The phrase digital divide refers to a perceived inequality in access to, distribution, and use of information technology between two or more populations (Wilson, 2004, Carvin, 2000, and Mossberger & Tolbert, 2003).
Surveys of internet use in many countries provide a profile of the typical user as young, urban, male, and relatively well educated (Servon and Pinkett, 2004). This points, therefore, to various discrepancies in use according to factors such as age, gender, socio-economic variance, and culture. These perceived differences provide the basis for much research into internet use, and for the identification by some of the digital divide as an increasingly important feature of the growing economic and political gaps within and across 'developed' and 'developing' countries.
The advent of the Internet and its networking and communication capabilities carried with it utopian predictions that it would foster global democracy and equality, overcoming cultural and demographic differences. However, such views are blind to the importance of the rate of diffusion of networked technologies; technological 'disruptions' (such as the steam engine, electricity, internal combustion engine, transistor and PC) used to come each generation or so (Spencer, 2005). Now dozens of wholly new technologies challenge the 'established order' annually. This increased rate of diffusion brings an increasing rate of the appearance of new 'inequalities' between users and non-users.
Differing degrees of necessity and ability to make use of internet technologies have the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities within societies. This is highlighted by the identifcation of a 'communications gap' within and between nations that many commentators believe to be so drastic that the world is dividing into the 'information rich' and the 'information poor' (Castells, 2004). The internet can be used as a tool for social, political and economic participation. Its facilitation of one-to-many and many-to-many communication structures and open publishing channels are often lauded as the most significant forces behind the rapidly changing arenas of education, employment and participatory citizenship in the new 'information societies' (2004); Those affected negatively by the divide may suffer disadvantages in both the formation of and participation in these areas.
For almost a decade the digital divide has been seen as a pressing international issue (Servon and Pinkett, 2004, p.319) and consequently, much research and media attention have been directed at understanding who is affected and why. Government initiatives, as well as corporate and non-profit programs are attempting to address this divide by providing access and information technology training for teachers, community members and students. However, it is generally accepted that the importance of the digital divide is more than just an issue of access; guaranteed delivery of information does not necessarily mean people are informed in any meanigful way, and 'access' does not always mean 'effective use'.
Although recent research has found that traditional ‘have-nots’ have rapidly increased their presence online (largely attributed to network externalities and decreases in costs)(Landler, 2000; Romero, 2000) there are of course still gulfs between levels of internet use. However, there have not yet been sufficient and ongoing embedded evaluations of the impacts of - or real needs or uses for - the new ICT's in different communities. A clearer understanding of each is necessary to understand the nature of this latest technological divide, and to determine appropriate responses.
Contents |
In recent years, just as ICT's have become more widely accessible, the digital divide has received greater media attention; in contrast, policy makers and academics have long been considering the reality of the digital divide and its true impact. Some theorists discount the significance of the current state of the digital divide as decried by those demanding clear and co-operative action by governments, to bridge the gap (Compaine 2000).
Powell (cited in Compaine 2000, 309-314) suggests the digital divide is a ‘necessary and temporary process’ associated with all new media. He believes that there is little damage in letting natural factors (related to internet usage) run their course. He also suggests that with the continuing progression of the internet, the adoption curve will flatten and only then can adequate analysis take place.
Cullen (2003) argues that the digital divide is a vicious cycle which developing countries will find hard to remedy. There is an identifiable link between the increase in usage of internet technologies and better economic prospects, but countries that experience low per capita income levels and poor economic prospects face significant barriers in actively adopting these technologies. It is argued that governments must take a more direct role in promoting this adoption to limit the widening affects if the digital divide.
The issues of access and ownership are multifaceted and complex; meanings differ across contexts, within societies and across them.
In developing nations, access and ownership are still being dealt with on the level of technology infrastructure provision and private ownership of networked devices; access refers to the mere availability of computers, mobile telephony, and internet connectivity. With around 88% of world internet users in industrial countries and 0.3% in the poorest (New York Times, June 2000, cited in Spencer, 2005), the infrastructure divide hardens differences of opportunity as access to technological and scientific information that is key to progress in many areas is not possible.
For example, East Asia is already a major source of IT equipment (making up a third of the region’s exports), but they could do even better in Internet-related services if government regulations were eased (Woodall, 2000). Singapore/South Korea are already the 4th/7th biggest Internet users, and over the next decade 'the efficiency gains from IT and e-commerce will be bigger in emerging Asia than in the rich countries' (2000).
