Framing Technology Design in Ubuntu: Two Locales in
Pastoral Namibia
Gereon Koch Daniel G. Cabrero
Kapuire University of West
Polytechnic of London
Namibia School of Computing
School of Computing and Technology
and Informatics Daniel.Gonzalez-
gkapuire@polytechnic Cabrero@uwl.ac.uk
.edu.na
ABSTRACT
Situating technology design in the African philosophy of
Ubuntu, emphasizes principles of humanness and
connectedness in human interactions. Curiosity, interest
and learnings have grown among those who have co-
designed with us for the past eight years; whereas those
who have just began co-designing endeavours take on it
in different and also similar manners. This reminds us of
our beginnings and initial aims as co-designers in diverse
Namibians milieus. Thus, as we exit the known and arrive
to anew terrains, we observe different but also similar
values, protocols and behaviours amid diverse co-
designer groups; also in the way we evolve as researchers
co-designing always with the above. Human values at
Ovaherero and Ovahimba rural locales depict and
magnified differences and also commonalities that,
altogether, come as Ubuntu in the sharing and in the
practiced philosophy of African indigenous populations;
also of us as researcher co-designers. This paper reflects
on how Human-Computer Interaction and technology
deal with communities’ daily living and humanness in
various ways.
Author Keywords
Community-based co-design, humanness transferability,
indigenous knowledge, community members.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
In Namibia, the usage of technology is rapidly spreading
across pastoral areas. This offers technological divisions
in the sites we co-design, since usage varies between
wider and scarce at many different locales. These
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
OzCHI '15 , December 07 - 10 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Copyright © 2015 ACM 978-1-4503-3673-4/15/12... $15.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838788.
Colin Stanley Heike Winschiers-
Polytechnic of Theophilus
Namibia Polytechnic of
School of Computing Namibia
and Informatics School of Computing
cstanley@polytechnic. and Informatics,
edu.na heikew@polytechnic.
edu.na
divisions contrast the very nature of Bantu people, the
latter meaning people, and that of the Ubuntu, an African
philosophy that stands for placing children at the centre in
the way they respect the elders through a communal way
of life and a system of values including the caring,
sharing, compassion, communalism, communocracy and
the related predispositions (Gumbo, 2014). In our
experiences, technology research and deployment exerts
different degrees of fascination, comprehension and trust,
while interest and learnings ameliorate among those co-
designing with us for the last eight years. And yet, those
who have begun venturing co-design with us engage in
slightly different and also similar fashions, as you will see
throughout this paper.
As we exit settings well-known now to us, and reach to
new communities afar, we observe ways of thinking and
feeling have evolved in the former sites, while we have
also learnt other ways in the sites that are now to come.
Values, protocols and behaviours evolve and vary as we
navigate rural Namibia and its ethnics and varying ways.
Human values at two Bantu locales, Ovaherero and
Ovahimba, depict and magnify differences and
commonalities that grant Ubuntu as the traditional
philosophy and also the way of life.
In the sections below we reflect on how our explorations
and deployments of technology impact communities in
their daily lives, and how factors of humanness such as
values, individual and team dynamics, and interactions
come across in the co-design exchanges. We hence first
present background information on the first community
we have worked with, namely Ovaherero in
Erindiroukambe (Eastern Namibia), and the values, the
methods and the protocols though which some
interventions have navigated our communal experiences
across the years and throughout time. We then reflect
upon the above, before secondly presenting the
community we have recently begun co-designing with,
namely Ovahimba in the North of Namibia.
Scaffolding from the mystery and the interest upon how
technology exploration, deployment and adaptation have
been taken on and understood so-far, we reflect on our
situated contextual environment, and on how community
members interaction with technology has been of help
and benefit to them and the communities understanding
212
and keeping of the values they sustain; and also whether
the human aspect is affected in any way. This will
eventually lead us to question and define whether
technology transforms rural members from natural
humans to technology driven ones.
