Social Work and the Changing Face of the Digital Divide

By Tommy

Steyaert, J., & Gould, N. (2009). Social Work and the Changing Face of the Digital Divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 740-753.

Jan Steyaert and Nick Gould are college professors in the UK. Jan’s research interests are technology and quality of life, and Nick has done extensive work in the field of social work. This article views the concept of the digital divide and its relation to social exclusion. The authors also ask the question whether or not the digital divide is widening or narrowing.

Initially the authors give plenty of background information connecting social work to the internet. One of the risks they are worried about is that differential access to the internet could lead to further social exclusion for those individuals already in need of social work intervention.

The digital divide is still prevalent according to some sobering statistics the authors use. Only about 22% of the world’s population have ever used the internet. Of the 22%, or 1.6 billion users, 88% come from an industrialized country. The authors continue to use compelling statistics and research in describing the many facets of the digital divide, and in asking the question whether or not the divide is narrowing. After this, the authors move into an analysis of how social work can play a role in shutting down the digital divide.

I think that many of the points the authors bring up are valid. Depending on usage, there will be gaps in information that will expand once users who have no real purpose take hold, and users that have purpose elevate themselves about those lesser users. This widening gap will almost surely lead to the lesser group being socially excluded from those internet users who use the internet for mere entertainment.

2010
10/05
CATEGORY
1st world ddivide
TAGS




Write comment

Using Community Technology Centers to Bridge Digital Divide

Servon, Lisa J., and Marla K. Nelson. “Community Technical Centers: Narrowing the Digital Divide in Low-Income Urban Communities.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23.3-4 (2001): 279-290. Print.

By: Melissa Eaton

The authors of this article, Lisa Servon and Marla Nelson, are both Associate Professors at Rutgers University, emphasizing in Planning and Urban Studies. Their article discusses grassroots efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor with the use of community technology centers, or CTC’s. CTC’s are becoming one of the most popular ways to provide internet to those who would normally not have access. As technology becomes more advanced, the ability to utilize simple computer programs and internet is more important than ever. Those in poor communities that don’t have access can create severe implications further into the future. Already, those with no internet access have a harder time finding a job, and most end up in the service industry, which pays poor and doesn’t often provide benefits.

Thus, the need for community centers that provide internet access is great. These CTC’s serve three purposes:

1. Access- These CTC’s serve just to allow unrestricted access to the internet. This is also the most common form.

2. Literacy and Training- Classes and help with learning how to use technology are available here. They strive to get users literate in IT.

3. Content- These serve to allow users to publish or broadcast information they believe is important.

While the CTC’s can be benefecial, they must be implemented correctly. They must have the right balance of open access, while educating users on computer skills. Unfortunately, due to the need for volunteers, they are often understaffed, and thus, less effective. This study concluded that while they are a good option for bridging the digital divide, there is not significant information to prove that they are the best choice.

I agreed with most points the authors of this article made. I like the idea of using grassroots community effort to provide access and education for using computers. This seems like a small step that can be done in most communities that can bridge the divide between old and young, rich and poor, and even urban and rural. By educating the community on the lack of internet access by some members and the importance of the knowledge, community members may be sparked to get involved. I really liked that the authors went into detail on the fact that the digital divide could be further polarizing the difference between rich and poor. This is a huge impact on the topic that none of the other articles I read went into. As with my other annotations, the only problem I had with this was the actual study they did. For this case, it is rather clear that it is too soon to tell what difference a CTC has made in furthering an individual’s career, mostly due to the fact that the CTC’s are a relatively new development. I think the authors should have taken this into account when doing the study rather than solely stating that there is not enough evidence.

2010
10/05
CATEGORY
Information Gaps
Wealthy and Poor
TAGS


Write comment

Pew: Rural gap is substantial but closing

John Horrigan, Katherine Murray (Feb. 26, 2006) Home Broadband Adoption in Rural America, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center. Retreived from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Home-Broadband-Adoption-in-Rural-America.aspx

By: Kristin Craddock

A 2006 report by the Pew Research Institute shows a significant, but narrowing, gap in broadband internet use among residents in rural America.

In a report of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, Associate Director John Harrigan reports that “rural Americans lag the rest of the nation when it comes to use of high-speed internet connections at home, as well as basic measures of online penetration.” Even though rural areas have this lag, there is evidence that rural areas are having fast growth. Concluding that there is still a gap with rural and non-rural, but it is narrowing.

