data Collected n
May 2016 Community visioning (CV) workshops
(involved broader community)
Qualitative: The desired community, community
challenges, potential solutions, and the role of
mobilities in community
3 community visioning
workshops (average
participants = 15)
2 FGDs:
May 2016
1FGD:
August 2017
Focus group discussions (only youths
selected from the CV workshops)
Qualitative: Youth mobility, DTs adoption and
use, community practices, and expectations
on youths
3 FGDs (average
participants = 9)
Nov 2015‐
2017
“Walking with”—Engaging in social
networking activities
Qualitative: Observing and experiencing the societal
dynamics, mobility patterns, and use of DTs
Multiple
Abbreviations: DT, digital technology; FGDs, Focus Group Discussions.
FIGURE 1 Map of Beitbridge, Zimbabwe
(Source: Google Maps, 2016)
GWAKA 3of10
4|YOUTHMOBILITYINRURALAREAS
4.1 |Physical mobilities
The mobility of people is not a random activity but rather an activity influenced by needs and social ties (Jahromi, Zignani, Gaito, & Rossi, 2016). The
use of DTs is transforming the practice of mobilities in communities, thus changing how things such as people, knowledge, material, power, and
information move. There is consensus that DTs are shaped by society (Williams & Edge, 1996); however, these DTs, once domesticated in societies,
become agents of change. Many examples exist showing how specific sectors of the society (eg, agriculture, education, and health) have been
transformed in the process of adoption and use of DTs. However, to date, little is known on the impacts of DTs on the mobility of youths in
the rural communities. Therefore, in this section, before exploring the intersection of DTs and youth mobilities, the study explores general youth
mobility in rural communities specifically to understand the mobility patterns in rural communities.
Youth mobility in any community is centred on societal dynamics including social, economic, and environmental dynamics. Most of the youths
in the study area, like any other community, are mainly involved in schools, and the dispersion of schools in rural communities means that many
school‐going youths walk considerable distances to school. On the other hand, unemployed school leavers, in search of economic opportunities,
also walk to places with potential work opportunities such as townships (growth points) where often, short‐term labour jobs are available. Further
to this, there is a considerable number of youths who, with no purpose, roam around within the community—mostly hopeless and in despair. Thus,
all youths, regardless of socio‐economic class, are mobile. However, it was also observed that the physical movement of youths differs (frequency
and nature) by the socio‐economic level of the individual (whether in school, employed, or unemployed) as well as by gender (cf Noack, 2011).
Particularly of interest in this study was the observation that unemployed male youths had the freedom to be or were expected to be frequently
mobile in search of economic opportunities and yet, unemployed female youths were expected to be at home helping parents, occasionally mobile
in search of economic opportunities (cf Hanson, 2010). During a focus group discussion, a female participant indicated that
As a female, my movements are mostly restricted as compared to male counterparts. I am expected to be at home at certain times, fetch
water, and participate in community gardens and do most activities around food preparation. As a result, I do not have the same economic
opportunities as male youths whose movements appear to be unrestricted.
In response to this, a male participant argued that
Women's restricted movement is for their own safety. For instance, recently, elephants have been spotted in the community and should
one encounter these, men are able to flee, and women may not. Also, our culture dictates that a woman who loiters around is considered
of loose moral than one who is always around the house. (cf Mason, Parkins, & Kaler, 2017)
Further discussions revealed that social inequalities remain entrenched in everyday practices including mobilities. Young women are less
mobile in rural communities due to family restrictions (societal expectations of being grounded), and yet, for young men, they are expected to
be mobile. Like Noack (2011) and Porter (2011), gender was found to be a critical determinant of the mobility pattern and mobility choices within
the study area. Porter et al. (2011, p. 115) report that “local economic circumstances in both urban and rural areas of sub–Saharan Africa commonly
require children's participation from an early age in a much broader range of productive and reproductive activities than is usual”, and in this study,
it was also found that often, school‐going young women were expected to do extra chores at home after school. Cognizant of these imbalances, a
donor‐led intervention facilitated the distribution of bicycles prioritising girls (see Figure 2) to reduce the burden of walking long distances.
