Digital Divides Are an Inevitable Feature of Contemporary Communication Society - Literature review Example

Digital Divides Are an Inevitable Feature of Contemporary Communication Society by The introduction and fast spread of the Internet caused numerous discussions regarding the role of this phenomenon in global economy, politics, and population development. The speed and the volume of information provided by the Internet have definitely changed the way people perceive data and communication. Most people express hope that the Internet can become an influential means of transformation for the whole planet since it will allow creating connections between simple people and authorities, will make social communication of different layers of society easier, and by reducing inequality will contribute to creation of a global society. Moreover it can give a chance to many people of distant learning, receiving better services, and finding more appropriate jobs so to some extent the Internet is potentially possible to reduce poverty and lack of education. But as it often happens with complex phenomena there appeared many issues which were hard to predict earlier and people started asking questions. It is still unknown, if the Internet will change traditional form of democratic activism or it will just make present gap between technologically adept and those having no “connection” to the world web bigger. What destiny is awaiting the countries that are still developing? Will they have chances to compete with technologically advanced states or slow introduction of the Internet there will only contribute to a bigger gap? How the issue of informational security can contribute to creation of surveillance society and what results it will have for simple citizens? In this paper I am going to regard those issues that arise along with the Internet spread and will examine if digital divide is an inevitable feature of contemporary communication system. In order to understand the problem it is necessary to define the basic terms. According to Hargittai, digital divide is the gap that appears between those who have the possibility and the capacity to use digital technologies in everyday life and those who do not have such opportunities (2003). Digital divide depends on the access to hardware: telephone, computers and other gadgets that allow connecting to other users. First only the ability to conduct conversations over the telephone created digital divide but later with the appearance of the Internet, the access to the web became the main distinction between those who are included in global process and those who are not. So digital divide concerns primarily hardware and its availability (Noll et al., 2013). However it is impossible to resolve the problem of digital divide with hardware only because the access to digital technologies and the possibility of their usage requires certain level of education, curiosity, and literacy. According to Van Dijk the very access to the Internet should be regarded in four important parameters. So to make sure that the person has access it is necessary to consider four different types of access: Psychological Access which means absence of any experience of digital advances utilization due to lack of enthusiasm; Material access which literally means absence of any computer and the Internet; Skills Access which means inability to use hardware due to illiteracy or lack of necessary education or cognitive abilities; Usage access which is defined as absence of the opportunities to utilize the devices with network connection (Van Dijk, 2010) Those who try to overcome digital divide claim that absence of hardware is only a temporal issue while the other types of access are regarded as not important. Psychological access is only attributed to older people or those with disabilities and housewives. The problem of skills access is also not considered disturbing because many experts claim that people learn using hardware really fast and with appropriate education this problem will be easily eliminated. People also tend to ignore the problem of differential usage of network and computers and claim that unification is still possible. So the only problem that seems to matter is the absence of material means to the Internet access (Van Dijk, 2013). However, it is important to understand that solving problem of material access of population to computers and other digital devices will not make digital divide disappear. Van Dijk claims that people that will achieve access to the Internet late will be using the Internet according to their poorly developed skills compared to adept users (2013). The main issue here is the abundance of information, and the ability to search it, analyze it adequately, process it fast, and make necessary conclusions. The choice of sources of information is also a fundamental issue and though it is possible to teach a person how to use browser, it requires certain experience and skills to teach him which information is worth trusting (Gorski, 2003). Many experts predict that due to high and really complicated multifunctionality of computers the situation with technological divide will only become worse or will not change at all. Van Dijk prognoses usage gap when adept users will benefit from technological progress while those who use technologies for the most trivial purposes dedicating much time to the entertainment will only lose. Still there are a number of factors that are directly connected to digital divide, such as educational level, race, nationality, the level of income. Though it is more reasonable to observe how digital divide reflects itself globally, there is still lack of information regarding this issue while it is possible to see how it works in the measures of one developed country- the United States of Americ (Van Dijk, 2000). National Telecommunications& Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce studied closely these factors and published its data in three reports in which they examined the availability and the access of Americans to computers, telephones, and the Internet subsequently. First observation that was made by the organization is not a simple existence of a digital divide but its gradual widening. As much as people with stable income and higher education receive more and more access to the advanced technologies, social minorities, people with low unstable financial situation, lacking higher education, children living in incomplete families are becoming the victims of technological gap (Falling through the net, 1999, 4). Education is a primary factor because researches claim that the level of education in a household is directly connected to the availability of digital devices and the necessity of the Internet connection. There is some evidence that people with college diplomas or even higher levels of education are more likely to be connected to the Internet compared to people who graduated from school only. And it is reasonable that the gap of knowledge increases proportionally to the information the