Digital divide is a term used to describe the inequality between technology haves and have nots. Sometimes, this can refer to the gaps between first world and third world countries, other times it's used to refer to differences among various population groups within an industrialized country (such as the United States). For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the latter aspect, on inequities internal to one society, rather than on broader international disparities.

The technology being measured has been a moving target. Early news articles talked about general computer penetration among households. Then, as the Internet became more predominant, Internet access by individuals became the measure. Now, with free Internet access available through most public libraries, experts discuss the quality of access and usage.

What is meant by a digital divide is a separate question from whether such a divide exists. Courtright and Robbin make a fascinating semantic analysis of how the metaphors used to describe the divide shape its discussion. Word choice affects the perception of the problem, its severity, and how to solve it. For example, calling something "a barrier" implies more resistance than merely saying someone "trails behind the national average" Statements like "the gap ... narrows" suggest that problems may resolve themselves without intervention. (NTIA, 2002: pgs 75, 7, 46).

Even the term "digital divide" is controversial. "Digital" focuses attention on technology over other factors. "Divide" implies a distinct split. My opening sentence referred to haves and have nots, but can everyone really be separated into one group or the other, or is the difference more graduated?

Disparities definitely exist, broken down along many demographic factors. A Nation online (NTIA, 2002) found computer and Internet use correlate with family income, employment status, and educational attainment. Interestingly enough, there does not appear to be a gender gap in computer or Internet use, although there are differences in which online activities each group practices.

There is a significant divide along racial lines. Blacks and Hispanics have much lower rates of computer ownership and Internet access than Whites and Asian Americans. [Other surveys report similar problems among Native Americans.] This disparity holds true across income brackets and location. Of those accessing the Internet at public libraries, Whites and Asian Americans are more likely to also use the Internet at other locations (home, school or work).

Age is also a major factor. Lenhart found that half the non-online population were over 50. Rates of computer and Internet use fall sharply for people over 55 (NTIA, 2002, p.14).

These disparities are comparable to other social inequities. The U.S. has long known about racism, classism, ageism, and elitism as problems unrelated to technological access. However, it's too simplistic to think of the digital divide as merely reflecting existing divisions.

According to Pew Internet & American Life Project Survey, June-July 2002, 3% of those with Internet access have "[c]reate[d] a web log or 'blog' that others can read online." Yet Kevin Barbieux, a homeless man whose only Internet access is through the public library, has not only created such a blog, but regularly updates it, moderates discussion boards and has thousands of readers daily. By economic and educational measures, Mr. Barbieux is clearly disadvantaged, yet he's doing what many consider leading-edge.

This again disputes the notion of a binary division. The problem is not merely one of access, because that would mean that these disparities could be resolved by merely giving everyone a computer with Internet access. Attempts to resolve problems by simply adding technology, without making any other changes, rarely succeed. This is most often attempted in businesses, with vague goals of enhanced productivity or knowledge management. However, Warschauer describes a similar failure to bridge the digital divide in Ennis, Ireland, demonstrating that computers alone are not sufficient.

Beyond inequalities of access, it's important look at what people are doing with the technology in order to understand what the digital divide means. Do people gain significant benefits by having technology? Do people incur penalties by not having technology? [Is there a difference between the two? Offering discounts for cash purchases differs subjectively and legally from imposing fees for credit card use, even when the final expense is the same. One might argue that a service can be considered essential when citizens are sufficiently penalized for lacking it.] If neither exist, the impact of any access divide would be moot. Hacker argues somewhat tautologically that if there were no such benefits then the digital divide "could be dismissed as interesting but unimportant."

Doctor discussed equity in three spheres: political, economic and social. Many commentators emphasize the importance of e-democracy to explain why the digital divide is so problematic. However, the most optimistic predictions of teledemocracy haven't panned out.

Organized e-mail campaigns and online petitions may get thousands of signatures, but don't made much dent in congressional votes compared to the influence of traditional big-money lobbyists. Declan McCullagh points to lopsided vote totals for technology restrictions, such as the Senate's unanimous passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to say that traditional lobbying through electronic means is ineffective. In more recent news, Judge Kollar-Kotelly just approved the Justice Department settlement of the long-running Microsoft antitrust trial, despite over 32,000 public comments, most of which (according to news reports) opposed the deal.

