The “Digital Divide”: Present, Futures, and Development Implications

The “digital divide,” a term coined in the late 20th century, highlights the growing disparity in access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) between and within countries (Norris, 2001; Compaine, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).  This concept, its meaning, and its implications for states across the world have been topics of widespread research and debate since the beginning of the 21^st century (OECD, 2000; Attewell, 2001; Goldfarb & Prince, 2007; Katz, 2008; Trucano, 2005; Mar, 2004; Chapman & Mahlck, 2004). Within the United States and abroad, public libraries and public computing centers have attempted to diminish the gap between technology haves and have nots, but some areas, and some people, still lack access to computers, broadband internet, and even mobile phones (Krebeck, 2010; InfoDev, 2010; The Economist, 2010; The Economist, 2005; Richardson et al., 2000). In addition, while the use of mobile phones is growing; smart phones remain inaccessible for the majority of individuals in developing countries. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether reducing these inequalities will help countries “develop” and “modernize” or whether it will increase reliance on imports, and promote capital flight while perpetuating global inequities. This essay evaluates ICTs through three different paradigms: modern cultural perspective, conflict paradigm, and post-modern paradigm.

In a post-modern critique, Warschauer (2003) criticized the discourse of the “digital divide” and contended that the term should not be seen as a binary conception. He argued that such a notion “can even be patronizing because it fails to value the social resources that diverse groups bring to the table” (pg 7). The relationship between different groups of people and technologies vary and the development of a new technology does not by definition imply a benefit to the society. Warschauer (2003) reminds us of that technology is not a panacea. The material realities of ICTs extend beyond the discourse and its semantics (Peet & Hartwick, 2009). The unequal access to ICTs helps to perpetuate the economic differences between the core and periphery states, as the periphery continues to be dependent on the industries and products developed as a result of the knowledge accumulated by the core (Peet & Hartwick, 2009).

One of the primary reasons for the difficulties faced by poorer states in catching up with richer states has been the rapid, usually exponential, rate of innovation in technology through improvements in circuit technology. Since 1965, Moore’s law, or the exponential rate of technological innovation, continues to be supported by quantitative studies (Schaller, 1997; Kurzweil, 2005). Countries have increased their access to technology worldwide, yet the “divide” is a dynamic concept that changes as new technologies develop.

In a study of 179 countries, Norris (2001) illustrated that there were three main “digital divides”, one between countries, or a “global divide”, one between social classes, or a “social divide,” and one between those who use resources and those that do not, or a “democratic divide.” Access to ICTs could be categorized in a different number of ways, and Norris’ categories highlight some of the differing implications of the “divide” depending on how it is conceptualized. It is also important to note that, similar to the use of the term “globalization,” the division between “information haves” and the “have-nots” is not a new concept; rather modern technologies have accentuated historical trends (Friedman, 2007; Sheppard et al., 2009; Compaine, 2001).

ICTs allow people to connect instantaneously worldwide, flattening certain aspects of international trade and communication (Friedman, 2007). Individuals can now find information about a large number of subjects without going to a library. Technology has transformed society, and it will continue to do so for years to come, and at a very fast pace. As such, Friedman (2007), along with other modern cultural paradigm writers, have encouraged countries to invest in ICTs (Steinmueller, 2001; Friedman, 2007; Norris, 2001). Investments in ICTs are seen as a “stage” or objective to be met for a country to modernize and develop.

The rapid growth of ICT industries and their implications for states have led to transformational changes in society (Moravec, 2009). The first Apple personal computer, Apple Lisa, was released in 1984, the internet was created in 1990 by Tim Berners-Lee, and the first mobile phone was developed by Motorola in 1974. Within just a few decades, mobile phone subscriptions extended from 12.4 million in 1990 to an expected 4.6 billion by 2009, the internet has reached most places in the world, and “research firm Gartner, Inc., predicts that there will be 2 billion computers in use worldwide by the year 2014” (Katz, 2008) (Heeks, 2008) (International Telecommunication Union, 2010). Despite the dot-com bubble (1995-2000) and subsequent stock crash in the year 2000, technology industries and their stocks rebounded and have kept rising. Apple and Microsoft stocks are currently valued at over 200 billion dollars, a figure that Google may soon also reach (Satariano, 2010). Facebook, a social network site which launched only in 2004, already has an estimated value of over 30 billion dollars (Hardy, 2010).

