Digital Divide and Education

From WikEd

Note: This wiki is for use by students in EPS 415 for the development of a collaborative site on the topic of Digital Divide. If you are not a member of the project team, please do not edit this page. We will post it as a public wiki once the project team have finalized their version.

Contributors: Will Montepeque, Nicole Weir, Thomas Ashley, Pamela D. Williams, Britni Rolfingsmeier, Caroline Yun, Bo White, Venita Hubbard, Beth Hand, and Cathy Mannen

Prepared for EPS 415, Summer 2007, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Instructors: Prof. Nicholas Burbules and Liz Jackson

Contents 1 Introduction 2 History 2.1 Cause 2.2 Recognition 3 Definitions of the Digital Divide 3.1 Early Dichotomous Divide 3.1.1 Race 3.1.2 Socioeconomic Status 3.1.3 Gender 3.1.4 Educational Attainment 3.1.5 Geographic area (rural, urban, central city) 3.1.6 Age and Generational Divide 3.1.7 Ability 3.1.8 Conclusions 3.2 Broadening Definitions 3.2.1 Technological (Physical) Divide 3.2.2 Internet Access Divide 3.2.3 Human Resources Divide 3.2.4 Social/Community Resources Divide 3.3 Overlapping Conceptualizations 4 Perpetuations of the Divide 4.1 How technology exacerbates the divide 4.2 How technology created new gaps 5 Attempts to address the Divides 5.1 National and Global Distinctions 5.2 Language Issues 5.3 National Examples 5.4 Global Examples 6 Educational opportunities and challenges 6.1 Factors that foster success 6.2 Obstacles 6.3 Lessons learned 7 Conclusion 8 See Also 9 References

[edit] Introduction

The digital divide, a term first coined in the 1990s ^[1], began as a simple concept and has evolved into multifaceted conceptualizations. Not everyone defines the digital divide the same way, much less agrees on its mere existence or the extent (depending on the definition used) of the divide. The initial dichotomous definitions as well as the more recent acknowledgments of the Human Resources Divide and the Social/Community Resources Divide are necessary for an understanding of the evolution of the concept of the digital divide. Therefore, in discussing the digital divide, it is important to clarify the conceptual basis and/or the type of divide to which one refers, in addition to clarifying whether the reference is national, global or both. The various conceptualizations not only affect how one views the digital divide, but also how one analyzes its fare-reaching ramifications and potential solutions. The digital divide presents significant educational challenges, as well as opportunities. Much can be learned from both the successes and failures of attempts to lessen the divide. Education will play a key role in either the solutions or the perpetuations of this metaphorical digital divide. The fact that core social, cultural and political structures are closely interrelated to the divide, seems to perpetuate it; however the intersectionality of the digital divide can equally be an asset to the development and implementation of solutions.

The digital divide is discussed here in an historical perspective, defined and described. National and global attempts to lessen the divide are shared and conclusions, including recommendations for public school involvement as a key ingredient of possible solutions, are given. Public education is a potential equalizer of technological “goods” in conjunction with government, business and community support.

[edit] History

Inequality of information access has existed throughout time. This inequality of information access has been referred to by many names including the “knowledge gap,” “participation in the information society,” “the digital divide” and more recently, “computer literacy.” Due to concerns with universal telephone service capability, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) was created in 1978 and “charged with conducting market research to shape public policy decision in achieving the goal of universal telephone service capability,” (Monroe 2004) ^[2]. In the 1990s, NTIA’s mandate expanded to focus on universal Internet service capability. The NTIA contracted with the Census Bureau to gather information on computer ownership and Internet access and to investigate the impact of personal attributes such as income, race, age, educational attainment and three geographical variables: rural, urban and central city. NTIA produced a series of reports called Falling Through the Net ^[3] that helped solidify the public conception of dichotomous divides of technological access, and, consequently, technological solutions to close these dichotomous divides. In 1994, only 3 percent of Americans were using the World Wide Web (Pew Center, 1995). Researchers thought that the reason that more people were not using the Internet was simply an issue of affordability. Therefore, at the beginning of digital divide research, studies focused on providing the economically disadvantaged with physical access to the internet and related technologies (van Dijk, 2006). ^[4] These dichotomous divide definitions have relatively recently been broadened to include the human resources divide, which describes the lack of human assistance to support the technology and the Internet access issues, and the social/community resources divide, which speaks to the need to involve local support to integrate technology and derive authentic benefits from this.

[edit] Cause

The DigitalDivide.org attributes the formation of the digital divide to the “Ideological Schism” between the government and the private information and communication technology (ICT) companies that began in the mid-1990s. Politicians thought that the private sector should pay to distribute access to the poor and underprivileged, while the private sector argued that the addressing the digital divide was the government’s job. Finally, the private sector allocated two billion dollars a year in an effort to provide and support access, but these efforts died in the late 1990s after the dot-com bust. ^[5]

Profit margins appear to be a main issue when considering the cause of the digital divide. ICT companies derive their profit from their investments in and marketing towards their wealthy and middle class consumers. ICT companies are not motivated to spend their resources by connecting the poor to services which they cannot afford. If and when the economically disadvantaged get service, it tends to be of lower-quality and quickly out of date in comparison to newer and more expensive technological advances (DigitalDivide.org). This is why, when companies or communities in the past have donated and distributed old and used computers to developing countries and rural areas, the divide did not just suddenly close for them. Many of these initiatives help in the short term, but over the course of a year or two, the digital divide reemerges as the technology becomes outdated.

The original thought was that as the Internet (and related ICT) captivated society, its costs would stabilize and become widely affordable as it did for television, radio and telephone. However, the Internet represents a condensed version of these commodities which often changes too rapidly for widespread, inexpensive distribution like its predecessors. When the financially challenged finally achieve access, often times their computers and Internet access are already obsolete (van Dijk, 2006). Van Dijk (2006) writes, “one forgets that the technology is changing fast and that the people who first adopted it do not stop to obtain new technologies and skills. As soon as the laggards have caught up, the forerunners have already moved further ahead and are using more advanced technology” (p. 232) ^[6] Therefore, the divide just widens as its center and edges continually spread. Now, research is being devoted not only to providing physical access to those without ICT access, but equally important, access to the knowledge and skills necessary for meaningful ICT access. Whatever the cause, for the digital divide to diminish, skills, capabilities, interests, and motivation for using ICT must be cultivated.

[edit] Recognition

The term “digital divide” was coined in the mid-1990s by an anonymous source (van Dijk, 2006), and was made popular in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act. Concern about the digital divide from policy makers developed in the mid-1990s. According to DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001), ^[7] governments and researchers thought that the Internet and the World Wide Web would actually enhance equality of information access because they thought that the cost of information would now be reduced. However, they began to realize that the information divide was actually growing. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) stated in their article, “for the most part, groups with higher levels of access to the Internet were the same groups (whites, men, residents of urban areas) that had greater access to education, income, and other resources that help people get ahead” (p. 1). After this recognition of inequality, an explosion of surveys and studies from both the public and private sectors sprung up in an effort to find the cause and solution to this growing problem. There began a recognition and understanding that the gap itself is self-perpetuating. This concept of self-perpetuation is important to keep in mind when addressing solutions to the digital divide.

[edit] Definitions of the Digital Divide

Definitions of the digital divide have evolved over time, starting with dichotomous descriptive definitions, which assumed that the divide was simply one of the haves versus the have-nots (those who have and those who don’t have technological devices and Internet access) and eventually encompassing more social, cultural and political realities, including human resource inequities and social/community resource inequities. There is a symbiotic relationship between definitions, causes and solutions of the digital divide. The underlying conceptualizations affect how one defines the divide, which in turn affects the framing of and the possible solutions to the issues.

[edit] Early Dichotomous Divide

[edit] Race

While race is not a primary factor for determining a person's ICT access or orientation with respect to the digital divide, it does provide useful information when considering the digital divide's impact. There is ongoing research and evidence that closely links race and access and exposure to ICTs. The research of Robert Fairlie indicates that economic and socioeconomic factors account for ICT access disparities more so than an individual's racial or ethnic identity. Race-aggregated statistics such as those considered in Fairlie's report entitled “Are we Really a Nation Online? Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Access to Technology and Their Consequences”. ^[8] FreePress.net indicate that the digital divide definitely has race-specific chasms. The report states that "[s]lightly more than half of all [B]lack and Latino children have access to a home computer and approximately 40 percent have access to the Internet at home (compared to 85.5 and 77.4 percent of [W]hite, non-Latino children)" (p. 2). Clearly the information age impacts everyone, but not everyone is receiving similar basic access to that information.

