The Digital Divide - Case Study Example

Digital divide Introduction To many people in many countries all over the world, information age is already a reality. The world is undergoing a revolution on technology which is a long term development of electronic communication technologies (Holloway, 2002). Examples of these communication technologies include: the telegraph and telephone; broadcast media like radio and television. Most recently, other networks have come up like the internet, social media which include Face book, twitter etc. the last two decades, however, have seen an explosive and huge growth in ‘information and communication technologies (ICTs).’ Like all technological revolutions in the past, the information age has inspired positive hopes to many people in all corners of the world. The digital age enables universal access to information, a government which is transparent and a rational market. It also enables access to the rich culture all over the world (Holloway, 2002). Digital divide can be defined as the social difference or gap between those people who have the information and technology or can benefit from the digital information from those who cannot or do not have it (Norris, 2001). According to Norris (2001), the divide within a country or countries, Australia being among them, the digital divide refers to inequalities between individuals, households, businesses, and geographic areas at different socioeconomic and other demographic levels. The divide between countries is referred to as the global digital divide (Norris, 2001). Global digital divide defines the gap on an international scale i.e. the divide or gap that exists between developing and developed countries on an international scale. Closing this digital divide, also known as digital gap, therefore implies that there is need to restructure the telecommunications in every sector in order to ensure that for benefits to reach all the people not just the elite group living in the urban areas and also at an affordable rate. The real focus of digital divide is not just the access to the information and technology but the benefits that are derived for this access Studies show that technology is inadequate or in short supply in developing countries (Norris, 2001). However, there is yet another limitation which is high costs for Internet services. The costs are usually significantly higher than they would be in an industrialized or developed country. First level of digital divide There are different approaches to the digital divide in terms of the subject, characteristics, means, intensity and purpose (Hendry, 2000). Hendry (2000) further explains that, the subjects of connectivity are the individuals, organizations and institutions; the characteristics are the demographic and socio economic variables such as income, education, age, race, skills, awareness and geographical location; means of connectivity are mobiles, computers, tablets and digital media; the intensity include access, retrieval, interaction rates and innovativeness; purpose are the reasons for failure of using the information and technologies (Hendry, 2000). Global digital divide Global digital divide is defined as the international differences in information and communication technology (ICT) diffusion. Diffusion of global technology has led to increasing knowledge diffusion. This has in turn led to improving communication efficiency, improve political engagement. It has also allowed developing countries to abandon traditional methods of increasing productivity and adopt modern ones which are more efficient (Holloway, 2002). Factors that have been identified to contribute in the global digital divide are differentials in income, human capital, regulatory effectiveness and telecommunications infrastructure (Holloway, 2002). Second-level digital divide As the first level of digital divide explains the connectivity of subjects, characteristics, means, intensity and purpose, the second-level digital divide describes the gap that separates the consumers of content on the information and technology from the producers of the content. Second level digital divide is also referred to as the production gap1. The technological digital divide between those with access to information and those without the information access in decreasing continually with time. This implies that the technological digital divide is evolving. About one decade ago, digital divide research only focused on usage of internet. However, research is currently focusing more on accessibility to the internet and not just internet consumption. According to researchers, the more the population has access to the internet, the higher the ability to create content and the impact socioeconomics are having on user behavior (Hendry, 2000). There are new applications that have come up enabling a user of computer and who has an internet connection to be a creator of information or internet content (Holloway, 2002). According to Holloway (2002), web technologies like Face book, Twitter, and other social networks enable users to participate online and create content without having to understand how the technology actually works, leading to an ever increasing digital divide between those who have the skills and understanding to interact more fully with the technology and those who are just passive consumers of it. Many users of internet are only nominal content creators through the use of social networking to connect with friends but they are not truly making use of the technology (Holloway, 2002). Holloway (2002) further argues that, some of the reasons for this production gap include such factors like the type of internet connection and the frequency of access to the internet by the users. The frequency of access and speed of the internet is directly proportional to gain on technology skills and creativity. This implies that the more frequently a person has access to the internet and the faster the connection, the more opportunities they have to gain the technology skills and the more time they have to be creative (Holloway, 2002). Other reasons that determine gain in technological skills as well as the level of creativity include cultural factors which are associated with socioeconomic class and status. Disadvantages in education and a low socioeconomic class leads to less participation in content creation (Holloway, 2002). Measuring the digital divide There are various efforts that have been put in place to measure the digital divide due to its interest by the government, public and private sectors (Hendry, 2000). Besides communications infrastructures being an indicator that measures the digital divide, there are other important readiness indicators which include: computer availability and the availability of alternative access through internet as well as other media like televisions or mobile phones. The digital divide among households appears to depend primarily on two factors which are income and education (Norris, 2001). However, other secondary factors such as household size and type, age, gender, race and language backgrounds and location also play an important role (Norris, 2001). The higher the level of financial and literacy status, the more likely those individuals will have access to and be able to use internet and computer devices hence reduction of the digital gap (Norris, 2001). Access to and development of information, communication and e-commerce resources are increasingly viewed as crucial for economic and social development (Hendry, 2002). Therefore many countries have begun to examine the best way to ensure access for their citizens and the businesses to these technologies and services. In order to achieve this goal and achieve it with high effectiveness and efficiency, the governments should ensure that they have the information on the digital divide and what can be done to minimize it if not overcome it. Only 5% of the world population had gained access to internet at the beginning of the millennium according to the international