Furthermore, in the context of Beitbridge, it would be inadequate to discuss mobilities without examining border‐related mobilities. The prox-
imity of the study area to the Beitbridge border means that most of the youths within the study area interact with the border in several ways.
Firstly, the border is used by many people in transit—some with limited knowledge on the operations at the border. This has created an economic
opportunity for several youths who offer help to transiting people. However, there are also many people who use illegal routes (mainly Limpopo
River) to cross into South Africa—known as border jumpers—and some youths in the study area are also involved in helping these border jumpers
in return for an attractive payment. Apart from this, youths in the study area also frequently cross the border (legally and illegally) into South Africa
for various reasons and key among these in search of economic opportunities. While women also cross into South Africa, those using illegal routes
are vulnerable to abuse ‐physically and emotionally.
In all, youths within the study area engage in several physical mobilities. The study found that most youth mobilities within the community
are driven by economic needs. Young people move around in search of economic opportunities, eg, going to school, border operation, or even
illegal crossing. Also, there are mobilities driven by sociocultural needs, eg, visiting friends or travelling to participate in social gatherings. However,
in all the discussions, despite the study area's erratic weather conditions, the youths did not cite environmental issues (drought and high
temperatures) as causes of mobilities.
4.2 |Virtual mobilities
Despite most rural communities in developing countries lacking access to internet or mobile connection (Rey‐Moreno, Blignaut, Tucker, & May,
2016), Foster, Graham, Mann, Waema, and Friederici (2018) suggest that there has been a massive improvement in the Internet access in
4of10 GWAKA
developing countries. Relating to the study area, Gwaka (2017) observed that most youths in the study area have knowledge of, have access to, and
can use social media applications/services such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. The use of DTs such as social technologies can serve a
critical function of mobility—which is giving access. The affordances of DTs create virtual mobilities, which Kenyon, Lyons, and Rafferty (2002)
define as “… accessing activities that traditionally require physical mobility, but …without recourse to physical travel.”Often, in rural communities,
the major challenges lie in resource access (eg, accessing the outside world, information, or ideas).
With the prices for mobile phone handsets reducing and access to cheaper models (Hahn & Kibora, 2008), it was found that most of the youths
own or can access a mobile phone but only one respondent owns a computer. Thus, the main form of technology within the study area is the mobile
phone. While connectivity to Zimbabwe mobile networks is extremely poor, most households in the study area use South African networks
(Gwaka, 2017). During the study, participants were asked the ways in which they were making use of DTs (mobile phone) to support their daily
practices and one respondent indicated that
We have a WhatsApp group for the boys in the community. We use this group to share many stories, jokes and job opportunities. The
WhatsApp group even includes those who now stay in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. The group is always active to an extent
that I have decided to mute mine, but I always check what is being discussed. However, I do not always like the pictures and videos of
my friends staying in other countries because at times, they make me feel that I am not advancing with my life.
Kenyon, Rafferty, and Lyons (2003) suggest that virtual mobility includes “… creating new and maintaining old social networks, formal and
informal interactions,”and it is evident from the responses obtained in the study that new DTs (social media in particular) such as WhatsApp
are creating virtual mobilities of ideas, knowledge, and information among youths within the community. In this study, analysis of the responses
show that youths—both staying at home and abroad—benefit extensively from the DTs. For instance, through media sharing (images or videos)
in the WhatsApp group, those staying abroad get a sense of the current situation at home (which can stimulate emotions) while those at home
always get to see and develop an idea of where their friends are staying and working (this can create a desire to want to travel abroad as well—creating
new physical mobilities). Another respondent expressed this indicating that
From the time I started using Facebook, I have managed to create connections with my old friends as well as gaining new friends. I often
view pictures and videos of my friends who stay in various places and of other areas (posted by my friends)—I can't afford to go to these
places but the pictures and videos help me get a sense of where I would want to visit or not.