Arguably, the digital divide can be understood as a technological manifestation of de facto racism that still exists. Some disparities are attributable to historic and contemporary racism and its resulting economic barriers to ICT. Other race-based disparities may be attributable to cultural utilization, preference and exposure to ICT (although it is arguable that even these may actually result from racism as well). The Internet and other ICT has the capability of bringing people of varying races, cultures and identities together; however it also has the capability of continuing to exclude segments and communities of the world's population.

The impact of the gap in technological use and access is most likely felt in distinctively public arenas such as the high school or college classrooms where Whites and Asians bring with them far more "technical" experience (as a generalization) than their Black and Latino classmates (see “Race and the Digital Divide" for an in depth discussion)^[9]. And here again, the discussion is not as much a digital one as it is a matter of physical access and societal use. More analysis of the intersectionality of race and the information age is necessary for understanding how racial and ethnic groups have interacted and utilized technology in the recent past. It is too simplistic to say that the issue is truly that Asians or Whites like computers more than Latinos or Blacks, and perhaps not completely valid to say race is not nearly as significant as economic ability. Race and ethnicity's intersectionality with the digital divide is quite complex and difficult to isolate a sole cause since there are so many entangled in this aspect of the digital divide.

[edit] Socioeconomic Status

A person's cultural status has many layers. Interestingly, a Stanford Institute study by Nie and Erbing suggests that racial differences in online access in America have become less important today than income differentials, (see Norris 4.1 article) ^[10]. It is tempting to believe that current ICT is color blind. However, the internet is a tool utilized by people who can afford to pay. Schools, for example, with well-funded budgets will logically have access to greater technological resources than those struggling for financial resources. The latter will have limited access to some of the latest technology. The significance of this is rather simple: since schools typically reflect the income of the families represented by the students, there will be a digital divide along socioeconomic lines. The Internet provides worldwide benefits. Those schools that are limited by their budgets or socioeconomic stratification will quickly fall behind the global economy. The students of both school types are being prepared for different worlds. One school might emphasize global interconnectedness while another which lacks certain capabilities, tends to keep its focus local due to financial and technological constraints. The students may perpetuate certain community conditions simply because their view of the world is small or potentially isolated.

As reported in Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (October 2000) ^[11], although the percentage of households with Internet access in the United States is increasing, at each income level, great disparities continue to exist. In 2000, 12.7% of households with less than $15,000 income had Internet access whereas 77.7% of households with greater than $75,000 household incomes had access. There was a gradual increase in usage at each step as income increased. 21.3% of households with $15,000 to $24,999 income had access, 34.0% of households with $25,000 – 34,999 had access and on up in a stair-like fashion. There was a 79% increase in households in the lowest income range (less than $15,000 household income) having Internet access in 2000 versus 1998. This compared to a 29% increase in the highest range (greater than $75000 household income) in the same time period. However, there was still a 65% difference (12.7% compared to 77.7%) in percentage points for Internet usage between the lowest and highest income ranges. Socioeconomic status definitely impacts access and quality of access to ICT.

[edit] Gender

Most people would already readily admit that there is a social divide in many respects between men and women around the world. ^[12] Despite all of the progress that is so often celebrated in the 21st century, there remains a significant thread of gender inequality, in particular surrounding ICT. In fact, in relationship to the digital divide “there is a need to explain how divides came to be and why they exist,” (Kennedy, Wellman, & Klement, 2003, p. 73). ^[13]

Women tend to use the Internet less and utilize the Internet and ICT differently than men.^[14] Similar to race and socioeconomic status, there are several intersectional reasons that may explain the existence of the gender-based digital divide. A long history of discriminating against women's intellectual capacity and contributions may very well be one of the most compelling reasons for the gender divide in utilization and access to the Internet and related ICT. It can be argued that technology in and of itself is gender-neutral, so clearly there are social practices that contribute to gender-attribute disparities regarding the digital divide, (for full analysis see Gendering the Digital Divide).

The discussion of gender and the digital divide goes beyond the United States. There is a global perspective on this issue as well. Economic empowerment or community development issues are also intertwined with the need to equip women with opportunities to interact with and learn in conjunction with ICT ^[15]

Prominent among the United Nations Millennium Development goals is the education and empowerment of women. In some cases this will mean more opportunities and more exposure to ICT and closing the digital gap for women. For education, it can be said that the divide is multifaceted worldwide. More women than men currently attend college in the United States, but this is not the case worldwide. And so the gender disparity actually disappears briefly when analyzing internet usage in the West where a case could be made that the gender gap actually begins to reverse itself. It has also been found that men and women use technology in different ways. Due to this inequality, educators and students may need to spend some time discussing gender inequality and adjusting educational opportunities accordingly.

Nationally, in Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (October 2000) it is reported that the disparity between male and female basic Internet usage has “largely disappeared." Their statistics for the United States indicated that by August of 2000, 44.6% of men and 44.2% of women used the Internet. This compared to 34.2% of men and 31.4% of women using the Internet in December of 1998. However, these statistics do not reflect the more complex concepts of usage.

[edit] Educational Attainment

In linking socioeconomic status with the digital divide discussion, one must remember that education does not happen in a vacuum, but in a specific time/place continuum. Pippa Norris ^[16] that “three quarters of all American college graduates use the internet compared with less than a fifth of those who failed to graduate from high school,” (4.1). National statistics indicate that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to use the Internet. National statistics indicate that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to use the Internet. The Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (October 2000) report indicates that “Better educated adults are more likely to use and become familiar with computers and the Internet at work or through their school experiences” (p. 10). Merely 11.7% of households headed by someone with less than a high school education had Internet access in 2000 compared to 69.9% of households headed by someone with post graduate education. 64.0% of people with Bachelor’s degrees heading households had access, 49.0% of heads of households with some college and 29.9% of those with high school diplomas in 2000. Therefore, the educational attainment divide is a self-perpetuating one in that the more education a person has, the more likely she will benefit from ICT which in turn increases benefits (from further education) from increased ICT.

[edit] Geographic area (rural, urban, central city)

In the 1990s, concern about the lack of internet access in rural areas gained prominence in national discussions of the digital divide. The percentage of United States households with internet access in 2000 was 41.5 according to the Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion (October 2000) report (p. 4). Rural areas had a 38.9% Internet access rate, which was a 75% increase from the 22.2% rate in December of 1998 (p. 5). However, when comparing broadband coverage, The Falling Through the Net report indicated that in 2000, rural areas had only 7.3% coverage compared to 12.2% for central cities and 11.8% in urban areas. The percentage of U.S. households with a computer is not as discrepant as quality access across geographic areas. The Falling Through the Net report also states that in 2000, 51% of all U.S. households had a computer whereas 49.6% of rural households did, 51.5% of urban area households and 46.3% of central city households (p. 7). The largest gap, (between state averages and a rural area usage) depicts a 5.2 percentage point difference. However, type of Internet access and human support continue to be lagging behind in females.

[edit] Age and Generational Divide

Ideas are currency. The United States no longer has a simple goods/manufacturing economy; rather, the economy is indisputably interconnected to knowledge and information access. Therefore, there is a generational economic gap as well as gaps in the family and social spheres. The family is not the clearly defined nucleus of decades past. In fact, one can make a case that families are emerging as a result of technology. For example, “literature is emerging about general motivations for blogging. Previous research shows five general motivations: autobiographical narratives, commentary, catharsis, muse, and community forum (Nardi, et.al 2004).^[17] However, for health blogs, especially mental health blogs, other motivations may exist. Literature on why people use the Internet helped us identify three particularly relevant motives for mental health bloggers: social connectedness, coping, and identify formation.” The fascinating aspect of this is that young people are not only connecting (there has even been a dramatic rise in marriages whose partners met online), but creating a family system where technology is playing or will play a key role in how the members of the family relate to one another. This again is a shift akin to families gathering around the radio to listen to programs or gathering around the television to watch certain shows. Digitally, families are learning new ways to communicate with one another.