labour organization report of 2001, which is found in the wealthiest nations of the world. Overcoming the digital divide Access to digital information and technology is vital in enabling an individual, organization, institution of country achieve social, economic and cultural capital as well as overcoming the digital gap. However, access is not enough; there is also the need to lower the cost of ICT (Holloway, 2002). Holloway (2002) further adds that, even though individuals might be capable of accessing the Internet, many are prevented by barriers to entry such as a lack of means to infrastructure or the inability to comprehend the information that the Internet provides. These barriers limit individuals' capabilities to do things and access technology. It is one thing to connect but another to have the knowledge to use what information ICTs and internet technologies provide them. The subjects of digitalization should therefore focus on capabilities and skills, as well as awareness to move from mere access to effective usage of ICT (Holloway, 2002). Addressing the digital divide by focusing on issues of use rather than simply access can also be approached from a community perspective (Norris, 2001). Community informatics is a branch of information and technology which is concerned with ensuring the opportunity not only for ICT access at the community level but also, according to Norris, (2001), that the means for the effective use of ICTs for community betterment and empowerment are available. Poverty is a fundamental variable in the digital divide in addition to other various factors that affect the digital gap such as weak infrastructure. These factors can be addressed is presence of availability of financial resources (Norris, 2001). Limited ICT access, and its expansion and improvement will help in opening up opportunities for the information-deprived. Corruption and complex bureaucracy and Government regulations, however, can also interfere with the improvement of ICT and they can also make the telecommunications environment so restrictive hence discourage reforms. These circumstances can drive away potential investors leading to a weak political system since most governments depend on the investment to grow economically (Norris, 2001). The upper-to-middle classes in terms of income have high-quality access to digital technology compared to the low income earners or the poor class (Hendry, 2000). This is because, according to Hendry (2000), there is more profit made through serving the upper and middle class people since they will use the service more than the low class people. Those in charge of designing technology therefore spend more time trying to satisfy the needs of the former. They therefore ignore the low-income masses since they assume that it is unprofitable to design technology applications for them (Hendry, 2000). This therefore implies that appropriateness of technology should be considered in delivering the benefits and not just access to avoid further widening the digital gap. The direct or indirect approaches can both be used to close this digital gap. The direct approach involves governments and businesses working together to change the incentives that shape digital markets. The indirect approach involves both teams working together to form strategic alliances funded by public-private partnerships for social services in the rural area such as rural health care and education. Through these two approaches, the low-income masses may be able to reap many of the same benefits as the wealthy (Norris, 2001). Advantages of digital divide Increasing importance of ICT access to economic, social, and political opportunity in the information society defines the significance in which the digital divide lies in. The government and private sectors are increasingly shifting to online information and service delivery (Holloway 2002). The Internet has emerged as a new site for education, social interaction, and political engagement (Norris 2001). There are many existing social inequalities that limit the access to ICT and as opportunities become increasingly wedded to ICT access, the access for the disadvantaged will become worse (Holloway 2002, pp.52–4, 56; Norris 2001, pp.10, 68). Disadvantages of digital divide There are multiple disadvantages that affect those disadvantaged in digital world. These disadvantages are also severe. These effects cut across social, economic and legal sectors. They include literacy and education, employment, income, health, housing, law, and justice (Norris, 2001). The interrelationship of these dimensions, especially in the case of inequality may result in lack of information access, which in turn makes them disadvantaged. A wide digital gap may also be considered as the lack of information or the access to that information which the user needs. It can also be referred to as ‘information poverty’. When it comes to matters that control the lives of the people, lack of power can be linked to lack of access to information. Bridging the digital gap does not entail bridging the gap in technology only. Other factors also do play a role in it such as physical access to ICT, geographical location and equity in distribution of resources. Physical access to ICTs is also essential in bridging the divide. Therefore, there is need to improve on the awareness of the benefits of ICT, the skills to utilize it such as eradicating computer and information illiteracy and life-long learning capability and the availability of relevant and accessible content (Holloway, 2002). Geographical location also contributes to widening the digital gap. This is in focus of rural versus the urban dwellers. For instance, the rural or remote Internet users often confront higher costs or poor, unreliable service (Holloway, 2002). Equity in digital information must include literacy. The literacy here implies internet usage, ability to locate, evaluate and use information effectively and ability to adapt to rapid technological change. Conclusion Many factors may have contributed towards the digital divide. These factors are the structure of opportunities provided by the public policies within each country or a unit of government, the costs of services, and the regulation of telecommunications. The public policies include initiatives towards education and training people on information and technology. It also entails both the governments and the private sector investment in science and technology. The role of resources, in addition, can be expected to be particularly important. It is crucial at improving on levels of socioeconomic development such as adult literacy, education &other forms of capacity building as well as improving on the necessary computer skills. The inequities in ICT distribution, skills-based capability as well as stems from existing socioeconomic inequalities are all variables that increase digital divide. Increasing link between opportunities in the social and economic sectors and ICT access by the society worsens the socioeconomic disadvantage that already exists in the society. Though the policies of government and the information profession commit to maximizing information access equity, greater intervention and comprehensive strategies are required to realize this goal, in order for the interest to benefit all people. References “Digital Divide” Defined (Hint: it’s not about access.), By Craig Warren Smith, Founder, Digital Divide Institute. Retrieved from http://www.digitaldivide.org/digitaldivide/digitaldividedefined/digitaldivide.html on 9/9/13. Hendry, J D (2000), ‘Social inclusion and the information poor’, electronic version, Library Review, vol.49, no.7, pp.331–336. Holloway, D (2002), ‘Disparities in Internet access: A case study of the digital divide in Western Sydney’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol.37, no.1, pp.51–69. Norris, P (2001), Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide, Communication, society and politics, Cambridge University Press, ambridge, UK Read More

