The Time to Advance is Now:
A New Approach to Bridging the Digital Divide
Nicole Pisack
Professor Sacks
Capstone in DCIM
Introduction
In an age where digital communication, information, and media have become prominent elements of daily work, education, and research, the demand for access and proficiency have begun to progress toward a cultural standard. With the ongoing development of various technologies, the need for access and digital literacies becomes increasingly central to society. The digital divide is a widespread social issue that pertains to the disconnect of individuals from technologies and participation within online contexts. While various sectors of the world are impacted by the division in different ways, it continues to impede social, educational, and economic advancement on a global scale. This paper aims to expose some of the shortcomings of digital divide relief efforts, and to propose a direction for future research and action.
Background/Problem
There are a number of misconceptions surrounding the digital divide as a result of insufficient definition of the subject. A common assumption is that the discrepancies between ingroups and outgroups derive exclusively from lack of access to technological devices and subsequent Internet connection; however, the divide also extends to social, political, and general participatory contexts across the world. In the examination of northern developed countries from the year of 2002 onward, research has revealed that the divide of physical access to technology has decreased as factors such as income and education levels have shown to be of more pressing concern (van Dijk 2006).
Early analysts of the continually developing technological era have sought solutions to the digital divide as determined or influenced by gender, age, education, and income. Key findings from this perspective primarily concern educational factors. A study conducted by Syed H. Akhter of the Marketing Department at Marquette University identifies a correlation between age increase and reluctance to participate in the use of new technologies (Akhter 2003). Online navigation and Internet search showed to be literacies attributed to higher education among users (2003). Akhter shares his finding that due to less sufficient comprehension of digital literacies, such as how to navigate the Internet, users with lower levels of education face the disadvantage of limited knowledge of affordable resources and other important information available online (2003).
Modern day theorists have hypothesized that instead of focusing closely upon demographic related correlations regarding the immensity of the digital divide, it would likely show to be more beneficial to aim to form firmer theories that might provide useful explanations for causes and influential factors of the digital divide among all publics. This adjustment of focus can begin with recognition of “the effects of information as a source of inequality” (van Dijk 2006).
Information has been deemed a primary good, which aligns with basic human need and poses a threat to an individual’s survival as a member of society. Because there is no substitution for information, it cannot be exchanged for or replaced with other essential goods (van Dijk 2006). The dissemination and exchange of information as a primary good has shown to be particularly challenging in regions comprised of individuals of low socioeconomic status. One key demographic factor that often contributes to the digital divide in these contexts is a low level of education about technology, as well as corresponding digital literacies. Although users may face a disadvantage in obtaining the necessary devices to develop skills and literacies, studies show that those who do have access often lack the proper training to use the tools to their advantage, and to ultimately develop sustainable skillsets (Sims 2013). This discrepancy within certain contexts and cultures has yielded what is known as the knowledge gap hypothesis. This phenomenon examines how information spreads more efficiently, thoroughly, and effectively among individuals of higher socioeconomic status—a system in which technology serves as the means to knowledge as an end (Spiegler 2003).
The spreading of information and knowledge is central to a number of the current approaches to the digital divide. For instance, the diffusion model of information dissemination assumes that information will be accessible to all by a trickle effect (Crenshaw & Robison 2006). This suggests that devices as well as the necessary skills to use mediated devices will eventually become accessible to everyone, regardless of who “has” it first. One of the greatest drawbacks of this theory is that is less beneficial and dynamic than it appears. In line with the knowledge gap hypothesis, those who are more prone to the shortcomings of digital divide prospective solutions will consistently remain behind those who are not. The diffusion model can give the illusion of progress toward equal opportunity, but actually offers a rather static approach to bridging the divide (van Dijk 2006).
Given its central constituent of inequality, the digital divide also creates political drawbacks among certain cultures. The adoption of information and communications technologies (ICTs) among some groups can create “a process rising from negotiations about power and control over the use and configuration of technologies” (de Souza e Silva, et. al 2011). This has been described as a form of appropriation, by which less skilled or digitally literate users feel as though they are involved in a battle for power as they attempt to navigate technological media without the proper knowledge and training. de Souza e Silva and her fellow colleagues examine this form of appropriation in a way that supports the idea that physical access is not necessarily of the utmost importance in combating the digital divide.
After conducting research among New York City youth, Christo Sims—Assistant Professor within the Department of Communication at the University of California, San Diego—offers an alternative angle at which to examine the divide: through “differentiated practices” (2013). His suggested approach focuses upon technology use and legitimate engagement in digital contexts among users with temporary or permanent access to mediated devices. By doing so, we as a widespread collective can more clearly understand the social, cultural, and technical implications of technology use. Sims categorizes the measurable elements of differentiated practice under three categories: skills, literacies, and capital (2013).
Solution
In examining common universal perception of the digital divide as a gap between those who have access to technology and those who do not have physical access, Sims offers the notion that these “well-intentioned efforts oversimplify and distort relations between digital media and social inequalities” (Sims 2013). To reduce these inequalities, it is important to identify the ways in which we as a collective can use the information at hand to advance toward more equal opportunity in developing digital access, skills, and literacies.