Older Americans have tended to be less likely to use the Internet than younger Americans. In 2000, the Falling Through the Net report indicated that people 50 years of age or older were the least likely age group to use the Internet. Internet use for this group was at a measly 29.6% compared to a national individual rate in 2000 of 44.4%. However, this group was much more likely (three times as likely) to use the Internet if they worked. A study in England reported in “The Grey Digital Divide”^[18] examined the feelings of the elderly toward the Internet that 69% of their mostly 55-80 year old sample reported no use of the Internet. The “young” elderly were the most likely to report usage (83.3% of the 55-70 aged group). Interestingly, people who tried the Internet and were unsuccessful rated themselves as having “no interest” rather than reporting their actual lack of skills on the Internet. “Their survey suggested that men over 55 mostly use the Internet for pursuing hobbies and finding information (78%). Alternately, women in the age group use it more as an alternative to the telephone to chat with friends and family…” (The Grey Digital Divide) Millward concluded that, for the elderly, any program intended to increase Internet usage, needed to address perception and operational skills.

The Nielsen Norman Group^[19] recommends Guidelines for designing information on the web so it is more accessible to the elderly. They found that websites were twice as hard for seniors to use. They were targetting e-commerce to this population. So the digital divide affects seniors not just in access, but also in skills and support.

[edit] Ability

In 2000, people with a disability were half as likely to have access to the Internet as people without a disability. 21.6% of people with a disability had Internet access at this time compared to 42.1% of people without a disability. Furthermore, close to 60% of people with a disability had never used a computer in 2000, whereas, just under 25% of people without a disability had never used a computer. Both computer usage and Internet usage is variable depending on the type of disability. For example, people with impaired vision and people with manual dexterity problems are less likely to use the computer and the Internet. ^[20]

[edit] Conclusions

Members of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C., claim that there is simply not a digital divide in existence in America (Heritage.org).^[21] This think tank argues that "policy makers at all levels need not fear that some Americans may be left behind in this profoundly dynamic Information Age." Given the fact that various socioeconomic groups and ethnic groups vary in their use of other technology (for example, the automobile is a different symbol depending upon ethnicity and social class), one can assume that digital advances are also valued differently. From the research presented here, different socio-cultural and political groups respond to the information age differently. Socio-economic status appears to be a major dividing line. People with high socio-economic status are more likely to utilize and benefit from ICT. Race seems to be a less determining factor as originally thought, once socio-economic status is controlled. The relationship between educational attainment and use of use of the Internet also seems clear. The more highly educated a person is, the more likely that he will benefit from ICT. The gender issue is more complex. On the surface it appears that there is not much difference between Internet usage by males and females; however, delving deeper into types of use reveals differences between the sexes. Rural areas continue to lag behind both urban and central cities in both access and quality of access which affects usage. The elderly are less likely to utilize the Internet, even given access. Some issues with usage for the elderly include skills training and support. Disabled individuals are less likely to use the Internet, although, the type of disability can also be a determining factor. People with impaired vision and people with manual dexterity problems are least likely to use the computer and the Internet. Throughout the discussions of these various Dichotomous Divides, it is obvious that there is more to the picture than simply listing the have and have-not groupings. Simply belonging to one or the other of these dichotomous groups does not cause use or non-use of ICT. Society has been divided into these groups long before the information era. However, the use or non-use of available technology may strengthen these pre-existing divisions in our society. The definition of the digital divide needs to be broadened to understand the complexities of this phenomenon.

[edit] Broadening Definitions

[edit] Technological (Physical) Divide

The simplest and most common conceptualization of the digital divide is the physical/technological divide. Simply put, the physical/technological divide refers to the gap between people who have information and communication technological (ICT) devices and those who do not. When one thinks of the village communities of Calavera in the hills of El Salvador where there is no running water, transportation, electricity and few roads, it is not surprising that there are little to no technological devices. Then imagine the Beckman Institute at the University of Illinois, where Mosaic was invented and “The Cave” exists whose potential goes beyond most of our technological imaginations. Even this simplistic dichotomy needs to be clarified as one has to decide which technological divides to “count” when describing the extent of the digital divide. There are many choices, including (but again, not limited to): computers, laptops, an incredible variety of phones, Blackberries, palm pilots, and one could even stretch it to gaming devises. The physical/technological divide is how many, if not most, people used to conceptualize the digital divide. Nationally, the U.S. Department of Commerce reports in “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion”^[22] (A Report of America’s Access to Technology Tools) in October of 2000 that more than half of all households (51.0%) had computers compared to 42.1% of households in December of 1998.

[edit] Internet Access Divide

Beyond the physical/technological depiction, the divide can be described in terms of Internet access, but again, in the have/have not dichotomy. Someone in Calavera might possibly have a portable computer (with a strong battery), but certainly not have access to the Internet. Having the hardware is one thing, but having Internet access in addition to the hardware immensely multiplies the potentiality of the technology. Pippa Norris, in Digital Divide (2000), notes that globally, 51.5% of Scandinavia’s population, 42.8% of North America’s population, 3.3% of Asia’s and .5% of Africa’s population was wired for Internet access in 2000. Assessing the divide nationally, John B. Horrigan, in “A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users” ^[23] creates some interesting names for technology users and non- or low-users. He found that 31% of American adults fell into his “Elite Tech Users” category, 20% were found to be “Middle-of-the-road Tech Users, and 49% have “Few Tech Assets”. His description of technology goes beyond computers with Internet access and includes cell phone and other tech gadgets with Internet access. The least tech savvy 15% (of the 49%) do not have and/or choose not to have any connectivity to the Internet. The U.S. Department of Commerce reported in “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion” in October of 2000 that households with Internet access increased from 26.2% in December of 1998 to 41.4% in August of 2000. Looking at individuals instead of households, individuals using Internet access increased from 32.7% in December of 1998 to 44.4% in August of 2000. This definition of the digital divide which includes Internet access, is how many, if not most, people think of “the digital divide”.

[edit] Human Resources Divide

Then there is the issue of knowing how to use the technology and how to practically benefit from it. Imagine that a campesino in Calavera obtained a laptop and found Internet access in neighboring San Salvador, but had no idea how to access the web. How many of us have lamented that we don’t have “tech” support when we need it? Simply giving “One Laptop per Child” without the human resources to obtain the knowledge of how to access the prospective information is short-sighted. Mark Warschauer , in his article, “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide” (2002)^[24], describes a government project in one of the poorest slums in New Delhi in 2000. This project, known as the “Hole-in-the-Wall” experiment, consisted of an outdoor five-station computer kiosk with joysticks and buttons and Internet connection, but no keyboards. Although there was a volunteer to keep the computers and Internet connection running, the experiment lacked a teaching component or instructors. This apparently was in line with a concept called “minimally invasive education”. As Warschauer explained, the idea was to let the children teach themselves. Although official reports touted this experiment as a success, the reality was that access to the Internet rarely worked and the children spent most of their time doing paint programs and playing computer games. There were no special educational programs and no special content in their Hindi language. Some parents complained that instead of improving their education, some children spent hours away from their own studies to play computer games. This experiment lacked real human support. Similarly, Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Guryan reported in “World Wide Wonder? Measuring the (Non-) Impact of Subsidies to Public Schools” ^[25] that the American government’s 1996 incentive program for schools, E-Rate, helped to lessen the physical/technological and the access gap in schools across the United States, but did not prove to increase student achievement as measured in California schools. Goolsbee and Guryan shared a 1999 Department of Education survey which found that only one third of the teachers surveyed felt competent with the technology. Again, human resources were not addressed and therefore the solutions proved to be unsuccessful.