Within wealthy nations, now these issues most concern access to digital media content and how rights to access are controlled by content and system ownership, known as Digital Rights Management. Here we find a hierarchy of haves and have-nots between those who see information as a ‘commodity’ and those who see it as a ‘service’. In the case of the former access becomes a privilege.
It is now evident that some social scientists are beginning to examine carefully the policy implications of current demographic patterns of Internet access and ownership (Hoffman et al, 2000). It is becoming evident that 'control over communication services will be a source of power, and access to communication will be a condition of freedom'. (Bell, D. cited in Rifkin, 2000, p219)
There is a concentration of (mostly US based) global media companies such as Disney, Time Warner, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Sony, News Corporation, General Electric and PolyGram who dominate the ownership of the global media content market. This position of dominance is now bringing these organisations greater ability to win controls over the media technologies that support their content. Media content companies and their politically powerful industry associations are finding increasing success in lobbying the governments of wealthy nations to legislate the development of networked technologies (Lessig, 2004; Stallman, 2002).
Whereas the decentralised structure of the internet previously denied the ability to control its physical infrastructures, it is the groups who control the copyrights to digital media content who are finding ways to control how, when, and most importantly with what digital technology, the public gains access to these information resources and communication experiences (Rifkin, 2000).
Carvin (2000) cites a correlation between internet technology penetration rates and education, suggesting that the majority of the internet’s content is created by and for the more highly educated. He believes that literacy levels must be improved to overcome this barrier, incorporating the spectrum of basic print-media reading skills to 'cyber-fluency', where one is able to interpret the various and polysemous multi-media content of the internet, and develop the skills to utilise its tools and technologies to create meaningful uses of such content.
Moss and Mitra (1998) suggest that income based differences stem, in part, from the fact that internet access is not an essential household good. Compaine (2001, p.316) believes that although rapidly declining costs have contributed to an increase in penetration rates amongst all demographics, the cost of access - purchasing a computer, modem, and monthly subscription - still acts as a barrier to access for some low income segments of the population. These segments may also shun the internet because of the predominance of content targeted at high income and well educated groups (Mills and Whitacre, 2003).
At the 2000 G7 summit it was debated whether the world income gap created by the industrial revolution is still the fundamental dividing line between rich and poor nations. Regarding the issue of access to information technology, some wondered whether the digital divide is really “an education divide, and [IT] is only a conduit to promote education�? (Markoff,2000).
Frances Cairncross (2001) heralded information technology as the medium which would lead to the ‘death of distance,’ with the ‘tyranny’ of distance experienced by rural populations able to be overcome by the networking and communication capabilities of the internet. Contrary to this utopian prediction, the diffusion of technologies both within and between countries has been extremely uneven (Castells, 2004, p.319). The NTIA’s 1998 report found that Americans living in rural areas are less likely to be connected to the internet - even when holding constant income. In Australia, rural areas consistently lag behind metropolitan areas (Curtin, 2001) despite the distinct advantages information technology offers residents of geographically isolated communities (Hindman, 2000).
One of the more obvious restrictions for the development of information technology is financial limitations. And the countries that suffer the most financial hardships are Third World countries.
Developing nations see that information is a form of power, and there is a growing call from many for the establishment of a new 'international order of information' (Mitchell, 2003), akin to the anti-globalisation movement's call for a new economic order.
This would require an understanding of the need for Third World countries to consolidate their existing information media and for the highly developed countries to assist. For example, African nations must still create many of the economic and legal institutions needed for a thriving information economy, and Latin America must raise its educational standards to at least the present Asian level. This is necessary 'if information is no longer to be treated as a 'commodity' and become instead a 'service' at the disposal of all humankind, and if a new world order in the field of information is to be established' (2003).
Many argue that developing countries will suffer (possibly permanently) from their relative lack of internet technologies - in the US, 50% of the population is online; in Africa, just 0.4% - because: the first in any market can dominate it; online e-commerce benefits buyers (who can compare all sources) over sellers (developing countries); and high-yield hi-tech investments typically do not go to developing countries (Spencer, 2005).
The ability to access technological and scientific information doesn't just give a nation power, but it enables that nation to educate its people. The digital divide is what makes these opportunities impossible for Third World countries to access. If you can't access the technology then you can't access the information and this puts these developing countries at a disadvantage (2005).