While the adoption and use of DTs in the study area remain poor, increased uptake of technologies will likely improve virtual mobility of
things in the study area (cf Vilhelmson & Thulin, 2008). For instance, Foster et al. (2018) show that through improved internet connectivity,
information and data flows within developing countries have altered. Also, the emergence of mobile money services such as Ecocash has
transformed mobility of money (Gwaka, 2017). Through DTs, the concept of time and space in rural communities is changing, but also, not
all change is desirable, eg, when it negatively affects culture and social capital within the communities (cf Vilhelmson & Thulin, 2008). For
instance, interactions of youths through DTs can result in adoption of new culture or increased isolation impacting culture and social capital.
It is prudent therefore to suggest that the ubiquity of DTs creates opportunities and challenges for the mobility of youths in rural communities,
and it is necessary to establish whether physical and virtual mobilities can support each to contribute to the improved well‐being of young
people in rural communities.
FIGURE 2 School children riding their bicycles after school
GWAKA 5of10
4.3 |Juxtaposing virtual and physical mobilities
In this section, the study attempts to develop an understanding of the opportunities for physical and virtual mobilities to support each other to
contribute to the improved well‐being of young people in rural communities. Responses gathered from the study show that youths mobilities in
the study area are already based on integration of virtual and physical mobilities. There are many motivations for integrating virtual and physical
mobilities in rural communities such as lack of infrastructure, resource constrains within household, and health risks, environmental pollution,
and safety issues (Steenbruggen et al., 2014).
The first focus of the section follows the findings showing that children in the study area walk long distances to attend school. These “sacrificial
mobilities”* are premised on the promises of a better future that such mobilities bring (education and subsequent employment/business venture).
However, walking long distances to access education is a challenge often associated with poor school performances and vulnerability of children
especially girls. To avoid walking long distances daily, school‐going children in the study area rent places near schools but staying away from their
parents has resulted in many girls falling pregnant. While there are efforts by the community members to organise transport for the children, the
study area, like other rural communities, lacks physical infrastructure. In the study area, it was found that some of the villages have dilapidated
roads and because of lack of funds within the local authorities, some roads have been under construction for many years—see, for example,
Figure 3. Apart from poor roads, school‐going children are sometimes also affected by extreme weather conditions, eg, flooding, and in seasons
of rain, children often miss many classes.
In terms of education, many actors such as government, educators, and technology designers among others seem to converge on the idea of
using emerging technologies in education. Many advances such as e‐learning have occurred, and educational material is being disseminated using
technological innovations. A key example is the free online courses such as those facilitated by Coursera. Therefore, while this is not the current
case, DTs can be integrated in the education system and school‐going youths in rural communities can take advantage of the DTs' affordances, eg,
online learning to access education material. While substituting physical teacher contact remains contested, in days of extreme weather (floods),
DTs can be a critical alternative to avoid loss of education time and children can access the material using DTs. In the same vein of education, many
unemployed youths can also use the DTs to develop further skills, which can improve their chances of getting employed or starting a business ven-
ture. Furthermore, DTs can also be used by unemployed youths to search for job opportunities (beyond the physical confinements of the village).
In terms of physical mobilities, in a bid to maintain the family social fabric, there are many women who illegally cross into South Africa (some
with children) following men who would have migrated to South Africa. Even other parents express worry over youths who migrate without
returning. However, technological advances, specifically social technologies such as Facebook and WhatsApp, can be helpful in maintaining family
social fabric. Through DTs, interaction of individuals in different places has been transformed. Digital technology advances now enable individuals
to relay recorded or live videos (eg, Facebook live), text, images, or even voice recordings. Therefore, it is the study's submission that, through these
offerings, DTs are modifying the sociocultural mobilities in societies, eg, by reducing physical visits to friends and family while increasing interaction
through DTs. With many youths staying in South Africa, parents (or remaining family) can indeed use the affordances of DTs to continually maintain
contact.