[edit] Social/Community Resources Divide

Even before the technology, the access and the human support, one needs a reason, a motive, to pursue the use of technology in order to benefit from its full potential. Social/community resource is another essential conceptualization of the digital divide. When one understands (from others) the potential uses of the technology, has a reason to want to pursue this avenue, and has an idea of how one (or a group) can benefit from such information, one is more likely to choose to use the technology (and be willing to persevere through those inevitable glitches). Using the “Hole-in-the-Wall” example, Warschauer, 2002 noted that community support was deliberately not planned in the New Delhi experiment with the five kiosks because they did want community involvement. To be successful, it is essential to involve the community, parents, client, businesses, the government and any other possible stakeholders right from the start of the planning process to develop this social/community support. It is critical to involve the potential clientele so they realize the reasons/advantages to utilize this new technology and how it can benefit their lives/work/studies. Warschauer describes another example, “An Information Age”, in this same article, “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide” (2002). In Ireland in 1997, towns vied for technology funding from a national telecommunications company. The towns who lost the main prize (15 millions dollars), but won significantly smaller sums of money (1.5 million dollars in consolidation prizes), made the greatest lasting benefits due to their choices of how to use their technology funding. Because funding was relatively limited, they involved community groups, small businesses and labor unions in the planning process. As Warschauer explained, these communities used existing supports and tried to involve many community organizations in the planning and implementation in order to stretch the resources. This community/social support is what led to the sustainable change that was achieved in these towns. The winning town, who received the 15 million dollar award, chose to put the money into physical support rather than human or social resources and subsequently their success was not sustained over time.

[edit] Overlapping Conceptualizations

There are many overlapping conceptualizations of the digital divide. Pippa Norris, in her book, Digital Divide (2001), describes three divides, the global divide, the social divide and the democratic divide. The global divide refers to the gap of Internet access between industrialized and developing societies. Norris describes the social divide as the gap between information rich and information poor in each nation. The democratic divide is portrayed as the difference of people who do and do not use technology to participate in public life. Warschauer (2002) has several concerns with the whole notion of the “digital divide”. First, it tends to perpetuate the idea that this encompasses only the physical availability of computers and connectivity. The term, digital divide, implies a “bipolar societal split” between the “haves” and “have-nots”, rather than the real gradual differences or degrees of access. This binary divide notion not only is inaccurate, it can also be patronizing by not acknowledging the gradations that do exist. Third, this notion of a digital divide implies a “chain of causality”. There is an implication that lack of access is detrimental to one’s life chances which oversimplifies the complex interrelationships between society and technology. Another problem Warschauer has with the term “digital divide” is that it implies that solutions will be digital rather than needing to simultaneously address the human resources and social/community resources. Warschauer suggests a focus on transformation rather than technology and advocates the alternate concept of “technology for social inclusion”. Burbules et al in “Beyond the Digital Divide” ^[26] warns that the simplistic concept of the digital divide has several potential pitfalls that can have devastating ramifications. The problems with this simplistic divide metaphor, as Burbules sees it, are the absence of other important dimensions of access beyond technical access, the assumption that access is “good” and therefore should be equally distributed with no “gaps”, the naïve belief that technological distributive justice will solve socially embedded concerns, ignoring unintended and possibly dangerous consequences, and the lack of a global perspective. Burbules concludes that one has to conceive of these issues in networked ways. There are complex interrelationships among community organizations, technology, social networks, public policies, good intentions, unintended consequences, and the interdependence of local, national and global dynamics. On July 22, 2007, Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia, summarized well the problem with defining the digital divide: “the exact nature of the digital divide is both contextual and debatable.” When we look at ways to address the digital divide nationally in our K-12 schools, it is important to keep these various conceptualizations in mind as they affect how we focus on the issues and attempt to improve conditions.

[edit] Perpetuations of the Divide

[edit] How technology exacerbates the divide

Technology has been seen as a valuable resource to many people all around the world. Its intended use is to improve communication among people locally, nationally and globally. Technology is also intended to provide networking, educational, and business opportunities for all. However, in many cases technology is having the opposite effect - it is exacerbating the divide. The digital divide duplicates the current gaps in our nation: socioeconomic, race, educational attainment, ability, gender, and age. In some cases the gaps are widening and the gaps between the haves and the have-nots are increasing rather than decreasing. According to Kaiser ^[27] the internet is a "global system, inviting and making possible the expression of multiple points of view, simultaneously and instantaneously, in other ways other traditional systems simply can't match". When the “have-nots” continue to lack technological access, while the “haves” continue to accumulate more technological advances, the gap widens. The more educated tend to use new technologies with greater frequency than those who are less educated. In turn the more educated are acquiring more knowledge and opportunities. According to Kaiser, Internet use and computer skills can be indispensable in advancing a career. Kaiser also states that the Digital Divide intensifies divisions because it is even more difficult for the uneducated and those without Internet access to get certain, good paying jobs.

[edit] How technology created new gaps

There are several unintended consequences that make themselves known both as technology continues to evolve and improve and as efforts are made to bridge the gaps within the Digital Divide. As a result, new gaps are created among groups of people with regards to technology. Steyaert (2000).^[28] discussed different trends which have been emerging. The first trend is related to global economics. More developed countries which have better technological and communication infrastructures and a greater number of businesses and corporations which are “connected” are going to be more attractive to corporations looking to expand throughout the global market. Likewise, less developed countries with poorer technological and communication infrastructures and a fewer number of businesses and corporations which are “connected” are going to be less attractive to corporations looking to expand throughout the global market. As a result, less developed countries could potentially become less able than they are now to compete in the global financial and business market. Technology is continuing to "widen the gap", but also has the potential to turn this around. Forward-thinking or futurist-thinking companies could choose to invest in less connected countries knowing that they would also be helping to improve their global economic status.

The second trend discussed by Steyaert was in regards to people who choose not to be connected: they may have both the physical infrastructure and the experience to use the Internet in meaningful ways, yet they choose not to engage. Some may have engaged previously, but have since decided that the Internet was not a useful tool for them. One example Steyaert used to illustrate this particular technological gap had to do with the use of credit cards. People who choose not to have or use credit cards find it difficult to do things such as reserve a hotel room in advance or rent a car. Such are the consequences of choosing not to have a credit card. People can choose to create public policy which enables individuals to continue not to choose to use technology, or people can choose to impose consequences for non-use of technology.

The third trend discussed was content-based barriers on the Internet which results in groups of people who are connected but who have unequal access to information. One barrier is that information that is most beneficial to low income groups such as local employment, local housing, and community resources are not always available on the Internet. Low literacy levels are also a concern. Much of the information available on-line requires a high literacy level, making the information inaccessible to many low-income citizens. In addition to requiring a high literacy level, most information available on-line is also in English. Immediately, this has made the Internet inaccessible to citizens in underdeveloped nations (even if they are physically connected) who speak languages other than English. These content based barriers could be easily resolved by providing information needed by low-income citizens about community resources in a format that is easy to read and understand. By utilizing technology that can translate information into other languages, language barriers could also be eliminated.

Other unintended consequences of Internet usage which contribute to the formation of new digital gaps were observed by Burbules et al (2006) in “Beyond the Digital Divide.” One area of concern involves how some people using the Internet can fall “prey” to others on the Internet. For instance, online vendors and advertisers can make their products extremely appealing to those groups of people who have less disposable income and are least able to afford these products. Typically, low-income citizens tend to have less education than higher income earners. This also makes them more vulnerable economically. They state “…it is precisely those new users to whom we are trying to provide greater access who are at the greatest risk of being abused or exploited by online content.” (pg. 92) However, considering how marketing has saturated both our American culture and the world, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which technology can be used to improve this situation. On the other hand, educating both children and adults about money management and marketing strategies could empower them to lessen their likelihood of becoming victims.

Finally, another new economic gap which has been created as a result of trying to “bridge the gap” in underdeveloped countries is related to professionals from underdeveloped countries. Through Internet recruiting, training, and higher education, many professionals (doctors and scientists, for example) are leaving their home countries to transfer to more developed countries for higher pay, better comfort and lifestyles for themselves and their families. Although the Internet training and education help “bridge the gap” by providing access to remote areas, a new gap is created when newly trained professionals leave their countries rather than choosing to provide services and to contribute to their homeland.

Although the use (or non-use) of technology divides many groups of people, the wise use of technology, coupled with social/political/community support, can also help alleviate these divides.

