Moving Beyond the Digital Divide: Examining the Issues of Education, Culture and Identity, and Location

Paper presented to Dr. Mark Bullen, ETEC 511, November 26, 2004

The Digital Divide – the gap between those who have access to technology, and those who do not – appears, in many ways, to be closing. However, a gap still exists, even in the most developed countries. It may not be as wide as it once was, and it has shifted location, and the combination of these two factors has convinced government and education policy makers that attention and energy may be directed elsewhere. Governments have recognized the social benefits of their citizens having access to the Internet, such as increased access to services, information, and markets, but many rely on information about the rates of physical connection when developing policies. In this paper, I argue that what was historically a divide is now a sliding scale, with a person having a computer and high speed Internet access at one end of the scale, and a person having no access to technology at all at the other end. Where one is on the sliding scale of connectedness is the result of many factors, including education, culture and identity, and location. I conclude with recommendations for policy makers that will assist those on the low end of the technology access scale to move up the continuum.

The Digital Divide: Issues of Access

How far have governments and industry come in connecting people? Worldwide, huge discrepancies exist between developed and non-developed countries. While statistics on computer ownership and use in Africa are difficult to locate, a 1998 UN-HABITAT report showed that in many cities, less than 20% of the people were connected to a telephone, and in some cities it was as low as 3%. In a recent report on the implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) in Tanzania, it was noted that although all secondary and post secondary schools have electricity, most primary schools do not. In rural India, access to telephones has improved through the introduction of Public Call Offices, but a study reported in 2001 indicated that 88% of the people in a rural area had no access to a computer or the Internet (Checchini & Scott, 2003). In contrast, a 2002 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report showed that approximately one-half of the households in the most connected developed countries have access to the Internet, with Canada and Denmark topping the list. It appears, then, that with regard to the split between the developed and non-developed countries, the Digital Divide is still an apt metaphor.

In Canada and the U.S., a growing number of people have computers in their homes and access to the Internet. Studies in Canada indicate that more than 50% of the population is connected (Sciadas, 2002). In the U.S., 51% of the population has a home computer and over 44% have home access to the Internet (NTIA, 2000). These overall figures for connectivity in Canada and the U.S. seem very impressive, especially compared with other countries worldwide, but these numbers do not describe the complete picture.

A closer look at the figures for connectivity in Canada and the U.S. provides a different story. Income has always been one of the greatest determining factors when it comes to home computers and access to the Internet. According to the 2002 Sciadas report, in Canada the rate of penetration of computers is 65% higher for people in the highest income decile than it is for people in the lowest decile. The rate for Internet penetration is 62% higher for the highest versus the lowest income groups. In the U.S., the 2002 NTIA report Falling Through the Net indicated almost exactly the same results: at about 20%, people in the lowest income group were about 66% less likely to own a computer than people in the highest income group. However, the higher rates of adoption are shifting down the income levels as time goes on. People in the middle income levels are now adopting computers at a higher rate than those at the highest income levels due to the fact that almost everyone at the highest income level now has a computer in the home. Ultimately, though, this shifting down of higher adoption rates will stop. The most common reason for people at the lowest income levels not to have Internet access in the home is that they can’t afford it (NTIA, 2000). Even the least expensive computer system costs hundreds of dollars, and a family in poverty most likely will choose to feed and clothe their children rather than opt for an expensive tool for which access is available elsewhere. For developed countries, then, the rates of connectedness are still closely related to income.

The Access to Technology Sliding Scale: Issues of Education, Culture and Identity, and Location

Determining access to technology is a much more complex matter than simply jotting down the answer to the question, “Do you have a computer at home or not?” Even when people do have a computer in the home, several other factors come into play: if the computer is used at all; what the computer is used for; and the quality of the Internet connection, to name a few. I discuss these factors in terms of the education, culture and identity, and location of the people using the computers.

Education

It is well documented that people with lower levels of education have lower rates of computer ownership and Internet connection (Sciadas, 2002; NTIA, 2000). Furthermore, what people do with computers, once they have access to them, is also often a function of how much education they (or their parents) have. The simple fact of having a computer and Internet access does not automatically guarantee that these will be used in productive and educationally stimulating ways. Many people use computers mainly for games or as a word processor, and a common non-educational use of computers with Internet access is chat lines.