In some fields, ICTs have brought very positive changes such as improvements in disability learning tools, distance education tools, long distance communications, and media creation. In various areas of the world citizens are becoming amateur reporters, recording and blogging about events that repressive governments attempt to censor (Diamond, 2010). Yet despite a large number of positive possibilities, some of these technologies are used to a large extent for entertainment purposes.

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the growing use of ICTs has been the video game industry. It alone  has grown tremendously in recent years –  from 10 billion in 1990, to 20 billion in 2000, to 50 billion in 2010 (Chatfield, 2010). Alongside it, video game addiction is increasingly considered by some as a medical condition (American Psychiatric Association, 2007). One of 10 youth gamers between 8 and 18 was considered addicted to video games according to an Iowa State University study (Gentile, 2009).  With today’s youth estimated to spend an average of 10,000 hours playing video games, sending and receiving over 200,000 emails, watching over 20,000 hours of television, and 10,000 hours talking on digital phones before they turn 21 (Prensky, 2003) (McGonigal, 2010); ICTs do not seem to be primarily being used for learning, particularly within traditional formal education. Video games may, in the future, be seen as a way to better engage students and help them learn certain topics effortlessly or without feeling as if one is learning, yet they currently serve primarily as a distraction to formal learning.

From a conflict theory perspective, as long as states remain primarily importers of technology, rather than developers and producers, ICTs will perpetuate inequality. When the technologies are fully appropriated and the local population not only modifies and improves on the technology, but generates new technologies, the “digital divide” and knowledge dependency will diminish. Conflict paradigm theorists such as Carlos Torres (1998) and Robert Arnove (2001) criticized the asymmetrical and negative effects globalization has had in poorer states and the implications for the implications for their education systems (Torres & Arnove, 2007; Arnove, 2001; Torres C. A., 1998). To reduce inequality, education policy experts should focus on increasing access to Open Education Resources (OER) rather than simply attempting to “catch up” with richer societies by emulating their current use of ICTs (Downes, 2007).

As Schultz (1971) contended, states can benefit from investing in education and developing their human capital resources (Schultz, 1971). Schultz (1971) and other modern cultural paradigm theorists such as Rostow (1960) and Sachs (2005) remained hopeful about the ability of states to develop through investments in human capital and diminishing trade barriers (Peet & Hartwick, 2009). While inequalities remain, Sachs (2005) argued that aggregate conditions for humans across the globe have improved during the past decades. Variables such as life expectancy and access to education have improved worldwide, meaning that an average man in Africa today lives better than an average western European man in the 1820s. To Sachs (2005), technology has resulting in a “cascade of technological change” (Sachs, 2005, p. 42).

Yet, human capital has not always provided the rapid returns to investment that were expected. Despite substantial investments in primary and secondary education in Africa during the past four decades the economic returns have been minimal (Easterly, 2002). This has been partly the result of the large gap in education and training. While Education for All (EFA) focused on increasing access to primary education across the world, advanced economies are trying to increase their higher education enrollment and graduation rates. Whereas Friedman (2007) and Sachs (2005) tend to emphasize the positive aspects of globalization, other modern cultural scholars such as Stiglitz (2003) have been more critical of globalization and promote a Keynesian approach to economic development (Stiglitz, 2003).

The proper use of ICTs could help bridge the knowledge and information gap, and aid in achieving a “new stage” of development. Countries could leapfrog past other states through a not yet developed, advanced system of online education which builds and intertwines aspects of Open Education Resources such as OpenCourseWare, Open Source Software, Open Universities, Open Books, Open Access Journals, Creative Commons licenses, and the cumulative creations made through Open Resource Economics (Jonestone, 2005; Downes, 2007; Benkler, 2008). By following Ted Berners-Lee’s call to “raw data now” and taking advance of free materials such as YouTube EDU, ITunes U, Connexions, as well as the future development of more open and freely accessible universities, poor states could use the internet to perhaps eventually provide higher education for all, lifelong learning for all, and break away from the high costs associated with higher education and chains of credentialism (UNESCO, 2009; Faber, 2002; Lubas et al., 2004; Baraniuk, 2006; Berners-Lee, 2009). By using ICTs to create a more open and equitable society, and increase the local development of knowledge, states following a conflict theory approach, could move towards the development of “critical consciousness” and create their own path toward the future (Freire, 1974).  As another scholar within the conflict paradigm, Rodney (1972) emphasized it is important to use the tools of advanced countries primarily for one’s benefit, rather than continuing to fuel a dependent relationship with wealthier economies (Rodney, 1972).