[edit] Attempts to address the Divides

[edit] National and Global Distinctions

The Digital Divide has different characteristics nationally and globally. Nationally, the divide in each country is different, because each country has a unique history, language, and population characteristics. The population of the U.S. is about 300 million. Approximately 205 million people, or 68%, are internet users (CIA World FactBook)^[29] According to this data, nearly 95 million people in the US do not use, or do not have access to the Internet. There are many factors that affect the access to the Internet, some of those factors include but are not limited to gender, socioeconomic status, ability, age, education etc.

The total population of the world is nearing 7 billion (6.6 billion, according to CIA World Factbook, 2007), but the estimate of Internet users is only 1 billion, or 15%, worldwide (CIA World Factbook). The U.S. alone accounts for 20% of the users worldwide. Globally, the factors that affect the Digital Divide are similar to the U.S., with some exceptions. One example, according to Warschauer, is race. Race should not be used in the U.S. as a factor that increases the Digital Divide between Blacks and Whites, because the determining factor appears to be socioeconomic status. This gap decreases as the income increases in Blacks. So the argument could be made that race is not an issue of the Digital Divide in the U.S. However, in a global context, race could be a factor, because if we compare all the people in developed countries who have access to ICTs to all the people in developing countries who do not have, race is correlated. Caucasians benefit more from ICTs than others.

Another factor that affects the Digital Divide is literacy. Industrialized countries have a low rate of illiteracy; therefore, the gap between the users and non-users of the internet is lower than in developing countries. On the other hand, worldwide the illiteracy rate is higher. Some people do not know how to read or write and this most likely will limit their access to the digital technologies. Literacy is a complex term that can simply be defined as reading and writing. Literacy is connected to socio-cultural factors. Simply learning how to read and write does not mean that people will automatically be ready to access digital technologies (Warschauer 2002).

[edit] Language Issues

According to some figures 80% of the content in the Internet is in English. ^[30] This is an obvious barrier to non-English speaking and/or reading users to the Internet. Fortunately, many countries teach English as a second language and people do not need to be fluent in English to read the Internet. Reading is one of the first skills acquired when learning a language. Internet users who speak English as a first language comprise 35% of Internet users - close to 300 million people in the world. ^[31] There are more people who speak English as a second language, but they "create" content in their first language and then translate this to English or vice versa. There are more than 7000 (Warschauer (2000)) languages in the world, yet the most popular language online are four or five (English, Chinese, Spanish, German). The Internet then could be perceived in some countries as a colonizer tool that the West is using to promote liberal ideologies that are not welcome in other countries. On the other hand, some people around the world see the Internet as a tool that can help improve the lives of people.

[edit] National Examples

In the United States of America, the Universal Service Fund is at the forefront of the official government response to closing the Digital Divide. The Universal Service Fund was implemented in 1996 by the Clinton Administration and is commonly referred to as the "E-rate." The term "E-rate" refers to the range of discounts available to educational institutions. According to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the goals of the Universal Service Fund are:

• to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates;
• to increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; and
• to advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas. ^[32]

The USAC operates under the auspices of the Federal Communications Commission and is the organizational and reporting force behind the E-rate program. Under the E-rate program, schools and libraries are eligible to receive discounts of 20-90% on telecommunications technology. The range of discounts varies based upon the location (rural or urban) and socio-economic status of the requesting community. The most common indicator of the socio-economic status is the percentage of students receiving reduced-cost lunches through the National School Lunch Program, although other government subsidy program eligibility and participation percentages may be used to determine the appropriate discount rate. ^[33] This e-Rate program helped bring technology equipment and Internet access to schools, that, likely, would not have been able to afford this. However, the program is premised on the dichotomous definition of the digital divide. Simply enabling the purchase of physical technology will not solve with problem without concomitantly providing human resources and social/community resources.

Schools are working hard to provide these skills to students throughout the world, but they are facing many challenges as well. DiBello (2005) in “Are we addressing the digital divide? Issues, access, and real commitment” ^[34] states that as schools try to close the divide for children, they must: 1) be committed, 2) be ready to invest in the long term, and 3) be ready to train and support teachers. Without everyone’s commitment, any technology program will fail. From administration to teachers to parents to students, everyone needs to cooperate and be willing recognize technology’s importance in the classroom (DiBello, 2005). These committed teachers need to be trained and know how to incorporate technology into the classroom, as well. Schools should be willing to fund workshops or training not only now, but continually. DiBello (2005) makes a good analogy: we do not let doctors without new training and equipment operate on us, so we should not allow our teachers to educate our children without the latest training and technology. Lastly, technology is ever changing, so schools cannot simply buy computers and be done for the next five to ten years. They must be ready to constantly be updating hardware, software, Internet access, etc. if they want to provide the proper education to their students and to start closing the digital divide in schools.

[edit] Global Examples

One highly publicized international effort to help meet the world’s technological inequity is the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) organization. ^[35] OLPC’s mission is to bring inexpensive laptops to all children, particularly, to the children of developing nations. The organization feels strongly that doing “‘more of the same’—building schools, hiring teachers, buying books and equipment—is a laudable but insufficient response” to educating the world’s youth (OLPC). OLPC’s chairman, Nicholas Negroponte, believes that exposing children to a wide range of global ideas through ICT-based experiences will help alleviate the perpetuation of the poverty and disconnectedness characterized by the Digital Divide. OLPC’s cornerstone is the wide-spread distribution of laptops at the relatively low cost of approximately $100 (USD). OLPC has a number of strategic partners in support of its mission which helps to defray their organizational and manufacturing costs. Because OLPC operates under what Nicolas Burbules, et al. describes as a “distributive justice framework,” it also faces that framework’s challenges and criticisms (88). The distributive justice framework analyzes issues by asking 2 questions, namely, “who receives this good, in what measure [?]” and secondly, “by what principles and criteria is this good distributed?” (Burbules, et al., 88). Allegedly, education is the good in this equation and it is believed that the children of wealthier nations receive it through ICT. Nicholas Negroponte maintains that “[i]t’s an education project, not a laptop project,” however, given the central role that laptops play in the OLPC organization’s mission and activism, this point is highly debated (OLPC). The mass distribution of laptops to some of the world’s neediest children definitely creates an educational opportunity, but not within a vacuum. While the children thought to benefit most from the OLPC goals may, in fact, not have access to high-quality, affordable and comprehensive education via ICT, it is arguably more troubling that these children do not have access to high-quality food, affordable shelter and comprehensive medical care. As Burbules et al. noted, “with some goods a significant degree of inequality is accepted by society…with regard to some goods (say health care), many societies have deemed this too important a fundamental entitlement to tolerate a very wide disparity in access” (89). Justifiably so, the day-to-day needs of children (food, shelter and health care) should have fundamental entitlement status—and presumably a priori to meeting a laptop-to-child ratio. The mission of OLPC is well-intentioned, but perhaps greater emphasis should be placed upon meeting impoverished children’s basic needs before spearheading educational and technological opportunities.

[edit] Educational opportunities and challenges

The digital divide is much more than a “have” versus “have not” issue of technology. In the article, “Beyond The Digital Divide,” Burbules et al note some limitations to the concept of the “digital divide.” The first limitation is that there is not just one divide, but there are many digital divides and at the same time, there is not just one gap to close, but many gaps. The Digital Divide involves the lack of technology that communities have access to as well as socio, economic, political, and cultural issues such as poverty and lack of educational funding. The lack of human, social and community resources also defines the divide. Evaluating the research, one can find common factors that foster success and well as common obstacles that hamper success. Lessons can be learned from both the success and failure stories.

[edit] Factors that foster success

Education is a key to closing the digital divide. Rather than just focusing on providing equipment, we need to focus on developing the skills and knowledge needed to use, maintain, and further develop these technologies. This education must also include traditional literacy, in addition to technological literacy (Gebremichael). ^[36] The town in Ireland who decided to involve all their community supports in order to stretch their consolation prize, ended up developing sustainable technological change because it was a community wide project with community support.