PROJECT ORIGINS
The project idea was born in the spirit of sustainability of
the local knowledge, thus to develop tools for Indigenous
Knowledge (IK) holders to digitize their own heritage
(Kapuire et al., 2014). This was introduced to Ovaherero
community members in 2008 as a co-design effort.
During the initiation session we all engaged in an intense
focus-group discussion where the rationale was to clarify
the idea first and to get an agreement towards the
community engagement.
“Motuara okakambe okukanua omeva, mara kona
okeraere kutja kakenue omeva” is a saying in Otjiherero
translating as “you may introduce a concept to someone,
but will not force them to listen if they are not willing to”.
As technology researchers we did not intend to influence
the community and their way of thinking and living with
our exploratory ideas, but we first sought to showcase
how technology can be useful for preserving their IK.
This proposal became an agenda defined by community
members, them being the owners of the solutions. And,
though the concept was novel to community members, an
agreement for further exploration was henceforth created.
OVAHERERO COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATION
Brereton and Buur (2008) highlight new types of relations
among people and the varying motivations to engage and
participate in design processes. Further, Brereton et al.
(2014) point out engagement, reciprocity and doing as
pillars to initiate and bring forward the technology design.
In a similar fashion, and in closely-related time spans, we
edged a Community-Based Co-Design (CBCD) approach
to encourage and welcome an integral and trustworthy
community agreement of group engagement. This
framework was gradually developed by Winschiers-
Theophilus et al. (2010), and complemented by Blake et
al. (2011). The presence of co-designing as a ground-
based, hence, served to fill the gap in understanding the
importance of technology and getting all co-designers
engaged in new designs and creations.
So motivated, hence, the community members gathered
as a group at all times to participate in the design of new
tools, while researchers become enablers of the sessions.
Co-designing sessions were educational and beneficial for
both researchers and the community members, as both
parties were actively involved in understanding the needs,
requirements and aspirations to be explored. The voice of
the community was thus heard as they expressed their
opinions freely, and the platform created confidence in
them as they made decisions together with the research
team.
OVAHERERO EXPLORATORY STUDY
Situating the Pilot Community
Our original efforts originated from working with an
Ovaherero pastoral community in Erindiroukambe, a
small village located in Eastern Namibia (Kapuire et al.,
213
2014). Community members listen to the radio for news,
while some use basic mobile phones for communications.
Mobile phone coverage is extremely weak, with
connectivity taking place only at times and in very
specific locations.
Participants and Overview
The numerous research interventions across the last eight
years have comprised elders and youth alike. We have
however continuously worked with four elders in the
community for these are IK bearers that have become
irreplaceable co-designers towards the curating aims of
the IK. They will be interacting with the tablet on a day to
day basis, so it was of paramount importance observing
how they interact with the applications being developed.
The only technology in common is a radio, which they
listen to so as to know on what goes on outside their
geographical confines. One of the elder also owned a
mobile phone to communicate with others. Due to the
lack of power to charge the phone, though, he hardly used
it. For all elders, technology does not influence how they
should live, and they can stay for months without
communicating with the outside world.
Context
Since 2009 we collected data on community members’
opinions and perceptions about the project developments
(Kapuire et al., 2014). To further understand and extract
themes for analysis, our co-designing sessions were
videoed in Otjiherero and translated into English by an
independent translator (Kapuire et al., 2014). The data
was thoroughly analysed to detect how satisfied
community members were with the ongoing engagement.
We also observed and reflected how the technology was
used in their daily lives.
For this, we co-designed and co-developed a 3D-graphics
visualization tool running on a tablet. Users can create a
village consisting of people, animals and other adjacent
objects (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2013). This served
for further investigation on how community members
interact with the application. Elders then did a usability
test and reflected on the tool for further design ideas.
Findings
A cultural behavioural finding is that youth have been
progressively less keen to working with elders. Youth
would be doing their own thing, while elders waited for
the former to feel the need to be told stories. Youth
though are well aware of computers and video cameras,
while elders got involved with them during the project.