Global digital divide Global digital divide is defined as the international differences in information and communication technology (ICT) diffusion. Diffusion of global technology has led to increasing knowledge diffusion. This has in turn led to improving communication efficiency, improve political engagement. It has also allowed developing countries to abandon traditional methods of increasing productivity and adopt modern ones which are more efficient (Holloway, 2002). Factors that have been identified to contribute in the global digital divide are differentials in income, human capital, regulatory effectiveness and telecommunications infrastructure (Holloway, 2002).

Second-level digital divide As the first level of digital divide explains the connectivity of subjects, characteristics, means, intensity and purpose, the second-level digital divide describes the gap that separates the consumers of content on the information and technology from the producers of the content. Second level digital divide is also referred to as the production gap1. The technological digital divide between those with access to information and those without the information access in decreasing continually with time.

This implies that the technological digital divide is evolving. About one decade ago, digital divide research only focused on usage of internet. However, research is currently focusing more on accessibility to the internet and not just internet consumption. According to researchers, the more the population has access to the internet, the higher the ability to create content and the impact socioeconomics are having on user behavior (Hendry, 2000). There are new applications that have come up enabling a user of computer and who has an internet connection to be a creator of information or internet content (Holloway, 2002).

According to Holloway (2002), web technologies like Face book, Twitter, and other social networks enable users to participate online and create content without having to understand how the technology actually works, leading to an ever increasing digital divide between those who have the skills and understanding to interact more fully with the technology and those who are just passive consumers of it. Many users of internet are only nominal content creators through the use of social networking to connect with friends but they are not truly making use of the technology (Holloway, 2002).

Holloway (2002) further argues that, some of the reasons for this production gap include such factors like the type of internet connection and the frequency of access to the internet by the users. The frequency of access and speed of the internet is directly proportional to gain on technology skills and creativity. This implies that the more frequently a person has access to the internet and the faster the connection, the more opportunities they have to gain the technology skills and the more time they have to be creative (Holloway, 2002).

Other reasons that determine gain in technological skills as well as the level of creativity include cultural factors which are associated with socioeconomic class and status. Disadvantages in education and a low socioeconomic class leads to less participation in content creation (Holloway, 2002). Measuring the digital divide There are various efforts that have been put in place to measure the digital divide due to its interest by the government, public and private sectors (Hendry, 2000). Besides communications infrastructures being an indicator that measures the digital divide, there are other important readiness indicators which include: computer availability and the availability of alternative access through internet as well as other media like televisions or mobile phones.

The digital divide among households appears to depend primarily on two factors which are income and education (Norris, 2001). However, other secondary factors such as household size and type, age, gender, race and language backgrounds and location also play an important role (Norris, 2001).

Read More