Further developing open-source resources and services provides local opportunities for local-language product development in a cost-effective manner (Gebremichael). For example, OpenOffice.Org recently initiated the Native Language Confederation (NLC) in an effort to encourage the development of local-language adaptation. ^[37]

Utilizing a holistic approach to individual and community engagement with technology by seeking to first identify local interests, and then determine how technology can support those interests provides needed community involvement. This should involve not only the individual residents, but also the surrounding community and businesses (Pinkett). ^[38] This will give both individuals and companies a vested interest in utilizing technology. The success story with the small Irish town can be compared with the less successful winning town that spent their significantly greater prize money on physical technology without addressing the human resources or social/community resources. Again, the town with the smaller prize, which planned with the community stakeholders right from the start, were able to create lasting technological changes in their community.

Another example of utilizing a holistic approach involves the Community Networking Initiative (CNI). CNI is "a computer training and distribution program that was designed to increase computer and Internet use among low-income residents in Champaign County, IL” (Mehra et al, 2004, 783). ^[39] Along with PrairieNet, a computer network in East Central Illinois, the Graduate School of Library Information and Science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and the Urban League of Champaign Country, CNI wanted to provide recycled computers to low-income families in the county. Internet access was also provided to over 700 families. The purpose of this study was to see how Internet literacy is related to and influenced by social practices. “Because literacy practices are connected to social practices, literacy is viewed as a collective resource rather than as an attribute or a set of skills that resides within an individual” (Mehra et al, 2004, 784). The data collected looked at how families attempted to integrate the technology into their everyday lives, how their views of technology shifted over time, and how technology influenced their social spheres, family, friends, social networks, etc. The case focused on one participant named Paul who is a single father of three children. Paul began using the computer to research how to buy a car and then he helped his mother research how to buy a house. He used the computer to assist with daily concerns. While he had the computer, he got engaged and began researching information regarding marriage licenses. His children began using the computer for book reports. As Paul’s life began to change over time, the study saw how “family structure influences the way in which people take up and use the Internet” (Mehra et al, 2004, 785). He was very cautious in allowing his children to use the computer as he was afraid that they might stumble across inappropriate content. In Paul’s social network, he became known as the guy with the computer. He often helped others look up information they needed. At one point, Paul lent out his CNI computer, so that others could use it. 80% of those that participated in the program had said someone else had used the computer at one point and 65% said they used their computer to show someone how to do something (Mehra, 2004, 786.) The main findings from the study show how technology is personal to everyone and that through technology we expand our social spheres. It is not just a matter of having possession of the technology, but it’s about the “unique ways in which each individual makes sense of the role of technology in their daily lives” (Mehra, 2004, 786.) What makes this a success story is that Paul was able to make sense of the technology by using it in a way that met the needs of his life as well as influenced the lives of those around him. The computer helped his children use the technology to learn about new things regarding their school assignments and they, like their father, used it to meet the needs of their own lives. This technology also helped to close the gap in the community, as Paul's computer was seen as a tool to help others research information.

Technology is linked to Community Development. For example, Africa is increasing Internet accessibility, see Africa Stories. The World Bank has linked broadband capability to development which marks the digital age as not only ushering in a new ways to communicate, but also a new way to reverse the effects of poverty. A recent donation in the hundreds of millions supports this. Recent reports as well reiterate that the Digital Access/Divide is quite literally a race to get connected to not only the web, but to one another. There is, in a very real sense, a global economy that now completely depends on everyone's else's health (Creating Multimedia Access). ^[40]

Another example of Community Development being spurred on by technology involves an on-line school. A small town with a population of 77 people would not appear to be the home of a fast-growing school district in Colorado. Yet, thanks to supplementing its physical school building of 65 pupils with an online curriculum that enrolls an additional 1,000 students from across the state, it became just that. (Dillon, 2005). The state paid the school district $5,600 per pupil, which meant that the district has received $15 million since 2001. (Dillon, 2005). The school has used this money to provide jobs to hire anyone in the town who wants a job. The mayor even contributed by teaching 15 students via email. Prior to starting the online school, Branson was a dying community. The Roman Catholic Church had closed for lack of a priest, and the only employment outside of ranching was at the one-woman post office, or at the county garage, where three men kept the snowplows running. The school enrollment had shrunk to 41 students (Dillon, 2005). Like other online schools across the United States, Branson’s on-line school has proven to be an attractive alternative for parents who wish to supervise their children's education at home, and for students who have jobs or have certain disabilities (Dillon, 2005). The Branson story is clearly an example of technology playing a large role in saving a community.

Governments can provide policy statements in support of programs to bridge the digital divide as well as acknowledge models that are effective. Governments in developed countries can assist developing world governments support Internet-friendly policies through the provision of expertise, training and aid to policy makers who are responsible for such legislation (Peizer). ^[41] For example, providing information on the web which can easily be translated and which can be read by less literate people is helpful to expand the benefits of technology and should be encourage by government policies.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can be used to address civil society and developmental issues. This is preferable to establishing new programs because the NGOs already have the credibility, network of contacts, understanding and trust developed in the community they serve. NGO's will need additional training and support in the area of technology in order to effectively be used to close the digital divide (Peizer). The NGOs could facilitate involving the social/community resources. Computers-for-Learning, a non-profit organization in Austin, Texas, is making strides to alleviate the issue of the digital divide. Computers for Learning (www.computers-for-learning.org) was created in December 2000 by David Hernon. Hernon desired to enhance education and saw technology as a way of doing so. His solution was to try to provide computers and Internet access to all students. This non-profit organization developed partnerships with local businesses, community organizations, government, and schools in the community to “recondition” donated computers (Harrell, 2005, 39). ^[42] The computers were then recycled back to families who could not afford computers. Specifically, three aspects of this organization made it successful. First, it helped provide computers to families who were economically disadvantaged in the community. These families could probably never afford to buy a computer on their own. Second, they did not want to make the same mistakes that had previously been made. Many attempts at closing the divide simply meant providing the technology, but lacked the follow-up in helping families implement the technology. Computers-for-learning wanted to ensure that all families had Internet access, so they could connect to the World Wide Web. On top of that, they also required that students and their parents take training sessions on how to use the computer before it was taken home. This provided families with the tools and the education to be successful and effectively integrated the technology into their lives. Lastly, the organization partnered with government organizations to find funding, volunteers, and administrative support to obtain public interest in the matter. This organization saw the need and also served as the bridge to connect computers and families.

All parties involved in providing technology access to all populations must be committed to the issue. Grignano, director for a Connecticut magnet school, wrote 12 Tips for Launching a Wireless Laptop Program. Based on his experiences he found that there needs to be a level of commitment in order for a technology project to be successful (DiBello). ^[43] The One Laptop Per Child program appears to be a program that the private sector is committed to continue.

[edit] Obstacles

Of course, a core obstacle is funding. In the small eastern Montana town of Jordan, thirty miles from the compound where the separatist Montana Freemen group made their stand against the federal government, extending high-speed Internet to the 397 people who live in the center of town would cost about $38 per person using phone lines. But the cost of providing comparable service through DSL lines to the 390 people who live on the out skirts of Jordan would cost $32,000 per customer. ^[44]

Ignoring community traditions and input can sabotage well meaning projects. In 2000, the Government of New Delhi and an information technology corporation established a project to provide computer access to the city's street children. An outdoor five-station computer kiosk was set up in one of the poorest slums of New Delhi. The computers were inside a booth and connected to the Internet through dial-up access. Researchers believed that this would be a revolutionary project that would be an example of how to bring the world’s poor into the computer age (Warschauer, 2002). However, some unintended side effects arose as a result. Most parents were very concerned that this project did not offer their children organized instruction and failed to see its value. Because special content was not provided in the children’s language, most of them spent their time on drawing with paint programs or playing with computer games. Some children began to spend all of their free time playing computer games rather than studying and working on school work,(Warschauer, M. (2002).

Unintended consequences of improved technological resources should also be considered. An example of unintended consequences involves on-line schools. Although online schools have certainly had positive impacts on school districts in the United States, there have also been negative unintended side effects of this movement. Several school superintendents in Colorado have criticized the Branson Online School for enrolling their students because this took away money from their districts (Dillon, 2005).^[45] Others simply said that the quality of the education was questionable. In Florida, for example, students at taxpayer-financed online schools made slower progress on standardized math tests than did students at most traditional schools (Dillon, 2005). One superintendent said that although he had lost a few students to an online school, his main concern was that online schools had become magnets for low-achieving students. He said that most children do not have the discipline or the parental support to make it work, and that it is often used as a way for students to drop out legally before they are 16 (Dillon, 2005).