In a post-modern perspective, the growing use of technologies will also allow for the strengthening of local voices, and to move away from the politics of knowledge and the professionalization of development. ICTs are increasingly allowing its users to “rip”, “copy”, “reuse”, “mix”, and “burn” (Baraniuk, 2006). As Napster and peer-to-peer sharing transformed the Music industry, OER may transform our understanding of education. In his recent book, The Tower and The Cloud, Richard Katz (2008) wondered whether: “if a 300-year-old institution like Encyclopedia Britannica [could] be threatened in five years by Wikipedia, [could] other aggregators of expertise (aka colleges and universities be similarly challenged?” (Katz, 2008).

Yet, more than a challenge, OER offers an alternative. OER can help local communities preserve their documents, materials, and extend the reach of their limited human capital through initiatives such as HP Brain Gain, the African Virtual University initiative, and other programs which focus on increasing access to education for all. Rice University Connexions initiative of free textbook materials allow for the customization of chapters, free digital access to quality educational resources, and printing of cheaper materials (Connexions, 2006).

Sen’s (1999) human development writings promoted a local discussion of what “capabilities” were relevant for every community. Sen argued that “capabilities” should be decided upon by the local “voice”, through an open debate (Sen, 1999). Latin American countries, including the Dominican Republic, could use ICTs to include local “voices”, and reduce inequalities. The decision regarding whether or not to introduce new technologies should be carefully scrutinized, as they could also increase inequality and further marginalize local voices. ICTs should be used by the local community to amplify the reach of and dissemination of the local discourse, and thereby increasing its power and influence (Foucault, 1970).

Through INDOTEL, la Camara TIC and a number of small NGOs, the Dominican Republic has attempted to reduce the digital divide. Among the recent impacts of ICTs in the Dominican Republic is the growing access to mobile technology. According to INDOTEL (2010), in the Dominican Republic the use of mobile phones has grown rapidly and there is a currently a rate of 0.91 cellular phones per person. Internet use has rapidly expanded in recent years, from 183.687 Internet accounts in 2006 to 508.603 Internet accounts by June 2010 (INDOTEL, 2010). Based on the average users per Internet connection, INDOTEL believes that 33% of Dominicans, or 3,214,371 people, had access to the Internet by June 2010. Yet, how are ICTs being used in the Dominican Republic? Are they increasing or decreasing inequality? What are their implications for education? What are the government’s objectives and how does the Second Plan Decenal (2008-2018) address and integrate ICTs within its education development plan?

Works Cited

American Psychiatric Association. (2007, June 27). American Psychiatric Association Considers ‘Video Game Addiction’. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625133354.htm

Arnove, R. F. (2001). Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) Facing the Twenty-First Century: Challenges and Contributions. Comparative Education Review , 477-503.

Attewell, P. (2001). The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of Education , 252-259.

Baraniuk, R. (2006, August). Richard Baraniuk: Open Source Learning. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from TED Ideas Worth Spreading: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html

Benkler, Y. (2008, April). TED Ideas Worth Spreading. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from The New Open Source Economics: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html

Berners-Lee, T. (2009, March). Tim Berners-Lee on the next Web. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from TED Ideas Worth Spreading: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html

Chapman, D. W., & Mahlck, L. O. (2004). Adapting Technology for School Improvement: A Global Perspective. Paris: UNESCO.

Chatfield, T. (2010, November 1). Tom Chatfield: 7 ways games reward the brain. Retrieved Nov 4, 2010, from TED Talks: http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_chatfield_7_ways_games_reward_the_brain.html

Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: facing a crisis or creating a myth? Massachussets: MIT Press Sourcebooks.