The introduction to technology co-design enabled youth
and elders to work together, which, as interventions did
evolve, they felt better working as a group to achieve
common goals for the community.
As an instance to the above, one very knowledgeable
elder, yet very inactive, was enticed to share his
knowledge with the youth. The elder did not enjoy the
session for he was to be filmed with a camcorder. His son
explained us the father does not like to speak if feeling
uncomfortable. The youth though recorded the elder at his
homestead, as this is his natural place for sharing stories.
Progressively, shyness in storytelling faded away, and a
set of worthy recordings was then completed. Another
elder was rather content that he can share the elders’
knowledge using technological tools. And others too felt
radios and computers can be their mediators to the rest of
the world.
When asked how they feel about co-designing
technology, the four main elders reflected they learn new
and innovative things and ways throughout. One
mentioned that when he started with the project he was
not comfortable, but as years progressed with more
technological interactions, his pride and sense of
accomplishment grew. The anxiety of him trying out the
technologies started thus to slowly fade away, as he got
continuously videoed scheduled sessions. The other three
elders felt equally.
Moreover, the four elders and various other community
members felt appreciated they were the pilot community
to contribute in new technology designs. The four elders
realised how important they were as co-designers of new
tools. To them the outcome will put the village and their
names on the map for trying to preserve knowledge for
current and future generations. They hence wanted the
world to know what they are still doing.
Last but nonetheless, some elders would leave their daily
chores to participate in the sessions, as these were very
educative [as they reflected], and for some learning now
never ends. They would willingly spend many hours with
the research team working out the technologic design.
Reflection
Life without technology is the normal day for the elders
and also for the youth living daily in the village.
Technology did not change the elder’s character but
further educated them and allowed them to interact with
local and foreign researchers, providing them with a
technological and also a cross-cultural exchange.
Implicitly, though, they changed, for they became
motivated and appreciated of the research team to come
and visit on a regular basis. The constant engagement and
co-design sessions made community members reduce the
fear towards technology and the consequent boosting of
self-confidence. Many opened-up freely to share their
knowledge during discussions, and shared the notion that
it is all a good educational path.
We reflected and observed that community members,
especially elders, had fear of participating in the
technology designing sessions. It was innovative,
somewhat unanticipated an unforeseeable. An elder also
feared that the youth would lose their identity if
technology is further implemented. This is because
currently the youth think of technology first before they
think about duties in the village, while the expectation is
that the youth should focus more on daily activities in the
village like cattle herding amongst others, but also about
the respect to the elders, as to the latter, this, Ubuntu, is
the culture which should be followed and respected.
OVAHIMBA EXPLORATORY STUDY
Overview
Winschiers-Theophilus et al. (2013) state it has become
clear that situated design and contextualized research
need to undergo a validation phase to determine
transferability. Our reallocation here relates to that of
humanness within the Ubuntu culture and its principles,
pillars and facets. Hence, we relocate our research idea of
human values to a further village, Ohandungu, in the
Opuwo district situated in the Northern part of Namibia.
The village and the area form part of the Ovahimba tribe
and culture, though they are historically related to the
Ovaherero and both speak Otjiherero. This transitioning,
thus, is to test if the concepts attempted in
Erindiroukambe are transferable in regards to the human
perception of values, protocols and behaviours amid this
co-designing pastoral group. It is worth noticing that even
though the Ovahimba have same cultural customs as the
Ovaherero, they still believe in the cultural traditional
way of living and of surviving.
Participants and Overview
The research team was introduced to the community by a
local community member. In the first encounter, three
elders with other community members were introduced to
the idea and to the 3D graphic visualization tool equally
running on a tablet. In a second encounter, we visited one
of the elders involved in the first encounter and selected
him as a co-designer based on both, his wide IK and his
active engagement and participation. Participants never
attended school and have been taking care of their
homestead and cattle since childhood. In cases where
there is draught, the elders move from village to village
searching for better grazing. For them, their place of
settling is where they can find good grazing for the cattle.