There is a strong connection between technology adoption and specific state policies. Specifically, internet adoption by users depends on whether states create the conditions for private businesses and citizens to make the necessary investments in technology (Corrales) (Corrales) ^[46]. Some institutional environments allow governments and the ruling elite to foster technological change, while others enable them to slow it down or derail it (Milner). ^[47] One example of political issues surrounding the digital divide is authoritarian regimes seek to block the Internet entirely. Laos, for example, was one of the last countries to connect to the internet. The state bans most private e-mails and all free media. The Internet Decree in Laos states that the government should, "effectively control the use of the Internet to ensure peace and safety and to protect Lao culture, society, and economy from destructive elements". (Corrales) 2. Other countries allow Internet use, but attempt to control access and content. For example, in Syria, private connections at home are only given to people who can prove that they will use the Internet for professional purposes (lawyers, doctors, etc.) and who are loyal to the regime. The state also heavily monitors e-mail (Corrales).

[edit] Lessons learned

Essential needs of developing countries must first be addressed. Information technologies should be introduced when they constitute the most effective available way of meeting basic human needs and fulfilling fundamental human rights. ICT can have a positive role in assisting this development. But ICT is neither a panacea nor necessarily the first line of attack in combating poverty, misery, and injustice. The utility of ICT must always be judged against the role they can play in meeting core human needs.

The digital divide is more than just computer hardware. The most creative uses of ICT in development may not entail computers, e-mail, or Internet access. Rather, the use of alternate computer-based technologies, including embedded chips, satellite based information, etc. might better meet local needs. Modern information technologies should not simply be equated with text manipulation, Web page construction, sending e-mail, e-commerce, or surfing the Net. Increasingly, ICTs have a variety of other useful functions and embodiments. Like the Irish learned, it is important to involve the community right from the start to determine what the community’s needs are, not the computer company’s needs.

Information Communication/Technology projects must build on an assessment of local needs defined by local people. There is a tendency of well-meaning government officials, officers of international aid agencies, and workers in NGOs to assume that they know what is needed at the grassroots. Given the widespread enthusiasm for computers, Internet, Web, e-commerce, etc., the promise is often made to place "a computer in every village", scatter "info kiosks" throughout the state or nation, or establish "universal computer-based education." Often, however, these projects are not based on any real assessment of local needs.

Public libraries have risen to the challenge of assessing local needs and responding to them. Public libraries have been making great strides towards closing the digital divide. Libraries are a place where individuals, whether a child or a senior citizen, black or white, male or female, can come and enjoy a good book. Through various means, libraries have been providing library patrons technological access to do research, buy books online, or even find books within the library. “Almost 95 percent of public libraries offer Internet access to the public, up from 73 percent only two years ago” ^[48] Librarians are taking the initiative to learn new applications and programs in order to better facilitate the use of technology in the community. “With more than 4 million new pages added to the World Wide Web every day, librarians are needed more than ever to make sense of the information jungle” (Teacher Librarians, 62). As public libraries provide free access to individuals, libraries offer low-income families the opportunity to come and use the technology for free. Technology is attempting to “bridge the gap” between information “have” and “have-nots” in whatever way they can. Children to senior citizens are being provided the training necessary to use the technology. At designated library locations in the Chicago Public Libraries, children take part in the neighborhood Chicago Park District Day Camp where they have a chance to receive technology instruction. In Oshkosh, WI, the Winnefox Library System has begun offering “Senior Day,” where senior citizens get a hands-on learning experience in the basics of computer-buying and emailing. Some library programs across the country are even partnering teens with senior citizens. Teens are volunteering their time to visit Senior Citizen homes with their laptop to give senior citizens basic troubleshooting lessons. The ability divide is being addressed as librarians themselves are taking on the task of learning assistive technology in order to teach it to others. Lastly, the language divide is being addressed as “libraries in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Texas offer Internet training classes in Spanish” (Teacher Librarians, 66). Based on community needs, libraries are addressing the digital, socioeconomic, age, ability, and language divides through whatever means they can.

Local language and local content are essential. As mentioned earlier, the computer kiosks that were set up in New Delhi did not provide special content in Hindi, the only language the children knew. So this technology was not as beneficial as it should have been to this community.

Projects must be (or soon become) economically self-sustaining. If technological progress is to sustain and continue to keep up with the quick technological advancements, it is essential that projects become a part of the ongoing system.

It is important to beware of inflated rhetoric and grandiose plans and too look, instead, for results. Again the computer kiosks in India which were going to bring this poor slum neighborhood into the technological era with minimally invasive education, was just not realistic.

Do not simply assume that a flourishing IT sector will trickle down to the rest of the people. The connection between a flourishing IT industry and bridging the digital divide is complex and problematic. As Annalee Saxenian^[49] notes, the successful software business in India, centered in cities like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Mumbai has brought prosperity to some of the residents of those cities, added to India's export earnings and increased the traffic of gifted Indians between India and the U.S. The high tech industry has created a digital elite "digerati" but the fact remains that 95% of the world's population does not have access to the Internet. Technology Improving Lives is another example of creative use of sophisticated technology in the global marketplace, based on the findings of Kenneth Keniston. This involves fishermen on the Andhra Pradesh coast of the Bay of Bengal and the Kerala coast of the Arabian Sea. In both areas, scientists associated with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) download information from satellites on ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures help predict where offshore fish will be most likely found. ISRO scientists translate the digital satellite information into maps of the offshore fishing areas, which are transmitted by telephone or fax to the coastal regions. This increases the probability that fishing expeditions will produce profitable results. Here, sophisticated satellite technologies are placed in the service of local fishermen to improve their livelihood.

The voices and interests of the disadvantaged need to be represented in bodies that make ICT policy concerning regulation and infrastructure. Had the mothers of the school children using the kiosks in India been involved in the planning and continual monitoring of this project, it would have looked quite a bit different.

[edit] Conclusion

The digital divide has many sides. The vastness and complexity of this concept predetermines the fact that we can’t close this gap without investigating the whole picture. Attempting to alleviate the symptoms does not significantly impact the overall problems. We call it simply the digital divide, but it is not as simple as this metaphor implies. Culture, socio economic status, race, gender, geography, religion, ability, age, human resources, and social and community resources as well as other factors play roles in our national and global divides. We have even seen research that suggests the world’s terrorism problem is being facilitated by the divide. We can learn from cultures that are more successful in moving forward into the digital age. In some ways the digital divide is simply a reflection of socio-cultural divides ever-present in our society

We see successes around the world that seem to chip away at some of the issues. We hear about a laptop for every child. We see philanthropic efforts that provide technological tools for the disadvantaged such as the Gates Foundation. In Indiana and other states, we see 1-1 computer grants putting low cost computers and software into classrooms. We see school districts opening up their schools at night in order to provide access to the technology resources that usually remain unused during the evening. We see computer recycling programs that take old computers from schools and corporate America and distribute them to the people on the wrong side of the divide. We see technological education efforts targeting at-risk students. We see teacher training to refine children’s technological skills. In India, technology has enabled the creation of a completely new class of society that happened because of technology and the closing of the divide. Success is everywhere in almost every part of the world. Success is everywhere in almost every part of the world. In India, technology has enabled the creation of a completely new class of society that happened because of technology and the closing of the divide.

However, closing the digital divide is like stopping world hunger. We see success stories and valuable programs throughout the world but we know that there are still many children in the world who will never have three meals a day, much less computer access. Class inequities have existed throughout time. To expect that digital inequities can be eliminated is highly unlikely. To expect that this hypothetical digital equality will lead to socio-cultural equality is a dream, albeit a worthwhile one. To realize that the digital divide is self perpetuating and actually exacerbating socio-cultural inequities is important to keep in mind as solutions to these problems are conceived.

• Morally and ethically efforts need to continue, but they need to be informed efforts that take the whole picture into account.

• Efforts at closing the digital divide must take into account the following considerations and recommendations are offered.