Dealing with differing cultures as problematic to the uptake of the internet is extremely difficult since the term can encompass at least the following: Ethnicity; Language; Race; Age; Gender; Faith; Sexual Orientation; Disability.
The internet and its related networked information technologies that pervade wealthy nations developed out of culturally specific structures; political, social and economic attitudes to information, knowledge and learning in turn shape the technologies used to transport and shape this informational currency. Therefore any view that all societies would require the same technological infrastructures, if only they could be taught how to use them, misunderstands the need to first identify the usefulness (if any) of a technology to a community and to adjust the technology to those needs.
In other words, information systems and their content need to be made culturally relevant to all of potential end users. Systems should be linguistically, physically and financially accessible (http://www.workgroup.org/culturalrelevance.htm, 2004), but just as crucial is an understanding of integration of network technologies into existing social patterns.
If the digital divide is to be bridged, then information systems need to become meaningful and accessible to users from diverse cultural backgrounds.
There are various arguments regarding the impacts digital divide have on society and economy. DiBello (2005) addressed the implications of the digital divide and categorized concerns into four main themes: Educational and Employment Advantages: Some believe that students who are technologically savvy have significant advantages over their peers. They are ahead of the learning curve, and can focus more on the objective issues. Those on the other side of the divide, however will need to focus on technological issues, such as how to create a table in Word, how to use the mouse, how to use a search engine, etc. This in turn will affect their job prospects as employers prefers workers who are technologically competent and are willing to pay more for their services compared to those without. Economic Growth: Some think that not having access to digital resources might hinder the opportunity that people in undeveloped countries have for economic growth. With much of the world economy currently driven by information and communication technology sectors, countries that are not part of this sector are disadvantaged.
Opportunities for Social and Civic Involvement: Some believe that people who regularly use the Internet are better aware informed about national issues and developmental matters. Therefore, they are given a voice to participate, whether it is in civic activities or on a global scale.
Equity and Civil Rights Issues: Some think that access to technology is often readily available for those in a higher socioeconomic group, while leaving behind those in the lower socioeconomic groups, resulting in equity and civil rights issues.
Access, Education and Empowerment
The issue of bridging the digital divide needs to go beyond the familiar amalgam of market orientated and civil libertarian perspectives that put forth access and education as being the key to worldwide empowerment and engagement with ICT’s. Theorists such as Day and Schuler (2004) believe that the issues surrounding the digital divide need to deeper to examine the concept of communication as a basic human right and to explore the possibility of policy development to substantiate this process. This is especially relevant as access to ICT’s becomes more of a fundamental need as they become increasingly relied upon to administer basic services (such as healthcare) necessary to maintain adequate standards of living.
Consequently, theorists such as Warschauer (2003) purport that attempting to address the issue of waning technical literacy skills that prohibits social inclusion by simply improving access, is problematic. Current existing methodologies that over-emphasise the physical presence of computers and infrastructure to provide connectivity fail to grasp the importance of encouraging meaningful use of ICT, which can best be achieved through education. This brings up another important consideration in bridging the digital divide which calls for the implementation of alternative frameworks that are more interested in how individuals, families and communities are able to positively engage within society, controlling their own consumption of information. Hawisher and Selfe (2000) argue that communities should discard the ubiquitous nature of the ‘global village’ myth and should instead draw from their own unique cultural background to build upon their understanding of the role ICT in their prospective societies.
But, empowering developing countries to play more of an autonomous role in their engagement with ICT, will require the unbridled support of both governments and private interests to provide both the infrastructure such as broadband and satellite technology and the terminal equipment needed to ensure connectivity, at an affordable price (Moss, 2002) At a time when many disparate communities struggle to even have access to basic telephone services compared to industrialised nations that continue to roll out broadband telecoms infrastructure, perhaps it is time that bridging this gap becomes a global priority.
In addition, Law (2004) argues that we need to be more scrupulous regarding the role of important stakeholders such as commercial publishers and their level of responsibility shown concerning civic obligations to make information more accessible to legitimise the Internet’s claim as a decentralised network. James (2001) suggests that perhaps more attention needs to be placed on the complexity of the ethical and political dilemmas surrounding the use of telematics. Specifically, the increasing diffusion of centralised data collection and distribution backed up by mass media frameworks into the fragile and impressionable space that is the internet, are raising concerns over the existence of such traditional social practices or structures and whether they are effectively establishing relations of dominance or disadvantage of people using ICT.