During the grazing, technology is thus-far not a requisite
to their lives. Elders have mobile phones for
communication and radios to listen to news about what
goes on in Namibia. We also observed one of the elders
who frequently uses a mobile phone and he naturally
optimises the network coverage locations by instructing
his son to make calls or to pass to himself to make a call.
Unlike the elder from the ovaherero pilot community,
who has accepted that there is poor network coverage
thus he does not bother to check for coverage
consistently.
Exploring Usability Issues
Ovaherero and Ovahimba share the same family lineage
recognised by the use of totems (Merriam Webster,
2015). For example, the Omuakatjivi totem in both ethnic
groups depicts their historical relation in coming from the
same mother, thus holding common traits, characteristics,
or interests.
Even though Ovaherero and Ovahimba follow the same
culture, there are subtle variations such as the dress code
(Figure 1). Elders tested the 3D-graphic visualization tool
on a tablet developed based on design constructs obtained
from the co-designers in Erindiroukambe. They provided
design ideas for further development and adaptation, and
an Ovahimba version of the tool was designed and further
developed. A usability test was then performed by the
elders on the new version and they criticised and provided
a further co-designed to implement a better version
suitable to their traditional representations.

214
Figure 1 - Photo montage of Ovaherero & Ovahimba
dresses.
This taught us we must strive to respect the cultural locale
and its nuances in the technological co-design process, as
well as to bear in mind the commonalities held among the
two ethnic groups.
Findings
The fear of some elders was clearly visible in testing the
application on the tablet, whilst one of the elders held
strong confidence in testing the tool. Most elders were
therefore very quiet, and always let the one elder do
everything. Women did not interact much due to the
hierarchical norms among the Ovahimba. They had to
wait for their chance until the male elders were finished.
They listened clearly though and conveyed their will to
participate. When they were given voice, some women
proceeded fearless while some kept quiet in their places.
During the time of the visit, our co-designer’s cattle got
lost. Without showing any apparent emotions about this,
he participated in the co-design session. Yet, he kept
saying he must go find his cattle, and that he had to travel
[by foot] to other villages in search of his cattle. For us, it
was difficult to detect whether it bother him we were
there while he was having such trouble. Further, we found
the elder owns a mobile phone. He mentioned that he
utilises it to communicate with others, even though
coverage is rather weak. For the elder, though, taking care
of his cattle and feeding his family is the priority. Yet, to
reduce poor coverage frustrations, his son is the one who
answers the calls if someone is looking for the elder.
During one of our visits, we encountered a healing
session, a sensitive, spiritual and sacred situation. Yet the
elder engaged with the research team discussing the new
version of the application developed. The elder had
already tested the tool, and so we left a solar system and a
tablet with him. He showed enthusiasm and was excited
that the device would be left with him to record his stories
while doing his daily work. The technology was
thoroughly demonstrated how to use.
Reflection
Co-designing technology the elders will use was a
peculiar if enriching situation that, nevertheless, it could
not be comprehended for some elders while our main co-
designer grasp the concept readily. He did not fear
technology during any of the encounters. This elder
welcomed and embraced the co-designing sessions, as he
felt honoured co-designed technology was been tested by
himself. He always remembered each of the visits and
what happened in each of them. Besides, he was always
rather content to see the team re-visiting again. During
one of the discussions, the elder conveyed it is not easy to
use the tool. Yet, even though the usage was hard for him,
we observed his confidence becoming higher, trust being
built, and that he had freely opened up to us. The elder,
hence, eagerly participated, yet this did not seem to
influence his personality since we have first met him.
Additionally, whereas for some if they see technology
they would like to keep it, but for this community
member no signs of ownership were pronounced during
any of the interventions.
