Delving into the Digital Divide

The notion of the "digital divide" supposedly represents those who are unable to take advantage of computer networking. Even before this term became commonplace, the problem was recognised by many, although alluded to by different names. The European Commission, for instance, has referred to such inequalities within the world of computer networking as a "two-tier information society". [2]

As with most savvy terms, it's difficult to pinpoint exactly who came up with label "digital divide". Yet this is of relatively little significance. Instead, what is more important is how and why the "digital divide" -- which has been apparent since the beginning of the "information revolution" (another pseudo-sophisticate term) -- has become so popular as of late.

One can perhaps trace the popularity of the "digital divide" to the summer of 1999, when a US government study painted a foreboding image of a society split between digital haves and have-nots, with this schism running along multiple lines such as race, gender, age, location and geography. With the release of this report, the media, politicians and public "suddenly" became aware of the ever-widening gulf separating the technology haves from have-nots. Soon, the term "digital divide" became commonplace in online discourse; offline, it was splashed all over the front pages of newspapers and found its way into the speeches of politicians and public officials.

Ironically, pundits are not in agreement as to what the "digital divide" actually entails. Most see it as something to do with Internet access and penetration. A recent survey conducted by the Pan European Internet Monitor (PEIM), in looking at data related to the number of users in Europe and their online habits (i.e., online shopping), led NUA to observe that the "digital divide [is] still apparent in Europe". [3] On the other end of the spectrum are those who look beyond the realm of technology. The US government study, for instance, which last summer popularised the notion of the "digital divide", warned of a "racial ravine" in where whites dominate the new medium.

By far, the vast majority see the problem of the "digital divide" as one of access to the Internet. Yet, delving into the issue, it becomes apparent that the "digital divide" is not just about access. True, providing free services to the Internet may help to narrow the gap a little. However, the problem of getting more users online does not depend as much upon access to the Internet as people having access to computers themselves. As Joe Burns of the HTML Goodies site aptly put it, "I can give you free access all day long, but if you haven't a computer, so what?"[4]

Anzeige

Others go even further, claiming that it's not merely a question of computers and access. They add that that having a computer and access to the Internet in itself is insufficient -- it is what is and can be done with computers and access which is of importance. Along these lines, they raise questions over access to the marginal and illiterate, and how computer-mediated communications can be used to support minority languages and cultures at risk.

Since the US government study, there have been a host of studies and reports into the so-called "digital divide" and its effects. According to one recent technology poll[5] , many of the concerns over the "digital divide" were confirmed, although not all forms of inequalities were apparent. Those that were most manifest were the gaps brought about by inequalities in wealth and education, with ethnicity bearing minimal influence. These differences not only reinforce the way computer-mediated communications are used, but, in turn, have further widened gaps in income and opportunity.[6]

Some, however, are critical of the "digital divide" altogether, noting that much of the data used by politicians and public figures are inaccurate. In fact, last year's US government study was actually based on information from surveys taken in 1998 and earlier. In an article entitled "The U.S. 'Digital Divide' Is Not Even A Virtual Reality", Helen Chaney maintains that "by the time the Commerce Department released the report, more current market research was available, revealing the divide had already narrowed considerably."[7]

While not denying the "digital divide" in itself, there are claims that the "digital divide" is not as encompassing as it is made out to be. According to a comprehensive international study of consumers and the Internet called "Face of the Web", the "digital divide" is about easy and affordable access and not language or literacy.[8] In addition to this, it concludes that wireless devices using WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) -- and not personal computers -- will be critical to closing the gap.

In many countries, there have been various programmes set up to combat the so-called "digital divide". Most of these initiatives concentrate their efforts on simply providing people with access to the Internet. Government programmes to wire up schools to the Internet (such as the Sulinet programme in Hungary, Wiring the Nation in the UK, or the Web for Schools programme of the European Union) are part of this initiative. In the US, meanwhile, President Clinton recently announced a 2 billion USD technology plan, in where high-tech companies are offered tax incentives to help bridge the "digital divide".

Yet some are wary of such plans, noting that these initiatives lack proper focus. Others go further, accusing government of exploiting the "digital divide" for the benefit of corporate welfare. Along these lines, Chaney sees government initiatives as a waste of time and money since "market forces are already pulling the masses onto the Internet with speed and efficiency that no government program could ever match." She adds that the "digital divide" may not really be about ethnicity, gender or geography, but has more to do with government desire to establish and control a spoils system. Chaney concludes that with numerous private sector access initiatives already in place, there's no need for taxpayers to subsidize wealthy hi-tech companies further.

To this extent, Chaney feels hi-tech companies will bridge the "digital divide" themselves, providing free computers, Internet access and educational programs so as to get consumers hooked on their service, in much the same way phone companies give away free cell phones for the same purpose. Indeed, she notes that America Online, Microsoft and AT&T have already invested heavily in doing so. AOL has been in a partnership with Wal-Mart to bring low-cost Internet access to the latter's 100 million weekly customers. Likewise, Microsoft has been running its "Giving Programs" since 1983, bringing the benefits of information technology to people and communities that do not have access. AT&T, meanwhile, donated $1.42 million in July 1999 to further technology education in under-served communities.

While Chaney's warning against turning the notion of the "digital divide" into merely another form of corporate welfare is important, it nevertheless must not be used as an excuse to avoid dealing with a very real and pressing problem. As Michael Gurstein, Management and Technology director of the Centre for Community Informatics at the Technical University of British Columbia, Canada, pointed out, the best approach to public policy in "community informatics" (not to mention other areas) is a commitment to universality, a concern to understand and respond to the needs of the disadvantaged, the desire to be producers of culture as well as consumers, and a quiet practicality and an absence of rhetoric.[9]

In the end, it is clear that the "digital divide" has little to do with computers and Internet access. This doesn't mean it's non-existent. It does exist, and has existed for thousands of years: it's traditionally known as poverty, social exclusion, racism, and sexual discrimination. Thus, computers and the Internet have not created a new social ill, but have exacerbated existing ones. Any solution aimed at dealing with this problem, therefore, must first take into consideration its underlying causes -- causes which are deeply rooted in basic social, political, and economic aspects.