person consumes. The more information- the more additional knowledge he needs. Throughout the last decade the gap between those with college diplomas and those with high school diploma has only increased as proportionally the access to the Internet in this group received 7.8% and 25 % respectively (Falling through the net, 1999). Income is quite obviously often marked as the second factor influencing the possibility of the access to the Internet and the possibility to purchase telephones, computers or any other devices. In the observation made by NTIA it is stated that the gap between the most financially independent layer of population and the least independent reached 29%. Thus, it is stated that families with annual income of more than $75,000 are much more likely to be connected to the world web and have personal computer at home while those financially limited have problems with this. The place of dwelling does matter also. Those living in big cities are 10 times more likely to be familiar with technologies while suburban or rural areas are marked by low percentage of household computers and the Internet connection. Nevertheless, in the big cities there are poor districts and areas where there is still no connection to the Internet because telecommunication facilities are not affordable for the dwellers of these areas. Moreover, more developed districts are attractive to businesses and companies which can provide these areas with stable Internet connection (Digital Divide, 2010). Digital divide is gradually growing between racial groups in the United States. The difference is mostly observed between White, Black, and Hispanic groups. For White and Black the difference in availability of computers at home has grown up to 39, 2 % while between Hispanic and White this figure reached 46, 2 %. The connection to Internet is also very different between the minorities even taking into account the availability of computers. Hispanic households are three times less likely to be connected to the world web, and what is surprising that according to NTIA observation racial differences in the Internet access are mostly not connected to the level of income and are related to the level of education and total intelligence of the families (Falling through the net, 1999). So it is possible to make a conclusion that Hispanic and Black families are not worried about having digital devices at home and connecting to the Internet. Subsequently, the schools in Black and Hispanic districts are most often not equipped with computers. Even those schools where most children are Hispanic and Black do not have computers compared to those schools where the quantity of minorities is not high. This difference diminishes gradually with income increase of the households (Falling through the net, 1999). Three groups of minorities studied by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration revealed the difference in perception of the household computers. For Hispanic minorities computers were associated with a status thing, luxury rather than necessity. It was also considered that computers took the time that could be spent in family that is why American-Hispanic families were not likely to buy gadgets with the Internet connection to their children. African-Americans in their turn historically were no prone to associate their time spending with technology that is why they regard computers as something extraordinary and not necessarily useful. The attitude of Asian-American is different due to the high value of education in their minority group. Asian have always estimated technologies a lot that is why the prevalence of computers and other devices is rather high in their households (Falling through the net, 1999). So digital divide progress is common even for America, a country with a stable and well developed economy, and what is surprising that level of income of many households in the USA is not directly connected to the availability of technological facilities and the Internet. Most often educational level does not permit to many families start using the Internet daily due to its multifunctionality. Moreover, even if people with low level of education pursue technological advances, there is still a possibility of user gap because the choice of relevant information and sources is quite complicated. Additionally racial differences matter in the regard of digital divides with most minority groups lacking sufficient level of technological devices acceptance. However, most obviously that the difference in the level of financial stability of families plays a crucial role in digital divide even in the United States. And it seems that for the country with high level of immigration and instable position of immigrants digital divide will progress further. The global situation with digital divide is even more disturbing. According to Chen and Wellman, the disproportion between the quantity of Internet users globally is only getting worse with years. Most people online on the Internet live in developed countries, for example 29 % of all web users are from the United States. Ten years ago more than 169 million of people living in America had stable access to the Internet. There were 172 million users in Europe (28 percent diffusion), 182 million in Southeast and East Asia, including 145 million in China, Japan, and Korea (23 percent). South America was home to 29 million users (5 percent), while there were 11 million in Oceania (2 percent), and 10 million in Africa (just over 1.5 percent) ( Chan & Wellman, 2004). Global digital divide is also worsening with economically developed countries improving their possibility to use technological facilities to improve social, cultural, and financial level of their citizens and third world countries only widening this gap. In well developed countries digitization creates new working places and increases financial profit of numerous organizations. Scandinavian countries, such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, are top in the list of ICT utilization with China, Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States in the list of first 10. Most African and Asian countries are lagging behind in the attempt to reach the level of technological advances utilization. The reason is that developing countries absorbed by more profound economic problems fail to provide effective policies that would help to utilize ICT as a means of profit and will impact positively education, employment, and social transformations. And if take into account already existing digital divide, it is hardly possible to suggest that the countries will reach some equal level one day (Global Information Technology Report, 2013). It is worth noticing that digital gap is partially attributed to the language problem dominance of the English language throughout the web. For example, English users prevail French users twice, and almost 85% of all web pages on the Internet are created in English. That is why some experts claim that the prevalence of the Internet users in developing