According to the report, “by the end of 2005, 24% of rural Americans had high-speed internet connections at home compared with 39% of adult Americans living elsewhere. In 2003, 9% of rural Americans had broadband at home, less than half the rate (22%) in urban and suburban American. For overall internet use – by whatever connection from any location – the penetration rate for adult rural Americans lagged the rest of the country by 8 percentage points at the end of 2005 (a 62% to 70% margin). This is about half the gap that existed at the end of 2003.”

The report concludes that the forces behind this rural digital divide have as much to do with social and economic factors as it dies with technology. It states:

Three demographic factors are behind the persistent difference in internet penetration between rural and non-rural America. First, rural America has a greater share of old Americans than urban and suburban America, and older Americans go online at lower rates than other age groups. Fully 43% of rural Americans are over the age of 50 (and 18% are over age 65) while 38% of non-rural Americans are over the age of 50, with 16% over 65). Income is another factor. More rural Americans fall in the lower end of the nation’s income distribution; 33% of rural respondents in our September-December data say they live in households with incomes below $30,000 annually compared with 24% of non-rural respondents. Finally, rural Americans are, on average, less educated than urban and suburban Americans; 29% of non-rural Americans have college (or higher) degrees compared to 18% of rural Americans.

When taken in “internet time,” in which the pace of innovation is so quick that months seem like years, this report may seem outdated. While the numbers might have changed, the underlying dynamic remains the same. Expensive broadband infrastructure is less likely to be rolled out in rural areas where lower populations reduce potential profit margins. Many rural residents can not afford or do not embrace the technology. Once again, it is the children who are the greatest potential victims. As information technology becomes an even more important component of every industry, limited technology in the schools continues to handicap many rural schoolchildren. This puts their futures at risk.

2010
09/28
CATEGORY
The Digital Divide: Rural vs. Urban
TAGS




Write comment

Bridging the Digital Divide in England Through Grassroots Networked Communities

Gaved, M., & Mulholland, P. (2008, October 10). SpringerLink – AI & Society, Volume 25, Number 3. Welcome to SpringerLink. Retrieved September 28, 2010, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/h702tv7hr15761vv/export-citation/

Mark Gaved is a PhD research fellow at the Open University in England. His concentration of study is grassroots networked communities. Paul Mulholland also works for the Open University, however he is Mark’s supervisor for learning. In “Networking communities from the bottom up: grassroots approaches to overcoming the digital divide”, Gaved and Mulholland argue that access to the internet alone does not dissolve the digital divide that is present in parts of the United Kingdom. Citing social and technological insufficiencies, they focus on grassroots networked communities as a “viable method of overcoming multiple digital insufficiencies and ensuring sustainable and meaningful ICT usage.”

The authors illuminate the British government’s 2004 declaration which states that “the UK should be a world leader in the new knowledge economy.” The government identified universal access to the internet as a top priority in achieving this goal. Thus, providing access to the internet is the key to overcoming the digital divide, according the British government. Gaved and Mulholland believe that a focus on ensuring universal access to telecommunications “led to a discourse neglecting other factors which affect the achievement of sustained and meaningful use.” These factors, which include: equipment, autonomy, skill, social support, and purpose, should be analyzed in order to create sufficiency among users.

According to their research, “local community undoubtedly matters in the lives of the great majority of people… Approaches to overcome the digital divide should therefore consider the significance and possible benefits of taking a locality-based approach.” i.e. Getting people to engage in long-term use and appreciation of the internet will be dependent on a community’s willingness to help others within the community learn to use the system. e.g.just think how much easier it is to learn things in a class where you have friends that encourage your participation.

Using case studies of UK-based community initiatives, the authors “contend that the community needs to be placed as the central actor, and that internet initiatives to overcome the digital divide and enhance community interactions are most effective when undertaken by an elective community of active participants, rather than a selected community of passive recipients.” These case studies were then grouped into different categories which show how the community acts as a whole. The first group, cooperatives communities,  “are clearly defined communities of localities, such as housing associations or distinct neighborhoods, that have worked together to build a network infrastructure to support social interactions both within and beyond their boundaries.” The second group, subculture communities, are a mixture of locality and interest. The third group, pioneering communities, are defined primarily by their interests. The authors go on to discuss the factors which they believe are most important to overcoming the digital divide in the long-term. These factors  lend the conclusion that the community is a stable place where people can become easily involved. This all ties into the premise the authors wants you to believe, that the community creates meaningful use and high levels of participation in the “networked community” through the social ties that already exist within the community.

