Digital Divide
Essay Preview: Digital Divide
Report this essay
Digital divide is a term used to describe the inequality between technology haves and have nots. Sometimes, this can refer to the gaps between first world and third world countries, other times its used to refer to differences among various population groups within an industrialized country (such as the United States). For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the latter aspect, on inequities internal to one society, rather than on broader international disparities.
The technology being measured has been a moving target. Early news articles talked about general computer penetration among households. Then, as the Internet became more predominant, Internet access by individuals became the measure. Now, with free Internet access available through most public libraries, experts discuss the quality of access and usage.
What is meant by a digital divide is a separate question from whether such a divide exists. Courtright and Robbin make a fascinating semantic analysis of how the metaphors used to describe the divide shape its discussion. Word choice affects the perception of the problem, its severity, and how to solve it. For example, calling something “a barrier” implies more resistance than merely saying someone “trails behind the national average” Statements like “the gap narrows” suggest that problems may resolve themselves without intervention. (NTIA, 2002: pgs 75, 7, 46).
Even the term “digital divide” is controversial. “Digital” focuses attention on technology over other factors. “Divide” implies a distinct split. My opening sentence referred to haves and have nots, but can everyone really be separated into one group or the other, or is the difference more graduated?
Disparities definitely exist, broken down along many demographic factors. A Nation online (NTIA, 2002) found computer and Internet use correlate with family income, employment status, and educational attainment. Interestingly enough, there does not appear to be a gender gap in computer or Internet use, although there are differences in which online activities each group practices.
There is a significant divide along racial lines. Blacks and Hispanics have much lower rates of computer ownership and Internet access than Whites and Asian Americans. [Other surveys report similar problems among Native Americans.] This disparity holds true across income brackets and location. Of those accessing the Internet at public libraries, Whites and Asian Americans are more likely to also use the Internet at other locations (home, school or work).
Age is also a major factor. Lenhart found that half the non-online population were over 50. Rates of computer and Internet use fall sharply for people over 55 (NTIA, 2002, p.14).
These disparities are comparable to other social inequities. The U.S. has long known about racism, classism, ageism, and elitism as problems unrelated to technological access. However, its too simplistic to think of the digital divide as merely reflecting existing divisions.
According to Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey, June-July 2002, 3% of those with Internet access have “[c]reate[d] a web log or blog that others can read online.” Yet Kevin Barbieux, a homeless man whose only Internet access is through the public library, has not only created such a blog, but regularly updates it, moderates discussion boards and has thousands of readers daily. By economic and educational measures, Mr. Barbieux is clearly disadvantaged, yet hes doing what many consider leading-edge.
This again disputes the notion of a binary division. The problem is not merely one of access, because that would mean that these disparities could be resolved by merely giving everyone a computer with Internet access. Attempts to resolve problems by simply adding technology, without making any other changes, rarely succeed. This is most often attempted in businesses, with vague goals of enhanced productivity or knowledge management. However, Warschauer describes a similar failure to bridge the digital divide in Ennis, Ireland, demonstrating that computers alone are not sufficient.
Beyond inequalities of access, its important look at what people are doing with the technology in order to understand what the digital divide means. Do people gain significant benefits by having technology? Do people incur penalties by not having technology? [Is there a difference between the two? Offering discounts for cash purchases differs subjectively and legally from imposing fees for credit card use, even when the final expense is the same. One might argue that a service can be considered essential when citizens are sufficiently penalized for lacking it.] If neither exist, the impact of any access divide would be moot. Hacker argues somewhat tautologically that if there were no such benefits then the digital divide “could be dismissed as interesting but unimportant.”
Doctor discussed equity in three spheres: political, economic and social. Many commentators emphasize the importance of e-democracy to explain why the digital divide is so problematic. However, the most optimistic predictions of teledemocracy havent panned out.
Organized e-mail campaigns and online petitions may get thousands of signatures, but dont made much dent in congressional votes compared to the influence of traditional big-money lobbyists. Declan McCullagh points to lopsided vote totals for technology restrictions, such as the Senates unanimous passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to say that traditional lobbying through electronic means is ineffective. In more recent news, Judge Kollar-Kotelly just approved the Justice Department settlement of the long-running Microsoft antitrust