countries is closely connected to the prevalence of English speaking people (Compaine, 2001). That is why the efforts of many world organizations and forums, such as UN, World Economic Forum, are directed to overcoming the problem of digital divide globally. However, solving financial problems would be the most effective step in these initiatives, but a number of other measures should be also implemented. According to Kouadio one of the main reasons of digital divide is “global commercialization pressure in the communication sector” which means the wealthiest companies around the world are interested in preserving misbalance of the Internet access and technological facilities in order to sell their services most effectively (2007) Most world economists consider that overcoming digital divide will result in economic growth for the developing countries. As Internet innovations are often connected to services improvement common access will make many spheres of people`s lives easier: medicine, education, shopping, jobs. But what is even more important is that “bridging the gap” can positively influence political situation in many countries and contribute to democracy development (Chun-Yao & Chen, 2010). All in all Internet with its possibility to spread information incredibly fast guarantees more social freedoms, contributes to more transparent decision making process and elections. In the last several years the Internet connection allowed to change antidemocratic regimes in many Arabic, Eastern European, and Asian countries. Moreover, it is always worth noticing that totalitarian regimes of North Korea or China are marked by restricted access to the Internet, and as long as these regimes continue to flourish there the more limits will be imposed in the Internet users (Chun-Yao & Chen, 2010). Experts studying the problem of digital divide underline that certain measures can be implemented to solve this problem. First there is urgency to introduce the Internet to all the layers of society so that public organizations, authorities, and simple users recognized the necessity and the importance of the Internet access. Despite the fact that personal computers and connection to the web became widely spread with the help of numerous companies earning on these services, there is still a big layer of people who cannot afford it. So authorities should regard Internet as they regard telephone service and should establish certain subsidies to such households. The special accent must be made on rural areas which should be provided with equal access (Falling through the net, 1999). There is an urgent need to create Community Access Centers that could guarantee Internet access to those people who do not have personal computers at home or at the working places. As the most vulnerable group of people are unemployed, minority groups, and people with low income do not have possibility to change their life with the help of the Internet world and country authorities should stimulate opening of Community access centers worldwide. It is stated that most users in Community access centers utilize Internet with the purpose of finding a job or studying so these centers must be viewed as investments (Falling through the net, 1999). However, as it was stated earlier, it is not enough to supply households, schools, colleges or centers with equipment because there still remain other gaps. So it is crucial to train staff that could pass knowledge of how to use computers right ad how to the possibilities of the Internet in the most effective way. But what is most important is to demonstrate that technological facilities have become necessary for contemporary society. People must start perceiving Internet not as a luxury or a means of entertainment but as a tool for education, searching for a job, and self-actualization. The world society has reached the level where it is impossible to deny that future is connected to the technologies and information. Unfortunately, the attempts to solve the problem of global digital divide in a modern world mostly fail. Inability to provide third world countries with stable financial resources for purchase of equipment, electricity, and relevant education is certainly the primary reason. So it is a financial problem that is slowly transforming into wider and more specific problem. Absence of technological facilities in developing countries is partially explained by imbalance of world economy and partially by the special interest of communication companies who sell relevant services. For many countries inability to overcome digital divide is connected to the political regimes which control information flow to prevent democratic changes. But even if financial and political problems are solved there still remain the problem of the technologies misuse as most people do not have relevant level of education and preparation to utilize Internet at its best for search of educational programs, jobs, and as a means of self-actualization, and the user gap remains the same unless special trainings and educators are provided. Last but not the least is language problem as it is important to take into account that Internet remains inaccessible to many regions of the world due to language limits while English remains a primary language for the web. It means that the gap between wealthy countries and poorer countries will only grow due to the digital divide unless serious global changes occur. References Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide - within and between countries. IT & Society, 1(7). Compaine, B. (2001). The digital divide: facing a crisis or creating a myth. Chicago: MIT Press. Digital Divide. (2010). Stanford Public Recourse. Retrieved from: http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/digital-divide/start.html Falling through the net. Defining the digital divide. (1999). National Telecommunications & Information Administration, U.S.Department of Commerce. Retrieved from: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/introduction.html Chun-Yao, H., & Chen, H. (2010). Global digital divide: A dynamic analysis based on the bass model, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29 (2). Global Information Technology Report. (2013). World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: http://www.weforum.org/news/global-information-technology-report-highlights-lack-progress-bridging-new-digital-divide Gorski. P. (2003). Privilege and repression in the digital era: Rethinking the sociopolitics of the digital divid. Race, Gender & Class, 10 (4). Hargittai, E. (2003). The digital divide and what to do about it. New Economy Handbook. San Diego: Academic Press Kouadio, M. (2007). The digital divide still in at use, Information Sciences PhD candidate, Retrieved from: http://epub.uni-regensburg.de/10713/1/The_Digital_Divide_Still_An_Issue.pdf Noll, R., Older-Aguilar, N., Rosston, G., Ross, R. (2010). Digital divides: definitions, measures, and policy issues. Van Dijk, J. (2000). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. Read More