On Wednesday, I attended the Rose Café series talk given by House Professor Garrick Blalock. The focus of the discussion was on Professor Blalock’s research in Uganda. He and fellow researchers aimed to discover more on how they could work towards implementing healthier stoves in the homes of Ugandans and other cultural groups who use similar stoves. I attended this talk last year as the semester came to a close, so I was happy to hear the follow-up to Professor Blalock’s work and some of the findings that the research team made within the past year.

In my Human Development class on children’s play, we were recently discussing how difficult it can be to change the practice of giving children certain toys to play with or sitting them down for hours in front of the TV. Once a certain methodology or behavior is ingrained in a culture and becomes the norm, it is very difficult to change, especially if the people have low income and few resources. This was very much at the heart of the points that Professor Blalock raised. He gave a great example of how a majority of people can agree that a Prius is more eco-friendly than the standard model car. Yet, the same majority will most likely own the standard model car. In the US, this is for various reasons – cost, size-efficiency, and design. It is believed that for similar reasons, Ugandans will more likely continue using their three stone stoves over healthier gas ones. They can buy the fuel at little to no cost, and they can adjust the stones to account for quantity of food, temperature, and cooking time. The newly designed gas stoves could cost one to two weeks’ worth of a Ugandan household income.

Professor Blalock’s research shows that there are numerous factors that go into a culture’s willingness to adopt new technology. It does not solely come down to cost. Many times, it also involves function. The psychology behind his research is so interesting. While most Ugandan mothers would agree that they would not want to be shoving a whole pack of cigarettes into the infants’ mouths, they still continued using their three stone stoves. The advertising and propaganda really did not make a difference. Though, this may have just come down to cost and what the families could afford.

I enjoyed speaking to Professor Blalock more about his research and the team’s findings after the café had ended. It revealed to me more about the challenges that come with this area of research. For example, Professor Blalock was trying to come up with an algorithm to account for differences in distances between the heat source and thermometers attached to the three stone stoves. Given the variability in how the stone stoves are set up, this proved to be very difficult.

In thinking about the question of what we can do to improve how technology is used to help the poor, I think that on a broader scale, we can be more cognizant of the psychology and reasoning behind cultural practices. While finances are often a major driving force, we cannot solely aim to alleviate this issue. I like that Professor Blalock and his team’s work is trying to offer a tangible solution. It has been discussed in numerous Café Series how simply making monetary donations does not always have a positive effect. It definitely takes more effort to develop these tangible solutions, but it is a step in the right direction. It is about finding a balance between technology and cultures’ longstanding methodologies.