Internet use does provide some political advantages. The Pew Research Center recently reported that local officials are seeing benefits from e-mail, including "contact with citizens from whom they had not heard before" (Larsen, October 2002, p.2). Also, the government has been putting more services online, which can be a time saver to those with Internet access.

A more common argument is that the Internet enables voters to become better informed. Dr. Bruce Cain said, "[t]he digital divide has created a political divide meaning that Web users are more informed than ever in history with the wealth of information out there. ... You almost have two nations -- a nation of the politically engaged and a nation of people that are only peripherally involved or interested in politics" (Crosse). However, this implies that there is a correlation between access and interest, which even Pew Research didn't have enough data about to draw comparisons (Larsen, April 2002, p.9).

Thus, Internet users gain limited benefits in the political arena, but there don't seem to be any penalties for those offline. The economic sphere shows similar results. The greatest benefit comes from increased access to information, such as job postings, price comparisons, and financial information. The use of a computer at work correlates with occupations in which workers have higher educational attainment (NTIA, 2002, p.19). We are starting to see some overt penalization of non-Internet users in this field, as some firms have recently begun charging customers extra to receive paper statements or invoices instead of electronic ones.

The social sphere is more difficult to quantify. Network effects play a role. The social benefits and penalties partly depend on how much one's family, friends, and broader community are Internet users. So, while there are some benefits to being online -- enough to legitimize the digital divide as a problem -- there are still few penalties for being offline. Thus, the incentives may not be wholly persuasive.

According to Lenhart's 2000 Pew report, only 39% of non-Internet users thought they were missing out on things by not being online. 51% didn't think they were missing anything and 10% weren't sure. So, could this disparity merely be a matter of personal choice, rather than inequity? If people aren't interested in using the Internet, should we try to push it on them for their own good? On the other hand, sometimes choices are shaped by cultural pressures, and may not be made as freely as they might appear.

These non-Internet users might benefit from further education. But what do they need to learn? What the Internet is good for? Looking at the attitudes among non-Internet users, a majority already recognizes that the Internet would help them "find out about things more easily." How to use it? Only about one-third think the Internet "is confusing and hard to use" and an equal percentage disagree with that statement. Those do not sound like arduous hurdles that require training to overcome.

Advertising is often used to make people dissatisfied with their current situation in order to entice them into buying the sponsoring product. But encouraging computer use does not seem sufficient cause for making people unhappy.

Fortunately, some problems associated with the digital divide have been improving over time. Internet use is increasing among all demographic groups. Children and teenagers are in the forefront and often bring their households across with them. Half the non-online population are over 50, and although almost half of those say they will "definitely not go online" (Lenhart, p.11), two-thirds of younger non-users expect they will go online eventually.

However, these trends did not just happen naturally. They owe a great deal to previous and current efforts to bridge the digital divide. And further work will be necessary.

Providing computers and Internet access alone is insufficient. However, that should continue to be part of a broader multi-layered solution. Ten percent of Internet users get at least some access through public libraries. Continued advocacy for more and better access is also important. This includes issues of accessibility for the disabled, digital rights, copyright, and filtering to ensure equitable and fair use. Messages must be carefully crafted so listeners don't believe that simple access is all that's necessary.

To promote equity, Doctor recommended focusing on the social and political domains, where Americans tend to be egalitarian, rather than the economic domain, where we tend to be more accepting of differences. Courtright might suggest using metaphors of social inclusion and opportunity, which tie into traditional American values.

Education is a further component in the solution. This should be more than mere training in tool use (although that does play a role, too). People need to learn the basics of information literacy: searching, evaluating materials for quality, risk assessment, privacy protection... These skills go beyond online behavior to include mass media and everyday communications. This should be integrated into the schools, and be made widely available as adult education.

People can still choose not to use the Internet. However, this would make it an informed decision. Many people choose not to read for pleasure, however the schools still ensured that everyone learned basic literacy. That's how we need to think of the digital divide. Warschauer goes into more detail on this concept, however I conceived it independently from his article.