Gaved and Mulholland present their argument well, though at times it seems that information in the study could be presented elsewhere in the study. Their idea that community based networks will encourage long-term meaningful use of the internet strikes a chord for me because I do feel a community will have a much easier time adapting to technological change if they can meet the challenges together. This holds true in their argument that a networked community will be easy to create because the real social ties that already exist in the community have already laid the foundations for its success. The biggest problem I have with their approach is that in arguing that social ties allow for a successful networked community, there is only a limited point to which social ties exist as the size of communities increases.

2010
09/28
CATEGORY
1st world ddivide
TAGS





Write comment

Teenagers and the Digital Divide

Notten, N., Peter, J., Kraaykamp, G., Valkenburg, P.  (2009, Oct).  Research Note:  Digital Divide Across Borders–A Cross-National Study of Adolescents’ Use of Digital Technologies.  Retrieved from http://0-www.jstor.org.catalog.library.colostate.edu

adrian stewart

In the article titled “Research Note:  Digital Divide Across Borders–A Cross-National Study of Adolescents’ Use of Digital Technologies,” the authors–Natascha Notten, Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen; Jochen Peter, The Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam; Gerbert Kraaykamp, Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen; Patti M. Valkenburg, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam–define the digital divide as an “…unequal access to digital applications resulting in differing economic, cognitive, and socio-cultural resources.” They begin their study with a survey that is distributed to 179, 675 fifteen year old adolescents through out 32 different countries. The survey focuses on questions pertaining to their internet usage and their internet access. The significance of targeting fifteen year olds centers around the fact that this age group tends to incorporate the internet and similar technologies within their lives more so than adults, therefore enabling the  research to be conducted in a more up-to-date fashion. The reaserch sets out to examine the adolescents at not only the macro-level (country), but on the micro-level (family background) as well. The conclusions found that both macro-level influences and micro-level influences affect the patterns of internet usage as well as access and availability to the internet. The conclusions pertaining to the macro-level influences found that a nation’s wealth and quality of education affect wether the adolescent will have internet access at home, but doesn’t affect the adolescents usage patterns of the digital applications available. The conclusions pertaining to micro-level influences found that higher-status, two-parent families are more likely to have internet access at home. Adolescents from single-parent families are less likely to have internet access at home, but they will tend to use the internet more than those adolescents living within higher-status two-parent families.

I found this article to be very helpful in regards to my research with this issue. It covers an aspect of the digital divide that focuses on future generations and how such a divide in technology should be viewed from varying perspectives. Perspectives that not only focus on the small scale influences, but the large scale influences as well. I feel that this is one of the articles strengths in the sense that there are so many different variables to take into consideration when dealing with this issue, that merely focusing on the nations demographics to determine the cause of it is a very weak method. This article steers away from that method and offers insight into other social aspects that may widen this technological gap.

2010
09/27
CATEGORY
Teenagers and the Digital Divide
TAGS


Write comment

The Digital Divide on the African Continent

Nkiru, N.  (2002).  Africaresource.com:  Bridging the Digital Divide.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167097

by adrian stewart

The following article entitled, “Africaresource.com:  Bridging the Digital Divide” attempts to tell the story of how  Nzegwu Nkiru bridges Africa’s digital divide in order to create a tool that would serve to disseminate knowledge in regards to his culture; his race; and his country as well as “offer materials that critically challenge the negative stereotypes of Africa seen on the internet.” As associate professor in the Department of African studies; the Department of Art History; and the Philosophy, Interpretations, and Culture Program at Binghamton University, Nkiru–along with many other like-minded individuals–created the website Africaresource.com in order to act as a medium for such dissemination of knowledge. During the beginning phases of this website, there was great concern in regards to who would be in control, or who would finance the operation of the website due to the fact that access of the internet within “marginalized communities” is “firmly under the domination of the ‘owners’ of gigabits of memory, satellite telecommunications, and undersea fiber opitic cables.” In keeping with the ideals that motivated this project, the creators determined that “[a]utonomy and organizational control” would be key in the failure or success of such an endeavor and that “…funding from any institution” would be out of the question. As the initial goals of the project came to fruition, further goals were set in order to better serve the overall goal of  knowledge dissemination. Such goals included the creation of electronic-journals which could be found at  Africaresource.com. Such journals include:  West Africa Review, Ijele:  Art eJournal of the African World, Jenda:  A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies, Journal for African Philosophy, and Proudflesh:  New Afrikan Journal of Culture, Politics and Conciousness.