Contrary to the belief that the coexistence of virtual and physical mobilities can result in reduced physical mobilities, existing evidence show
that virtual mobilities can create additional physical mobilities (Freudendal‐Pedersen, Hannam, & Kesselring, 2016). In the study area, most
*I use “sacrificial mobility”to reflect that the mobility is an outcome of sacrifice. There are many cases in which students “drop out”of school due to long distances.
FIGURE 3 Road under maintenance in the study area
6of10 GWAKA
unemployed youths have friends who have migrated to other countries and maintain contact using DTs. Through these DTs, friends share videos,
images, and ideas relating to their daily lives abroad. Through the sharing of such information, it is possible that one is stimulated to physically travel
to the place they see in pictures and videos. Indeed, this has become the common practice even in tourism, eg, Figure 4, with many people getting
inspiration from picture and videos to travel places (some previously unknown to them).
Furthermore, other DTs such as Google maps also enable one to develop a graphical memory of a place before they visit. Also, within the youth
group, even the differently abled individuals are making use of assistive technologies to improve their mobility (cf Schlieder, Schmid, Munz, & Stein,
2013). Therefore, it is the study's submission that DTs have already been integrated into the mobilities paradigm. What remains critical then is
ensuring that the opportunities of increasing adoption and use of DTs are capitalised and challenged relating to or emerging from the DTs' adoption
and use are mitigated.
4.4 |Opportunities and challenges
From the previous section, findings show that virtual mobilities and physical mobilities can support each, substitute each, or can be integrated to
redefine the practice of mobilities within the rural communities. There are opportunities for the successful integration of virtual and physical mobil-
ities, but challenges also exist. Despite rural communities still lagging in digitisation, there are some opportunities that can be exploited. The chal-
lenge then becomes successfully exploiting the opportunities while overcoming the different challenges.
In terms of opportunities, Rangaswamy and Cutrell (2012) show that youths within communities are taking to DTs with enthusiasm. There are
several motivations on youths' enthusiasm over DTs including improved knowledge on the capabilities of technologies. The interests shown by
youths towards adopting and using DTs provide an opportune moment to for newer DTs, which can redefine youths' mobilities, to penetrate soci-
eties. Furthermore, as youths become mobile, they are learning more about technologies and thus can be digital champions within communities.
However, this opportunity needs cautious approach since technology developers can exploit this to “dump”market‐driven and not needs‐oriented
technologies within rural communities.
Secondly, technological advances are promoting improved access to DTs (eg, connectivity) at considerably low costs. Over the years, the costs
of owning a DT, eg, mobile phone or personal computer, have reduced. Furthermore, advances such as low‐cost community networks (village telco)
are significantly improving connectivity. This has been coupled with national and regional, such as PIDA, which are promoting the development of
DT infrastructure. Other efforts also include initiatives such Murambinda Works, which offer training (to improve digital skills) using local cham-
pions. It is prudent to suggest that there are many efforts across the African communities geared towards improving access and digital skills. There
initiatives present an opportunity to redefine daily life practices including mobilities.
However, this is not without challenges. Virtual mobility and participation in digital platforms have its own concerns such as cyberbullying.
These concerns are also gender based with women considered to be more vulnerable. Apart from vulnerability, virtual mobility can promote unde-
sirable behaviour such as promiscuity, and in Chigona, Kamkwenda, and Manjoo (2008), respondents—youths navigating in the digital space—were
skeptical of meeting online with parents. Some platforms are extremely inappropriate, but the “privacy”provided by the DTs enable youths to
navigate into such spaces without being noticed.
In addition, virtual mobilities have also been associated with psychological disorders among intense users. In Chigona et al. (2008), the issue of
“addiction”to the mobile internet is raised. There are digital platforms that have been reported to be “addictive”and often result in youth becoming
antisocial. The influx of youth in the digital space has also attracted serial criminals who navigate these digital spaces looking for potential victims.