Bibliography:

• Barbieux, Kevin. The Homeless guy. Available: http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/
  • Barbieux, Kevin. The Homeless guy answers. Available: http://thehomelessguyfaq.blogspot.com/
  • Kornblum, Janet. "A homeless guy finds a refuge on the Internet." USA Today. (10/3/2002). Available: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/notablesites/2002-10-02-homeless_x.htm
  • Schachtman, Noah. "The homeless blogger." Salon Magazine. (Oct. 14, 2002). Available: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/14/homeless/print.html
• Bayot, Jennifer. "Want bills by snail mail? It might cost you money." New York Times. (October 29, 2002). Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/technology/29BILL.html?pagewanted=all
• Boyce, Angie. "Online job hunting." (July 17, 2002). Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=65
• Courtright, Christina & Robbin, Alice. "Deconstructing the digital divide in the United States: an interpretive policy analytic perspective." IAMCR and ICA Symposium on the Digital Divide. (November 15-17, 2001). Available: http://communication.utexas.edu/college/digital_divide_symposium/papers/Courtright.pdf
• Crosse, Gary. "Voters surfing Web ahead of election day." Reuters. (October 30, 2002). Available: http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2002/10/30/rtr772530.html
• Davenport, Thomas and Prusak, Laurence. Working Knowledge.
• Department of Justice. "U.S. v. Microsoft: comments provided to the Court." (February 15, 2002). Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-major.htm
  • Lord, Timothy. "All MS settlement comments now online." Slashdot. (March 2, 2002). Available: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/02/131237
• Doctor, Ronald D. "Social equity and information technologies: moving toward information democracy." ARIST 27 (1992): 43-96
• Hacker, Kenneth L. "Digital divide facts and fiction." (May 5, 2002). Available: http://www.zianet.com/khacker/digital-divide-2002.htm
• Larsen, Elena and others. The rise of the e-citizen: how people use government agencies' Web sites. (April 3, 2002). Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=57
• Larsen, Elena and others. Digital town hall: how local officials use the Internet and the civic benefits they cite from dealing with constituents online. (October 2, 2002). Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=74
• Lenhart, Amanda. Who's not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on. (September 21, 2000). Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=21
• Lynch, Beverly. "The Digital divide or the digital connection: a U.S. perspective." First Monday Volume 7, number 10. (October 2002). Available: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/lynch/index.html
• McCullagh, Declan. "Geeks in government: a good idea?" CNET News.com. (August 12, 2002). Available: http://news.com.com/2010-1071-949275.html
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling through the net: a survey of the 'have nots' in rural and urban America. (1995). Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration. A Nation online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. (February 2002). Available: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/
  • "Index of household charts." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/hhs/HHSchartsindex.html
  • "Percent of U.S. households with a computer by income, by race/Hispanic origin, 2001." Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/hhs/ChartH4.htm
  • "Percent of U.S. households with a computer by race/Hispanic origin, by U.S., rural, urban, and central cities, 2001." Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/hhs/ChartH3.htm
  • "Percent of U.S. households with Internet access by income, by race/Hispanic origin, 2001." Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/hhs/ChartH9.htm
• Pew Internet and American life project. "Internet Activities." Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/chart.asp?img=Interne2.htm
• Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the digital divide." First Monday Volume 7, number 7. (July 2002). Available: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/index.html

Appendix:

The origins of my solution:

I have been online for fourteen years. I have done almost every activity described on http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/chart.asp?img=Interne2.htm , which means that my lifestyle is probably near the extreme limit of the digital divide "haves." My husband commented that he remembers Usenet before AOL, and as far as the digital divide is concerned, he frankly wishes fewer people had access, not more.

So, I closed my eyes and tried to picture people on the other side of the digital divide, and those who have just crossed over. My mind turned to relatives who forward me countless urban legends and hoaxes that they received forwarded from others. I was reminded of searches I've conducted where there were so many bad web pages that the quality sites are buried. Wave a magic wand and give more people computers, and the spread of such misinformation can only increase.

However, one relative has recently developed the habit of asking me whether certain e-mails are genuine or hoaxes before she forwards them to others. Just that bit of caution gives her a heads up over other novice Internet users, including many people in her social circle who have been forwarding these things around. If we could wave the wand and extend that awareness to more people, those people would be better off and the Internet as a whole would be a better place.

That's the kind of solution I hope for.

Added later:

Although these articles were published too late to make it into my report, they're worthy resources alongside the other entries in my bibliography.

On high tech and the political arena:

• On November 25, Slate.com posted Silicon Valley vs. K Street: Why computer geeks should give up on politics by Paul Boutin.
• On November 27, ZDNet posted Is it time for a geekPAC? by Declan McCullagh.