This article addresses the issue of the digital divide in a manner that suggests that such problems can be overcome no matter what the circumstances. I feel that the author appeals to the emotional aspect of the reader by “labeling” these “marginalized communities” as victims who will not be able to reap the benefits of technology thus isolating them from myriad types information in regards to their own culture and the technology that is used to “spread” it. Other strengths that this article exhibits are as follows:   explanation of his own trials and tribulations with this project and the obstacles that he had to overcome in order to succeed; listing the skills he had to obtain in order to create this website; and the fruits of his labor that he tells of in the conclusion. All of which are additional appeals to the emotional aspect of the reader.

2010
09/21
CATEGORY
The Digital Divide on the African Continent
TAGS
Write comment

Rural and Urban Divide in Online Healthcare Information

Hale, Timothy M. “Rural-Urban Differences in General and Health-Related Internet Use.” American Behavioral Scientist 53.9 (2010): 1304-1325. Web of Science. Web. 20 Sept. 2010.

By Melissa Eaton

This article, “Rural-Urban Differences in General and Health-Related Internet Use” discusses the digital divide between American citizens who live in rural areas versus those who live in urban areas. More specifically, the article considers whether one group or another uses the internet more for health information. The authors of this article, Hale, Cotten, and Drentea are all based out of the sociology department at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. Hale is a doctoral student and the other two are associate professors. The last author, Goldner is an associate professor at Union College. Thus, the authors are credible sources as they are educated, and have all published several studies.

The authors of this article studied both the differences in general internet use between rural and urban areas, as well as use of internet for health related information. The authors’ intent was to prove wether the same education and income reasons for the difference between general internet use were the same reasons for the difference in healthcare information use. For this study they used data from a survey done by the National Cancer Institute in 2005. Due to different research intent from this study and the study done by the National Cancer Institute, the original survey size of 5,586 was limited down to 2,560.  The study did find that the original belief that internet usage differences are due to income and education level held true. The study found that this is largely in part due to the lack of broadband internet use in rural areas, as those with broadband are more likely to use the internet more frequently. The study also found that people in rural areas are less likely to use the internet for anything health related, such as emailing a doctor, or buying something for health online. More specifically, people in rural areas are about half as likely to use the internet to research five or more health-related issues.

I definitely believe there is a disparity between rural and urban communities. With this considered, I understand that there are most likely great differences in the use of internet and computers in general between the two groups. Also, I do believe that there would be far less use of the internet for researching medical needs by rural areas. I would be interested to see a study on the general views on medical needs by people in rural areas to see if they are as concerned with the subject as those in urban areas. This might explain the difference in use of the internet for that topic if rural areas in general aren’t headed to the doctor every time they get a headache. With that said, I am somewhat skeptical of this survey due to the small sample size. It is difficult to say that 2560 people truly represent the entire United States population of internet users. This ultimately is another study that has the potential to prove a good point in the digital divide, but is lacking the statistical evidence to prove.

2010
09/21
CATEGORY
The Digital Divide: Rural vs. Urban
TAGS




Write comment

What Would Churchill Do?

By: Kristin Craddock

Moran, T. 2010.Pigeons Fly Digital Divide. Bottom Line. Retrived from http://blogs.baselinemag.com/bottom_line/content/infrastructure/pigeons_fly_digital_divide.html#more(2010, Sept. 21).

The following summary is from a blog posting from the blog The Bottom Line entitled Pigeons Fly Digital Divide by Tom Moran. The point of this article was to really show how bad the digital divide is in rural areas.

Trefor Davies set up a stunt in England to prove how severely inadequate the digital divide really is for rural areas. He took two carrier pigeons and then, “tagged [them] with RFID chips, fitted with microSD memory cards containing several hundred megabytes of video, then released from a Yorkshire farm. The pigeons would fly about 60 miles with the memory cards, while the farm’s Internet connection would be used to upload the same video to YouTube.” The Ultimate question was obvious, would the pigeons get the data back before the farmer got the uploaded video clip?

The conclusion to this story, the two pigeons arrived only a second apart from each other. It took them 75 minutes total to return to their loft. The video upload was only a quarter of the way downloaded. The connection speed the farmer had was around 100 to 200 Kbps. In comparison to the high speed internet connection in an urban city can be as high as 100Mbps.  

This humorous example of old-tech versus new-tech illustrates the degree to which the digital divide still impacts the rural areas of England. Considering that the English successfully battled Nazi Germany more than 60 years ago with little more than Morse code and carrier pigeons for communication, this article begs the question: If Winston Churchill were alive today, would he be a netizen? How long must citizens of economic and social top-tier countries wait before they can drink from the digital pool? And, if things are this bad in highly developed countries, what chance does the third world have in bridging the digital divide?