There are incidences already were unsuspecting individuals have been lured into danger by someone they “met online.”Therefore, while mobility in
FIGURE 4 Image captured from a Matopos promotional video
GWAKA 7of10
the digital space has become inevitable to the youth, there are also dangers that arise from navigating in the digital space. In the physical mobilities,
children would be aware that a certain path poses danger and “would walk in groups”and/or avoid the path at all. However, in the digital space,
there are many ways in which danger can arise. Youth especially are unsuspecting and can easily be endangered.
5|CONCLUSION
Youths in rural communities such as Beitbridge have limited economic opportunities and being mobile to access better economic opportunities is
critical. This paper has explored the intersection of DTs and youth mobilities in rural communities—particularly to understand the opportunities and
challenges presented by the DTs as well as how these can be exploited and overcome, respectively. The study findings show that youths in the
study area engage in mobilities in search of education, employment opportunities, or just roaming around (social). However, these mobilities are
being redefined with the advent of DTs in rural communities, with even new forms of mobilities emerging. Empirical evidence obtained from
the study show that DTs create new opportunities for young people to explore unfamiliar places—eg, through virtual mobilities (through social
technologies) enabling them to save time and costs. However, DTs are being adopted and used in societies with pre‐existing values, culture, and
ethics. The success of these DTs will therefore be dependent on their alignment to the pre‐existing dynamics. Also, findings reveal that while
DTs have desirable affordances, they can also perpetuate social challenges such as inequality.
Further to this, the study revealed that while DTs are supporting physical mobilities, physical mobilities will remain essential and cannot simply
be substituted. The affordances of DTs are limited due to lack of complementary systems, eg, even if one uses DTs to obtain information such as
market prices and even complete a transaction (purchase), the products will still need to be delivered physically and yet, rural communities lack such
supporting systems (delivery systems or proper roads). Thus, if opportunities afforded by DTs are to be appropriated, there are preconditions that
need to be satisfied. However, the increased uptake of DTs within the rural communities by the youths may prompt the emergence of complemen-
tary systems such as new services and products to complete DTs' transformation, eg, the study noted an increase in mobile phone repair shops.
There are limitations to this study. For instance, the study's methodology can be improved and future studies can improve by modifying the
selection of the research participants, for instance, following techniques in Yip, Forrest, and Xian (2016). Also, considering Murray's (2015) study,
which focused on the mobility of aged people, future studies on mobilities in the study area can expand the focus to other age groups excluded
from this study. It is hoped that this study inspires more studies on DTs and mobilities in rural areas. This is timely considering the ongoing exten-
sive efforts across the globe to digitise rural communities such as Beitbridge. Beyond the limitations of this study, it is hoped that the outcomes of
this study can help communities—ie, end users, developers, academics, and policy makers—critically reflect on how challenges and the opportunities
tied to DTs on mobilities (as well as other aspects of the society) can best be met and exploited, respectively. In all, further work is indeed required
to fully comprehend the relation between technology and mobility since “the gains in time, speed, and mobility it has brought still leave open
questions of context and embodiment”(Kaplan, 2002, p. 38).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Makerere University School of Public Health's ResilientAfrica Network (RAN) and University of Pretoria Southern
Africa Resilience Innovation Lab (SA RILab). The primary data collection was made possible by the generous support of the American people,
through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Project ID AID‐OAA‐A‐13‐00018). The contents of this work are solely
the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the supporting organisations.
REFERENCES
Aker, J. C., & Ksoll, C. (2015). Can mobile phones improve agricultural outcomes? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Niger. Food Policy,60,44–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.03.006
Barker, J., Kraftl, P., Horton, J., & Tucker, F. (2009). The road less travelled—New directions in children's and young people's mobility. Mobilities,4(1), 1–10.
Büscher, M. (2006). Vision in motion. Environment and Planning A,38(2), 281–299.
Buscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory,12(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368431008099642
Chigona, W., Kamkwenda, G., & Manjoo, S. (2008). Uses and gratifications of mobile Internet among South African students. South African Journal of
Information Management,10(3). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v10i3.329
Chitakira, M., Torquebiau, E., & Ferguson, W. (2012). Community visioning in a transfrontier conservation area in Southern Africa paves the way towards
landscapes combining agricultural production and biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,55(9), 1228–1247.
