The digital divide (Mar. 1)

We've already seen in our previous material on the information, knowledge or network society that the "digital divide" is presented as one of the major risks or problems in this new form of society. Essentially, this divide refers to some part of the population being left out from this new societal structure, usually due to lack of access to ICT. In most cases, the digital divide is seen as a quantitative gap between those who have access to the (new) ICT and those who don't (for example, in Castells and in ECLAC). Others posit that the digital divide is a continuation, extension, symptom or even euphemism for what is actually a long-standing social divide between the haves and have-nots (as in ALAI).

If we go back to our initial understanding of ICT in practice then it becomes evident that emphasizing either the quantitative nature of the divide or the focus on the access to infrastructural or material elements is insufficient, especially given the fact that the ICT (re)shapes social structures and the social structures (re)shape ICT. Today we discussed the view of van Dijk and Hacker which explicitly address this issue by considering the digital divide as a "complex and dynamic phenomenon". To begin with, the complexity stems from different barriers to access, besides the material ones related to computers and network connections. These are: the mental access barrier, the digital skills access barrier and the usage access barriers. Mental barriers relate to lack of interest, computer anxiety or unattractiveness in the technological artifacts which lead to differences in elementary digital experience. Digital skill barriers are often caused by lack of user friendliness or insufficient education or social support surrounding ICT; an adequate level of these skills should enable the person to search, select, process and apply information in the context of superabundance (the Internet) and with a strategic aim (one that actually generates value or benefit). Usage access is limited by a difference in usage opportunities; this is often thought of as a matter of individual choice (some regard ICT as useful for entertainment, others for work, others for education, etc.) but the fact remains that these divergent uses crucially determine the value that ICT has for the individual and for society.

The dynamic aspects of van Dijk and Hacker's proposal is related firstly to the dynamics of technology itself. We have already discussed the major role that quick obsolescence has in understanding, using and measuring ICT (with a faster rate of obsolescence than any other previous technology). They stress that newer ICTs do not follow a normal S-curve of innovation because it is not the case that all ICTs become broadly adopted (some simply die out before being fully adopted) and because they become part of the configuration of existing technologies (on top of the computer go many different applications which replace, complement or alter the behavior of old ones, for example). The other important aspect of the dynamic nature of the digital divide is that it does not provide clear lines of separation, since it is present between countries, but also within countries and is dependent on many different contextual factors, such as gender, race, education level, income level and age.

In groups we discussed the implications of this framework in a specific case which narrates the story behind a successful case of "e-inclusion" in an article by Alfonso Molina. He also calls for a more "embracing approach" of the digital divide which goes well beyond the quantitative difference in access and which should lead to an "e-inclusion" movement. As an illustration he describes a successful effort in adapting ICT for the use of Chilean blind children, through which they are taught to structure their surrounding space out of an auditory representation, rather than the visual focus which is given in traditional settings. This should contribute to including a potentially excluded group by using one specific ICT application. He recognizes the fact that we have pointed out before: no one has complete control over the information society and any effort will appear like a drop of water in the ocean. Nonetheless, the hope behind an e-inclusion movement is that through increasing the sharing of those experiences, increasing awareness (of the potential exclusions) and taking advantage of the networked nature of the information society (cf. Castells), those efforts can be replicated or enhanced (faster than without ICT) into a global movement of inclusion. Within the groups we talked about specific opportunities to tackle the challenges involved in these kinds of projects: (1) the university offers a nurturing, albeit limited, environment given its societal role and its emphasis that goes beyond or besides profit; (2) "rich" countries are a good source of funding for these kinds of projects, especially if we can continue to push them towards fulfilling their compromise in setting aside resources to contribute to development in other less developed regions; (3) the increasing prevalence of social corporate responsibility is also a good source of support for these kinds of projects from companies that may be willing to invest in inclusion. In sum, anything that can be done (at different levels, places and for different purposes) should be done to turn the digital divide into a digital inclusion movement, which we will discuss in more detail next week..