2010
09/20
CATEGORY
1st world ddivide
The Digital Divide: Rural vs. Urban
TAGS


Write comment

Digital Natives vs Digital Immigrants

Prensky, Marc. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” Mark Prensky.com. Web. 14 Sept. 2010. <http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf>.

Marc Prensky is the CEO and founder of Games2Train, a company that specializes in building video games that help students learn. He is also the author of several books and articles that discuss using technology to help today’s students learn, including the article I read, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” In this article Prensky discusses the technological gap between educators and students; digital immigrants and digital natives, respectively. According to the author, the birth of digital technology has posed a gap between educators and students because students now think and learn differently due to the tools they have used throughout their lives. He claims that educators need to let go of some of the “legacy” content such as reading, writing, and arithmetic and instead focus on the “future” content such at digital or technology.  He also states that natives learn differently because they are better at multi-tasking and like random access information over learning information straight from a textbook.

Prensky believes that students need to learn how to use their calculators rather than how to manually perform the calculations. The idea of educating students by teaching them how to use technology to assist them is foreign to most because they have never experience anything like this. Prensky suggests using videos or video games to guide students through the learning process. The problem with this method of teaching is that the immigrants don’t think in a way that appeals to the native population. Thus, creating a video that catches the attention of a multi-tasker is difficult for the single-tasking creater.

I chose to read this article because it was the basis of the research done in the article I did my previous annotation on. While I do still agree that there is a gap between educators and students, I have a hard time believing that this is new. Rather than a technological gap, I think it is an age gap and this cycle has been evolving for generations. While the creation of digital technology has posed obsticles for those used to analog, I don’t think that technology overrules the younger generations minds. Furthermore, I believe that everyone learns differently and to say that all students learn better from videos than books is negligent of different learning styles. However, I do believe that many professors could use technology more effectively to engage students. Also, I do believe that teaching students how to use technology will benefit them in their future careers. Prensky also published a sequel to this in which he published the research he has done on this topic. I am interested to see this research to understand how he came to these conclusions, however, I am still weary of the digital divide between natives and immigrants.

By Melissa

2010
09/15
CATEGORY
Information Gaps
TAGS



Write comment

Grants will help rural schools bridge the technology gap

By Kristin Craddock

McGraw, C. (Sept. 14, 2010) Federal grant will help Colo. schools, libraries get connected. Colorado Springs Gazette

Colorado will receive a $100 million grant from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to build and expand inexpensive broadband service in rural parts of the state, according to an article by Carol McGraw in Tuesday’s Colorado Springs Gazette. The state must kick in $34.7 million in matching funds. This grant has the potential to provide high-speed Internet access to hundreds of rural schools and libraries.

“This project has the potential to provide a modern, 21st-century link to every school district, library and community that has been under-served because of rural location or challenging geography,” Gov. Bill Ritter said in making the announcement Monday. “It will allow schools to better prepare our students for the workforce, help create vibrant business communities throughout the state and improve access to health care and public safety.” According to the Gazette, the grant was obtained by  EAGLE-Net, an inter-governmental consortium working with the Centennial Board of Cooperative Educational Services. Denise Atkinson-Shorey, EAGLE-net’s chief information officer, said the cost savings for schools will be considerable. Some districts have been paying $800 per megabit per month for services. Nearby states with broadband networks spend as little as $60 to $80. Colorado ranks a dismal 42nd among states in broadband connectivity, according to the article.

On the surface, the high plains of Eastern Colorado look to be a flat expanse of prairie land as far as the eye can see. Walk the land, however, and you will inevitably find arroyos and deep canyons cut into the parched Earth — but almost invisible until you come upon them. This is an appropriate metaphor for the state of the digital divide in rural Colorado. On the surface, there appears to be very little gap in technology between the state’s population centers and its expansive rural enclaves. But walk into a classroom in Eads or Antonito or Hoehne and it is often like walking up to the edge of one of these hidden arroyos. The digital divide can be wide and deep and seemingly impassable.

According to the business technology research firm Deloitte & Touche, nineteen Colorado technology companies are included on the firm’s Technology Fast 500 list, a ranking of the fastest growing technology companies in North America based on percentage revenue growth over five years. It is scandalous that a state with such a significant stake in technology, a state which which plays host to giants like Hewlett-Packard and Sun Microsystems, should rank 42nd in broadband connectivity. This grant is a long-past-due but extremely welcome tool to start bridging these gaps.

2010
09/15
CATEGORY
The Digital Divide: Rural vs. Urban
TAGS



Write comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.