215
DISCUSSION: HUMANNESS IN TECHNOLOGY
DESIGN
With our CBCD approach encompassing engagement,
reciprocity and doing (Brereton et al., 2014). We engaged
community members with regular project meetings where
we conducted numerous semi structured focus groups to
establish connectedness and promote mutual learning. We
continuously engaged in conversations around our
processes, the life stories of the elders, as well as relating
their way of living with technology. Thus, to reflect on
whether technology interventions are of any benefit to
them, and how technology may eventually influence the
community on aspects of humanity interacting with
technologies.
From explorations, findings and reflections above, the
main question we strived to answer is “how we do ensure
that the local concept of humanness (i.e. UBUNTU)
transpires throughout the co-design process, and thereby
influences the design?”. What came out clear about this
aspect from both pilot communities, who for whom, the
practices of UBUNTU are implicitly used without the
participants explicitly knowing the technicality of the
term of UBUNTU. For instance, when we asked them
what makes them work together as a unified community,
they exemplified the event of a funeral whereby they
transmit the news of a person having passed on from one
family to the next in a ripple effect. At the time of the
funeral, each family will turn up either bringing food (i.e.
cattle to be slaughtered) or sentimental support alone if
they do not own much. Besides, they will all remind by
the family of the deceased showing this further moral
support and togetherness. We can thus conclude the
togetherness is an aspect of relevance for the co-design of
technology. In these regards, for instance, we found that
when co-designing icons participants chose depictions of
communal representation such as the ehoro typically used
to store fermented milk as object to represent the viewing
of things that are stored together. Besides the funeral
example, cattle branding is another instance whereby we
have previously witnessed the fact of working together
being so relevant in these locales (Stanley et al., 2013).
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
We intended to do specifically positioning co-design of
technology in a humanness approach. Long term
community engagement has been built throughout time,
which has led to regular co-design sessions satisfying our
mutual way of doing things.
In future deployments we intend to explore further in
detail and to get deeper understanding from the
community members on how useful technology is
thought of in further investigations with HCI constructs in
the contextual setup.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to give our deepest appreciation to our two
rural communities working with the research team. Their
time spent co-designing new tools have been educative.
We acknowledge and appreciate the National
Commission on Research, Science and Technology
(NCRST) for funding this project.
REFERENCES
Blake, E., Tucker, W., Glaser, M., & Freudenthal, A.
(2011). Case study 11.1: Deaf telephony: Community-
based co-design. In Interaction Design: Beyond
Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd ed. Wiley, 2011, pp.
412–413.
Brereton, M., Buur. (2008). New challenges for design
participation in the era of ubiquitous computing, Co
Design 4(2) (101-101).
Brereton, M., Roe, P., Schroeter, R., & Hong, A.L.
(2014). Beyond Ethnography: Engagement and
Reciprocity as Foundations for Design Research Out
Here. In: Proceedings of the CHI’14. Toronto, Canada,
pp. 1183–1186. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557374
Stanley, C., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Onwordi, M., &
Kapuire, G.K. (2013). Rural communities crowdsource
technology development: A Namibian Expedition, in
Proc. of the ICTD'13, ACM Press, Cape Town, South
Africa, 2013, pp. 155-158.
216
Gumbo, M.T. (2014) Elders Decry the Loss of Ubuntu.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 10. pp.
67-77
Kapuire, G.K., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., & Blake, E.
(2014). An insider perspective on community gains: A
subjective account of a Namibian rural communities‫׳‬
perception of a long-term participatory design project.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.10.004
Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Chivuno-Kuria, S., Kapuire,
G.K., Bidwell, N.J., & Blake, E. (2010). Being
participated: a community approach, in: Proceedings of
the 11th Biennial PDC. Sydney, Australia, pp. 1–10
Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Winschiers-Goagoses, N.,
Rodil, K., Blake, E., Zaman, T., Kapuire, G. K., &
Kamukuenjandje, R. (2013). Moving away from
Erindi-roukambe: Transferability of a rural community-
based co-design. In Proceedings 12th International
Conference on Social Implications of Computers in
Developing Countries, pp. 363-374, Ocho Rios,
Jamaica