Dufty‐Jones, R. (2015). Governmentalities of mobility: The role of housing in the governance of Australian rural mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies,42,
63–78.
Foster, C., Graham, M., Mann, L., Waema, T., & Friederici, N. (2018). Digital control in value chains: Challenges of connectivity for East African firms.
Economic Geography,94(1), 68–86.
Freudendal‐Pedersen, M., Hannam, K., & Kesselring, S. (2016). Applied mobilities, transitions and opportunities. Applied Mobilities, 1(1), 1–9.
Gregor, S., Imran, A., & Turner, T. (2014). A ‘sweet spot’change strategy for a least developed country: Leveraging e‐government in Bangladesh. European
Journal of Information Systems,23(6), 655–671.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management,31(5), 637–651.
8of10 GWAKA
Gwaka, L. T. (2017). Digital technologies and sustainable livestock systems in rural communities. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing
Countries,81(1), 1–24.
Hahn, H. P., & Kibora, L. (2008). The domestication of the mobile phone: Oral society and new ICT in Burkina Faso. The Journal of Modern African Studies,
46(1), 87–109.
Hamelink, C.J. (1997). New information and communication technologies, social development and cultural change. UNRISD Discussion Paper/Report.
Hannam, K., Butler, G., & Paris, C. M. (2014). Developments and key issues in tourism mobilities. Annals of Tourism Research,44, 171–185.
Hanson, S. (2010). Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place & Culture,17(1), 5–23.
Hayes, N., & Westrup, C. (2012). Context and the processes of ICT for development. Information and Organization,22,23–36.
Heeks, R. (2014). Future priorities for development informatics research from the post‐2015 development agenda. IDPM Development Informatics Working
Papers.
Jahromi, K. K., Zignani, M., Gaito, S., & Rossi, G. P. (2016). Simulating human mobility patterns in urban areas. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,62,
137–156.
James, J. (2008). Digital divide complacency: Misconceptions and dangers. The Information Society,24,54–61.
Kannisto, P. (2016). Extreme mobilities: Challenging the concept of ‘travel’.Annals of Tourism Research,57, 220–233.
Kaplan, C. (2002). Transporting the subject: Technologies of mobility and location in an era of globalization. Publications of the Modern Language Association
of America,117,32–42.
Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility.
Journal of Transport Geography,10(3), 207–219.
Kenyon, S., Rafferty, J., & Lyons, G. (2003). Social exclusion and transport in the UK: A role for virtual accessibility in the alleviation of mobility‐related social
exclusion? Journal of Social Policy,32(3), 317–338.
King, R., Lulle, A., Morosanu, L. and Williams, A. (2016). International youth mobility and life transitions in Europe: Questions, definitions, typologies and
theoretical approaches.
Krauss, K. (2012). Towards self‐emancipation in ICT for development research: Narratives about respect, traditional leadership and building networks of
friendships in rural South Africa. The African Journal of Information Systems,4(2), 46–60.
Langevang, T., & Gough, K. V. (2009). Surviving through movement: The mobility of urban youth in Ghana. Social and Cultural Geography,10(7), 741–756.
Le Vine, S., Latinopoulos, C., & Polak, J. (2014). What is the relationship between online activity and driving‐licence‐holding amongst young adults?
Transportation,41, 1071–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116‐014‐9528‐3
Luna‐Reyes, L. F., & Gil‐Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co‐evolution of technology, organizations, and
institutions. Government Information Quarterly,31, 545–555.
Mason, R., Parkins, J. R., & Kaler, A. (2017). Gendered mobilities and food security: Exploring possibilities for human movement within hunger prone rural
Tanzania. Agriculture and Human Values,34(2), 423–434.