An example of this was demonstrated through the results of a small qualitative study in Australia, where researchers followed four families. Three of the families had recently received a computer and Internet access through a low cost program that was designed to get people connected, and one of the families had been connected already for five years. The study showed that the families with a higher level of education, or who valued education highly, were the ones whose children were using the computers in a variety of educationally productive ways. One family, whose single-parent mother did not have any education past high school, used the computer mainly for chat lines. When questioned at his school, one of the children’s teachers was surprised to hear that they had a computer at home, and noted that the computer use must be “unsupervised”. Although the computer came preloaded with educational software such as an encyclopedia, none of the family members ever used it. The researchers concluded that the low educational attainment of the mother prevented her from assisting her children in exploring the educational uses of the computer (Snyder, Angus, & Sutherland-Smith, 2002).

In terms of education about or with computers, differences also exist in how and what children are learning at school. Anderson and Becker (2001) report that in the U.S. in 1998, more affluent schools spent 5.2 times as much money on technology support as did the poorer schools, resulting in less effective implementation of technology based programs. A real concern exists that many teachers are not well trained in using technology, which has a direct effect on the types of educational experiences that their students have. Attewell (2001) commented on a study that showed a negative relationship between school computer use and fourth and eighth graders’ math scores. He surmises that “…computer labs are being used to occupy the time of academically less-skilled children” and goes on to note, “…economically disadvantaged and minority students are more likely to use computers daily, use drill-and-practice more, and have teachers with less computer training” (Attewell, 2001, p. 256). However, he also reports that students are much more likely to engage in the educational versus the fun aspects of software if an adult is sitting with them. I believe that this is more likely to happen in private schools, schools in wealthy areas where the teacher-pupil ratio is higher, or in homes with computers where a parent takes a special interest in furthering the educational opportunities of the child. The education of teachers and parents plays a key role, then, not only in better access to computers, but also in better types of educational experiences for children once they have access.

Ultimately, the educational experiences that children have with computers follow the same trend as the acquisition of other non-technology based skills, the most important of which is literacy, as noted in Unveiling the Digital Divide (Sciadas, 2002, p. 18): 

What comes through as the common thread of any investigation, though, is the issue of skills. For many, uneven opportunities in acquiring ICT-related skills, so crucial in functioning from now on, constitute the real divide. At the same time, skills are properly perceived as a continuum whereby their technology components are incrementally built on cognitive skills and general literacy.

It is interesting to note in the Australian study of the four families discussed earlier that the family that used the computer with the greatest facility was also the family that had a large number of books and asserted the superiority of books over the computer as a source of knowledge. It appears that the family’s already high literacy skills provided a foundation from which to master the capabilities of the new technology. When it comes to education, then, people who have less move down the sliding scale in two ways: first, in rates of connectedness, and second, in ability to use the computer in educationally productive ways.

Culture and Identity

Many people who do not own or use computers cite issues of culture and identity when asked why they are not connected. A study reported by Stanley (2003) in the San Diego, California, area, where the rate of connectedness is about 73% - much higher than the U.S. national average – delved into the reasons why people do not own computers. The results should give educators much to think about in the way that information technology is promoted.

Cultural issues related to ethnicity include language barriers and gender issues. In the Stanley study, it was noted that many of the people in the San Diego area are of Hispanic background, but that very few computer literacy classes were conducted in Spanish. This, compounded by the fact that many computer resources (including much of the material on the World Wide Web) is in English, would be a deterrent for anyone whose English is not to a certain standard.

Culture also informs gender issues, and these arise for both males and females. When asked about his lack of computer use, one male respondent stated that when he was in high school, it was generally felt that typing and computers were for girls. On the other hand, some males who have been brought up in very traditional households require that their female partners stay in the home rather than do paid work outside the home, and this attitude limits the types of activities (including furthering their education) to which these women feel they can aspire (Stanley, 2003).