• Local people need to see a reason, be motivated, to use technology and to feel that there is a potential benefit to using technology in their daily lives.

• Technological progress must be driven by local needs and/or interests. The choice of technological advances must be based on what local people need and/or their interests.

• All stakeholders, including the clientele, local governing bodies, local agencies, the community at large, educational establishments, businesses as well as any other stakeholders or interested parties, need to be involved right from the planning stage so that these stakeholders own the plan and are compelled to follow through with solutions.

• Supportive expert human resources are essential to any proposed effort to close the digital divide. Even though there are experts who say that children will teach themselves the technology (minimally invasive education), we believe that to derive maximum and sustainable benefits and to be able to adjust the program based on evaluations, technology specialists are needed to support local leaders.

• It is crucial that support personnel from a variety of disciplines be available on a continual basis to foster the ongoing support needed to keep current with ever-changing technology.

Public Education plays a vital role in closing the digital divide. Schools are potential equalizers in this era of the digital divide. Quality technology instruction for all students can be at the crux of schemes to lesson the divide. Universal education in Multiliteracies should be a core component of any school’s literacy program in order to prepare students to be able to access a variety of technological literacies throughout their lives. Schools should advocate for students and families within the community to obtain physical technologies (computers, public access to the Internet, software, other technological gadgets) with the help of local, state and national businesses and agencies. Schools should also coordinate ongoing training. Schools need to widen opportunities for all students by teaching students how to use technology to gain a global perspective, how to evaluate the quality, credibility, relevance and validity of information garnered from the Internet, how to access networks of learning and how to synthesize information from a variety of technological and traditional sources, see New Learning. Professor Burbules makes the analogy of the school as hub with spokes radiating from the center. The school is a broker of multiple learning sources such as the Internet, the media, family, classes, relationships, and library sources including books, articles and charts to name a few. The school helps the students to coordinate all this learning, integrate it and make sense of it for their daily lives.

Rather than perpetuating the digital divide by having schools in property rich areas continue to receive the latest technology with full support while the property poor communities continue to receive poor quality (if any) resources devoid of human support, governmental policies and programs need to support increasing access to less wealthy schools to enable all students to fully benefit from current technological advances. Governmental policies and programs translates to funding for equipment and quality access as well as funding for ongoing training.

Not only do schools need to provide education on how to access this new world of knowledge, it is also vital that schools provide information on the potential dangers of the internet so that students are able to be safe life-long learners who will have all the possible benefits from this technology throughout the different components of their lives (work, learning, entertainment…). Social Networkinghas vast potentials, but also dangerous pitfalls. Students must be educated in how to evaluate information and resources from this new technology, including the Web 2.0 Resources, see Web 2.0. Schools, with the input of stakeholders, will need to decide on the issue of Filtering. What better place to critically analyze, teach safety precautions, discuss current issues, evaluate and judge this new technology than in the public school setting? Then all students will receive this education instead of just the wealthy the urban, the young, the able, etc.

[edit] See Also

Filtering

Multiliteracies

New Learning

Social Networking

Ubiquitous Technologies

Virtuality

Web 2.0

[edit] References

1. ↑ Digital Divide.org. (2007) Ushering in the Second Digital Revolution. Digital Divide: What It Is and Why It Matters. Retrieved 7/13/07 from URL:http://www.digitaldivide.org/dd/digitaldivide.html
2. ↑ Monroe, B. (2004). Race, Writing, and Technology in the Classroom. NY: Teacher’s College Press. Solomon, G., Allen, N., and Resta, P. (2003)
3. ↑ NTIA, (1995). Falling Through The Net: A survey of the "have nots" in rural and urban America. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from Falling Through the Net Web site: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
4. ↑ Van Dijk, J.A. (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
5. ↑ Digital Divide.org. (2007) Ushering in the Second Digital Revolution. Digital Divide: What It Is and Why It Matters. Retrieved 7/13/07 from URL: http://www.digitaldivide.org/dd/digitaldivide.html
6. ↑ van Dijk, J (2006).Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235.
7. ↑ DiMaggio,P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'Digital Divide' to 'Digital Inequality': Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Sociology Department,Princeton University.
8. ↑ Fairlie, Robert W. (2005). Are We Really a Nation Online? Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Access to Technology and Their Consequences. University of California, Santa Cruz and National Poverty Center, University of Michigan. Retrieved 8/01/07, from FreePress.net
9. ↑ Fairlie, Robert W. Fairlie (2002). Race and the Digital Divide. Department of Economics, University of California, Retrieved 07/25/2007, from http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/fairlie_digital_divide.pdf
10. ↑ Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide. NY: Cambridge University Press
11. ↑ NTIA, (2000). Falling Through The Net: Toward Digital Inclusion . Retrieved July 15, 2007, from Falling Through the Net Web site:http://www.tciai.org/Falling.htm
12. ↑ Liff, S. and Shephard, A. (July 2004). An Evolving Gender Digital Divide? Oxford Internet Institute, Internet Brief No. 2, July 2004.
13. ↑ Kennedy,Tracy; Wellman,Barry; Klement Kristine, (2003). Gendering the digital divide. IT&Ssociety, 1, Retrieved 07/23/2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i05/v01i05a05.pdf.
14. ↑ Wajcman, J. (July, 2004). Gendered by Design. Oxford Internet, Internet Brief No. 2.1, July 2004.
15. ↑ United Nations, From Conceptual Ambiguity to Transformation. 2002, Retrieved 07/25/2007, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/ict2002/reports/Paper-GMarcelle.PDF
16. ↑ Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide. NY: Cambridge University Press
17. ↑ Nardi, Bonnie A., Diane J. Schiano, Michelle Gumbrecht and Luke Swartz. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM, 47:12, Retrieved 08/02/2007, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1040000/1035163/p41-nardi.pdf?key1=1035163&key2=6938206811&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=25638063&CFTOKEN=18038009
18. ↑ Millward, Peter (2003). First Monday, volume 8, number 7 (July 2003). The Grey Digital Divide: Perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for older people. URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/millward/index.html.
19. ↑ Coyne, K. and Nielsen, J (1998-2007). Nielsen Norman Group Repoprt. Web Usability for Senior Citizens: 46 Design Guildelines Based on Usability Studies with People Age 65 and Over. URL: http://www.nngroup.com/reports/seniors/
20. ↑ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
21. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, Retrieved 07/26/2007, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/BG1361.cfm
22. ↑ NTIA, (2000). Falling Through The Net: Toward Digital Inclusion . Retrieved July 15, 2007, from Falling Through the Net Web site:http://www.tciai.org/Falling.htm
23. ↑ Horrigan,(J.B. (5/7/2007). A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 7/13/07 from 202-419- 4500 URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/
24. ↑ Warschauer, Mark. Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, volume 7, number 7 (July 2002), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/index.html
25. ↑ Goolsbee, A. and Guryan, J. (Jan. 1, 2006). World Wide Wonder? Measuring the(Non-)Impact of Internet Subsidies to Public Schools.
26. ↑ Burbules, N. C., Callister, T. A., & Taaffe, C. (2006). Beyond the Digital Divide. Technology and Education: Issues in Administration, Policy, and Applications in K12 Schools Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 8, 85-99.
27. ↑ Kaiser, Scott. Community Technology Centers and Bridging the Digital Divide. Retrieved 07/24/2007, from http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/dewitt/ICS/wkpp/docs/kaiser.doc
28. ↑ Steyeart, J. (2000). Inequality and the digital divide: myths and realities. [1]
29. ↑ CIA World Factbook, (07/19/2007). World. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from The World Factbook Web site: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html.
30. ↑ English on the Internet. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from Wikipedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_on_the_Internet
31. ↑ Languages on the Internet. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from Wikipedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_on_the_Internet
32. ↑ Universal Service Administrative Company website. http://www.usac.org/
33. ↑ E-Rate Program - Discounted Telecommunications Services, Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE). Retrieved July 21, 2007, from US Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/erate.html
34. ↑ DiBello, L. C. (2005). Are we addressing the digital divide? Issues, access, and real commitment. Childhood Education, 81.4, p239.
35. ↑ One Laptop Per Child Organization website [2]