--Dane C Allen 11:20, 28 Oct 2005 (EST)
Cairncross, F. (2000) The Death of Distance: how the communications revolution is changing our lives, London: Texere Publishing Limited ISBN 157851438X
Carvin, A. (2000) “Beyond Access: Understanding the Digital Divide,�? paper presented to NYU Third Act Conference, 19th May.
Castells, M. (2004) The Network Society: a cross cultural perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited p.319 ISBN 1843765055
Compaine, B.M. ed. 2001. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cullen,R. 2003. A global and national call to action. The Electronic Library. Oxford, 21 (3):247-258. (accessed September 8, 2005, from ProQuest database)
Curtin, J. (2001) A Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia? http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/2001-02/02cib01.htm <retrieved 01/09/05>
Day, P and Schuler, D. (2004) Community Practice in the Network Society; Local Action/Global Interaction, London: Routledge, ISBN 0415301947.
DiBello, L.C. (2005) “Are We Addressing the Digital Divide? Issues, Access, and Real Commitment,�? Childhood Education vol.81, no.4, pp. 239-241.
Hawisher, G.E and Selfe, C.L. (2000) Global Literacies and the World Wide Web, London: Routledge, ISBN 0415189411.
Hindman, D.B. (2000) “The rural-urban digital divide�? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly vol. 77, iss. 3, pp. 549-561.
Hoffman, D, Novak, T, Schlosser, A (2000) “The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in the Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce�?, Vanderbilt University, viewed 8 September 2004, http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/hoffman.html (retrieved 01/09/05)
James, E. (2001). “Learning to bridge the digital divide,�? The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Observer Iss. 224, pp.43-45.
Landler, M. (2000) �?A Nascent Internet Takes Root in Vietnam�?, New York Times, 14 Nov
Law, D. (2004) “Bridging the digital divide: a review of current progress,�? Library Management vol. 25, Iss. 1/2, pp. 17-21
Markoff, J. (2000) “High-Tech Executives Urge Action on World’s Digital Divide�?, New York Times, 20 Jul
McConnaughey, J (1999) “Falling through the net 11: New Data on the Digital Divide�?, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, viewed 6 September 2004 <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html>;
Mills, B.F. and Whitacre, B.E. (2003) “Understanding the Non-Metropolitan-Metropolitan Digital Divide�? Growth and Change vol. 34, iss. 2, pp. 219-243.
Mitchell, J (2003) “A Reflection on Media in the Third World�?, Center for Media Literacy, viewed 20/10/05, <http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article198.html
Moss, J. (2002) “Power and Digital Divide,�? Ethics and Information Technology vol.4, no.2, pp. 159-165.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J., and Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide, Washington: Georgetown University Press, p.2, ISBN 0-87840-999-8.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (1999) “Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,�? in Compaine, B.M. (ed.) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 20-29 ISBN 0-262-53193-3.
Powell III, A.C. 2001. “Falling for the Gap: Whatever Happened to the Digital Divide?�?. In , Compaine, B.M. (ed.) The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?,309-314 Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rifkin, J (2000) The Age of Access: How the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life, London: Penguin Group
Romero, S. (2000) �?A Cell Phone Surge Among World’s Poor�?, New York Times, 19 Dec
Servon, L.J. and Pinkett, R.D. (2004) “Narrowing the Digital Divide: the potential and limits of the US community technology movement�? in Castells, M. (ed) The Network Society: a cross cultural perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 319-323 ISBN 1843765055
Spencer, C (2004) “Information Technology: Third World: Impact: Media�?, Global Issues of the Twenty-First Century & United Nations Challenges, viewed 20/10/05, < http://www.global-challenges.org/35it-thirdworld.html >.
The Welfare Information Network (2002) “Bridging the Rural Digital Divide�?, Resources for Welfare Decisions, viewed 6 September 2004 <http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/ruraldigitaldivideRN.htm>;
Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 0262232243.
Wilson III, E.J. (2004) The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 299-307 ISBN 0262232308
Woodall,P. (2000) “The New Economy: Falling Through the Net?�?, The Economist 23 Sep (Survey: 34-9)
Meredith Sydes
Jamie Dair
Dane Allen
Philips young
Nicole davidson
To view group members home pages, click on the following links.
Brooke Power & Katy Clarke Sep/Oct 2004
Philips young 02:37, 9 Sep 2005 (EST)
Major revision by Adam margerison 07:52, 28 Oct 2005 (EST)