While culture is often linked with ethnic background, it is also comprised of the people with whom one associates and identifies, and the community in which one lives. Hindman (2000) sees a “culture of resistance” in rural areas, noting that, “the emphasis on tradition rather than innovation, and the localite orientations of rural citizens are likely to result in resistance to ideas imposed from outside the community.” (Hindman, 2000, p. 551) Social and environmental issues from within the culture also affect technology use. Many people who do not use computers note that none of their friends or family own computers, and many also do not use computers at work. It is hard for them to see the usefulness of computers when nobody they know owns one (Stanley, 2003). It appears, then, that culture affects connectivity in ways that are not recognized by policy makers. Language barriers, culturally ingrained anti-technology attitudes and resistance all inhibit the accessing of technology by many people, thus moving them down – perhaps to the very bottom – of the sliding scale.

Another theme that arose during the Stanley (2003) study was that of identity. A great majority of the people said that they initially did not see themselves as the type of person who uses a computer. Reasons included were that computers provoke anxiety, which is sometimes extreme, and the fact that some think computers are only for smart people or children (Stanley, 2003). People with these issues rank at the very bottom of the connectivity scale: they are not connected, and they have no wish to be so. Identity issues such as these can only be overcome by changing the culture in which these people live and work, the effort for which must be made at the community and individual levels.

Location

Location has always been an important factor in whether or not people can access technology. The original Digital Divide pitted people in urban areas against people in rural areas, with rural residents often the losers. The 2000 NTIA study points to increasing connectedness for people in rural areas in the U.S., but Thompson-James, in a 1999 Statistics Canada report, noted that rural residents still lag behind their urban counterparts in being connected. However, even when rural residents are connected, the quality of the connection plays a big role in what people are able to do. In Enhancing Learning: Report of the Task Force on Rural Education in British Columbia, the following was noted:

Although rural schools have access to the Internet through PLNet, many small communities have such narrow bandwidth that they are unable to use their connection for much more than email. Narrow bandwidth restricts their ability to download large Internet files, open certain web sites, use interactive web-based software, participate in live web-based learning opportunities and fully benefit from electronically delivered courses.” (Task Force of Rural Education, 2003, p. 5)

It is possible that some rural residents are not connecting to the Internet because of the poor quality of these connections relative to the ones in urban areas. As material on the World Wide Web becomes increasingly sophisticated, so too must the connections that allow people to access that material.

Even though market competition is supposed to help solve the problem of connecting everyone in the U.S., the free market argument breaks down when it comes to providing infrastructure to rural areas, where the costs often outweigh the benefits. Nicholas (2003) reported the results of a study in rural Texas, where Expanded Local Calling (ELC) is supposed to pave the way to Internet access for more people. However, communities must apply for status, and many applications are rejected. According to Nicholas, two problems exist. The first is a policy that states that “community” must be defined by the frequency of telephone communication with institutions, rather than communications with other people. The second is that policies to ensure that rural people have telephone service actually set up monopolies whereby a small telephone company can dictate what service is provided. In many cases, if the service does not bring enough revenue to the one company that will be providing it, then that service will not be offered. Nicholas (2003, p. 295) notes, “The Internet, however, has not yet managed to eliminate the rural penalty. Rather, development patterns are exacerbating the rural disadvantage. The problem is not simply one of infrastructure, but is created through the development of telecommunications markets and the legacy of federal and state communication policies.” He concludes by noting that it is the most remote towns that are least likely to benefit from Internet connection and states, “Ironically, these policies often exclude the very residents that stand to benefit most from their effective implementation…” (Nicholas, 2003, p. 295) The rural factor, then, moves people down the sliding scale of connectivity in more than one way. To begin with, the rate of connectivity for rural residents is lower than it is for urban residents. Add to this the often poor types of connections, and the result is that rural residents have a much smaller opportunity to access some of the sophisticated technology-based information that is available through being connected.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Connection to the Internet is dependent on many factors, including income, education, culture and identity, and location. The people on the top end of the sliding scale of connectivity tend to be relatively well-paid, well-educated members of the dominant culture living in urban areas. How can governments extend the benefits of technology access to more people? I list four major recommendations:

1. Governments in developed and non-developed countries must redouble their efforts to make text-based literacy a goal for all citizens. In the developed countries, some of the money that is currently being spent on constantly upgrading technology should be directed instead to more classroom teachers, new and better books (which can last 20 years or more), and programs to assist adults in attaining their secondary school credentials. Improving the literacy levels of the overall population assists in moving people up the sliding scale of technology access in two ways: first, by increasing the rate of connectivity; and second, by improving the educationally relevant experiences of people who are connected.
2. Governments must provide adequate technology training time for teachers.One study from the U.S. showed that expenditure for professional development for teachers amounted to only 4% of the total amount spent for acquiring hardware and software, although teachers and other professionals indicated it should be 30% (Anderson & Becker, 2001). Teachers who are adequately trained will be more motivated to use technology, and this will translate to better educational experiences for students, many of which, especially in poorer areas, use school computers as their only source of connectivity. This will allow many who don’t have access to home computers due to low income, and who may have poor school experiences with technology, to move up the sliding scale of access.
3. Governments must directly subsidize the connection of rural residents.Market forces are simply not great enough to provide incentive for companies to build expensive infrastructure in areas where they expect little return. An interesting idea that can leverage small amounts of public money into substantial infrastructure investment is to request companies to bid on contracts where they are allowed to ask for subsidies. The contract is then awarded to the company that requests the smallest subsidy (Checchini & Scott, 2003). Increasing the investment in infrastructure in rural areas will assist non-urban people in both developed and developing countries to move up the sliding scale.
4. The government, through educators, must address issues of culture and identity that prevent people from accessing technology.Issues such as “lack of interest, computer anxiety, and unattractiveness of the new technology” (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003, p. 315) must be counteracted by public awareness campaigns and education at the local level. Any educational programs must target people where they live and play, and offer flexible, adult-oriented classes in churches, recreation centres and other small community meeting places. Addressing these issues, and thereby lessening anxiety and disinterest, will assist many people in moving up the sliding scale of technology access.

Governments around the world acknowledge that connecting people can make a difference in their lives in many ways. However, while governments must continue efforts to encourage and support people in becoming connected, they must also move on from the simple idea of physical acquisition of equipment to addressing the social issues that prevent many people from moving into the connected world. 

References

Anderson, R. & Becker, H. (2001). School investment in instructional technology. Retrieved November 25, 2004 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report_8/startpage.htm

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252-259. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

Checchini, S. & Scott, C. (2003). Can information and communications technology applications contribute to poverty reduction? Lessons from rural India. Information Technology for Development, 10, 73-84. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

Hindman, D. (2000). The rural-urban digital divide. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77( 3). 549-560. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

Nicholas, K. (2003). Geo-policy barriers and rural Internet access: The regulatory role in constructing the digital divide. The Information Society (19), 287-295. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

NTIA (U.S. Department of Commerce). (2000). Falling through the Net IV: Towards digital inclusion. Retrieved November 21, 2004 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Access to and Use of Information Technologies.  HYPERLINK "http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/4/2766829.xls" Data - Households Internet access by income level, 2001 or latest available year - (English). Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,2340,en_2825_495656_2766782_1_1_1_1,00.html

Sciadas, G. (ed.) (2002). Unveiling the digital divide. Statistics Canada Connectedness Series. Retrieved November 21, 2004 from http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=56F0004MIE2002007

Senzige, J. & Sarukesi, K. (2003) An Approach to ICT based school education in Tanzania. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference Proceedings - African on a Global Stage. Retrieved November 21, 2004 from http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/global/afsaap/conferences/2003proceedings/senzige.PDF

Snyder, I., Angus, L., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Building equitable literate futures: Home and school computer-mediated literacy practices and disadvantage. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 367-383. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

Stanley, L. (2003). Beyond access: Psycho-social barriers to computer literacy. The Information Society (19). 407-416. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.

Thompson-James, M. (1999). Computer use and Internet use by members of rural households. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin (Statistics Canada), 1(7). Retrieved November 7, 2004 from http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=21-601-MIE1999040

Task Force on Rural Education (Province of British Columbia). (2003). Enhancing Rural Learning: Report of the Task Force on Rural Education. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/mintask/rural_task_rep.pdf

UN-HABITAT: United Nations Human Settlement Program. Global Urban Indicators: 1998. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from http://www.unchs.org/programmes/guo/guo_indicators.asp

Van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society (19), 315-326. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from Academic Search Premier database.