So where to begin? Since the recent beginning of the technological era, some research efforts have been conducted in hopes of exposing critical influences upon the digital divide. However, as van Dijk highlights, there currently exists a considerable lack of substantial qualitative research in the field, which offers a consequential lack of theory (2006). Research up until now has primarily consisted of conclusions about the correlations between demographics and the digital divide, but without posing any useful explanations. These correlations and the corresponding quantitative data analysis offer a direction in which to follow in studies of how to develop impactful strategies and tactics to decrease the gap of the digital divide. For instance, once the specific audiences who show to be most susceptible the disadvantages of the digital divide have been identified, van Dijk suggests that a second question might be of whether the consequences mostly of the gap derive from seized or missed opportunities for engagement, or rather the collective disinterest in participation among cultures (2006). Another point of inquiry worth considering in conducting more effective research is which specific factors would likely influence non users to participate in the digital culture. These are just two of the innumerable examples of qualitative research questions that offer the potential to cause a critical shift in focus upon a widespread issue. Additionally, we must be mindful of environmental factors in assessing technology use among specific publics. Research suggests that geographic location among publics be taken into account when advancing in efforts to bridge the digital divide. Recent studies have indicated that “people living in urban and suburban areas [are] 10-12 percent more likely to use the internet than people living in rural areas” (Baym 2010). This information provides detail that is essential in guiding studies with segmented subjects, as well as positing efforts to cater to specific audience needs respectively.
Aside from conducting more thorough research, there is considerable potential for collective group work at both corporate and local levels. When considering some of the efforts currently in place, one might find a strong example to be Google because the company actively seeks to better satisfy the needs of its internal and external stakeholders, which includes the greater community. The company sells its well designed and functioning products for a cost that is practical, perhaps because competitive advantage is not as pressing of an incentive due to their positive reputation, representation, and the quality of their work. By providing laptops for a fraction of the cost that competitors offer, the company helps to decrease the gap of access to the physical devices. However, this only accounts for the machine itself, not its functions and the skills necessary to effectively use the device.
In addition, Google offers a free equivalent of Microsoft Office, allowing users to create projects, documents, spreadsheets, and other organizational productions from any location with Internet access. It also has collaborative affordances, which allow users to work with others from remote locations or even shared spaces. This works well for projects or any kind of composition of new material, and is useful for other uses of information such as planning, compiling, tracking, organizing, storing, and designing. While these work bases are relatively essential and navigable, the design may imply that users are expected to possess an innate or pre existing understanding of the system. To overcome this barrier and its influence upon the digital divide, there should be designed a program that includes virtual tools training to help new and developing users navigate the platforms.
Effectively educating audiences is critical to closing the gap that exists today. Some corporate companies and organizations have made efforts to help bridge the digital divide on more local levels. For instance, the Google Community Leaders Program (CLP) is an organization designed to give college students the power to make an impact in their local communities by going out and teaching businesses, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and individuals how to participate, as well as why they should be interested in participating. Part of the reason students within these communities seek to teach local civilians about the benefits of developing technological skillsets through tools training is the scientifically supported idea that “those most able to use new media are able to use them to improve their lives in ways that those who do not use them are not, increasing social and economic disparity” (Baym 2010). In addition to helping organizations build their online presence, a more fundamental mission of these programs is to help diminish these disparities by promoting digital literacy and active engagement in digital contexts. While the Google CLP and similar efforts are certainly beneficial and cost effective, the work conducted should serve as a supplement to extensive qualitative and empirical research, as well as philanthropic efforts at the corporate level.
An incentive for technology companies to get involved in collective philanthropy could be the value of corporate social responsibility (CSR) among consumer audiences. According to an analysis of a 1999 study on the value of social responsibility in communities, “a worldwide survey found that two-thirds of consumers surveyed wanted companies to contribute to broader societal goals” (Mohr & Webb 2005). Designing an organization, or a network of collective organizations, that aims to fund efforts to help bridge the digital divide would pose mutually beneficial outcomes on both the corporate and consumer levels. If a big name tech company like Google were to create a CSR campaign with a similar mission in mind, it would likely improve not only access among users, but also participation, literacies, skills, and likelihood of an increase in Google customers. Once a rich network of organizations formed to collectively contribute efforts to the cause, digital divide relief efforts would receive sufficient funding to advance toward social change, and the world could grow closer to bridging the digital divide.
Conclusion
Research on the correlation between factors related to the digital divide has set the foundation for more substantive research moving forward. By compiling the useful collections of data that have been gathered thus far, we as members of a developing society have the power to identify missing variables in existing research, and to move forward with an alternative perspective of useful approaches.
Before all else, we must recognize the misconceptions and shortcomings that stand between us and progression into a more ideal state of technological advancement. It is not until we identify the exact implications of modern society that inflict inequality among users of new technologies and corresponding affordances that we can strive to eliminate them. From there, we enable ourselves to develop comprehensive theory and to offer explanations that can help us to better understand the detriments of the digital divide, and to urge action of influential figures within society. As we instill a sense of widespread responsibility for ameliorating the social issue at hand, the world can advance forth and bridge the digital divide.
References
Akhter, S. H. (2003). Digital divide and purchase intention: why demographic psychology matters. Journal of economic psychology, 24, 321-327.
Baym, N. K. (2010). “New forms of personal connection.” Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1-21. Print.
Crenshaw, E. M., & Robison K. K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: the roles of structural conduciveness and global connection in internet diffusion. Social science quarterly, 87(1), 190-207.
de Souza e Silva, A., Sutko, D. M., Salis, F. A., & de Souza e Silva, C. (2011). Mobile phone appropriation in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New media & society, 13(3), 411-426. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of consumer affairs, 39(1), 121-147. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com
Sims, C. (2013). From differentiated use to differentiated practices: negotiating legitimate participation and the production of privileged identities. Information, communication & society. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com
Spiegler, I. (2003). Technology and knowledge: bridging a “generating” gap. Information & management, 40(6), 533-539.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com