Milbourne, P., & Kitchen, L. (2014). Rural mobilities: Connecting movement and fixity in rural places. Journal of Rural Studies,34, 326–336.
Murray, L. (2015). Age‐friendly mobilities: A transdisciplinary and intergenerational perspective. Journal of Transport & Health,2, 302–307.
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology,42(5), 837–855.
Noack, E. (2011). Are rural women mobility deprived?—A case study from Scotland. Sociologia Ruralis,51(1), 79–97.
Norman, M. E., Petherick, L., Garcia, E., Glazebrook, C., Giesbrecht, G., & Duhamel, T. (2015). Examining the more‐than‐built environments of a northern
Manitoban community: Re‐conceptualizing rural indigenous mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies,42, 166–178.
Porter, G. (2011). ‘I think a woman who travels a lot is befriending other men and that's why she travels’: Mobility constraints and their implications for rural
women and girls in sub‐Saharan Africa. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography,18(1), 65–81.
Porter, G. (2016). Mobilities in rural Africa: New connections, new challenges. Annals of the association of American Geographers.,1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00045608.2015.1100056
Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Abane, A., Robson, E., Munthali, A., Mashiri, M., & Tanle, A. (2010). Moving young lives: Mobility, immobility and inter‐generational
tensions in urban Africa. Geoforum,41, 796–804.
Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Munthali, A., & Robson, E. (2011). Mobility, surveillance and control of children and young people in the everyday: Perspectives
from sub‐Saharan Africa. Surveillance Society,9(1/2), 114–131.
Rangaswamy, N., & Cutrell, E. (2012, March). Anthropology, development and ICTs: slums, youth and the mobile internet in urban India. In Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (pp. 85–93). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Rey‐Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., Tucker, W. D., & May, J. (2016). An in‐depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: Unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for Development,22(sup1), 101–120.
Schlieder, C., Schmid, U., Munz, M., & Stein, K. (2013). Assistive technology to support the mobility of senior citizens. KI‐Künstliche Intelligenz,27(3),
247–253.
Steenbruggen, J., Nijkamp, P., & van der Vlist, M. (2014). Urban traffic incident management in a digital society: An actor–network approach in information
technology use in urban Europe. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,89, 245–261.
Taipale, S. (2014). The dimensions of mobilities: The spatial relationships between corporeal and digital mobilities. Social Science Research,43, 157–167.
Van Wee, B. (2015). Peak car: The first signs of a shift towards ICT‐based activities replacing travel? A discussion paper. Transport Policy,42,1–3.
Van Wee, B., Geurs, K., & Chorus, C. (2013). Information, communication, travel behavior and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use,6(3), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v6i3.282
Vilhelmson, B., & Thulin, E. (2008). Virtual mobility, time use and the place of the home. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,99(5), 602–618.
Le Vine, S., Latinopoulos, C., & Polak, J. (2016). Analysis of the relationship between internet usage and allocation of time for personal travel and out of home
activities: Case study of Scotland in 2005/6. Travel Behaviour and Society,4,49–59.
GWAKA 9of10
Walsham, G. (2017). ICT4D research: Reflections on history and future agenda. Information Technology for Development,23(1), 18–41.
Wilhelm, A. (2002). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth. The Information Society,18, 415–416. (Book Review)
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy,25, 865–899.
Wyche, S., Simiyu, N., & Othieno, M. E. (2016). Mobile phones as amplifiers of social inequality among rural Kenyan women. ACM Transactions on Computer‐
Human Interaction (TOCHI),23(3), 14.
Xia, J., & Lu, T. (2008). Bridging the digital divide for rural communities: The case of China. Telecommunications Policy,32(9–10), 686–696.
Yip, N. M., Forrest, R., & Xian, S. (2016). Exploring segregation and mobilities: Application of an activity tracking app on mobile phone. Cities,59, 156–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.02.003
How to cite this article: Gwaka LT. Digital technologies and youth mobility in rural Zimbabwe. E J Info Sys Dev Countries. 2018;e12025.
https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12025
10 of 10 GWAKA