Connexions. (2006). Connexions: Sharing Knowledge and Building Communities. Houston: Rice University.

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation Technology. Journal of Democracy , 69-83.

Downes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 29-44.

Easterly, W. (2002). The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Faber, B. D. (2002). Educational Models and Open Source: Resisting the Proprietary University. SIGDOC , 31-38.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.

Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Sheed & Ward.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The World is Flat. New York: Picador.

Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological Video Game Use among Youth 8 to 18: A National Study. Psychological Science , 594-602.

Goldfarb, A., & Prince, J. (2007). Internet Adoption and Usage Patterns are Different:Implications for the Digital Divide. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Hardy, Q. (2010, September 23). In Zuckerberg We Trust. Retrieved November 4, 2010, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1011/rich-list-10-technology-facebook-google-laws-zuckerberg-we-trust.html

Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. Computer , 26-33.

INDOTEL. (2010). Graficos Indicadores Estadisticos De Telefonia E Internet Al 30 de Junio de 2010 [Stadistical Graphic Indicators of Telecommunications and the Internet for June 30, 2010]. Santo Domingo: INDOTEL.

InfoDev. (2010). FY09 Annual Report. 2010: InfoDev.

International Telecommunication Union. (2010). The World in 2010: ICT Facts and Figures. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.

Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A. I., Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The New Digital Divide. CyberPsychology and Behavior , 437-442.

Jonestone, S. M. (2005). Open Education Resources Serve the World. EDUCAUSE , 15-18.

Katz, R. N. (2008). The Tower and The Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing. Boulder: EDUCAUSE.

Krebeck, A. (2010). Closing the Digital Divide. www.infotoday.com , 12-15.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Group.

Lubas, R. L., Wolfe, R. H., & Fleishman, M. (2004). Creating Metadata practices for MIT’s OpenCourseWare Project. Library Hi Tech , 138-143.

Mar, N. Y. (2004). Utilizing Information and Communication Technologies to Achieve Lifelong Education for All: A Case Study of Myanmar. Educational Research for Policy and Practice , 141-166.

McGonigal, J. (2010, March). Jane McGonigal: Gaming can make a better world. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from TED Ideas Worth Spreading: http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html

Moravec, J. W. (2009). Technological Applications of Leapfrog. Minneapolis: Leapfrog Institute.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2000). School for Tomorrow: Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD.

Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2009). Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. New York: The Guilford Press.

Prensky, M. (2003). Has “Growing Up Digital” and Extensive Video Game Playing Affected Younger Military Personnel’s Skill Sets? Retrieved November 1, 2010, from Marc Prensky: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Has%20Growing%20Up%20Digital%20Affected%20Military%20Skill%20Sets.pdf

Richardson, D., Ramirez, R., & Haq, M. (2000). Grameen Telecom’s Village Phone Programme in Rural Bangladesh: a Multi-Media Case Study. Guelph: TeleCommons Development Group (TDG) / CIDA.

Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle Le’Ouverture.

Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin Press.

Sagawa, P. I. (1997). The Balkanization of the Internet. The McKinsey Quarterly .

Satariano, A. (2010 , September 23). Apple Passes PetroChina to Become Second-Largest Stock. Retrieved November 9, 2010, from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/apple-passes-petrochina-to-become-world-s-second-largest-stock.html

Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s law: past, present and future. Spectrum – IEEE , 52-59.

Schultz, T. (1971). Investing in Human Capital. New York: The Free Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Sheppard, E., Porter, P. W., Faust, D. R., & Nagar, R. (2009). A World of Difference: Encountering and Contesting Development. New York: Guilford Publications.

Steinmueller, E. W. (2001). ICTs and the possibilities for leapfrogging by developing countries. International Labour Review , 194-210.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton & Company, Inc.

The Economist. (2010, October 31). The librarian’s tale: Too much demand for too few terminals. Retrieved 2 2010, November, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/17311861?story_id=17311861&CFID=147944442&CFTOKEN=80218179

The Economist. (2005, March 10). The real digital divide. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/3742817?story_id=3742817

Torres, C. A. (1998). Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global World. Comparative Education , 421-447 .

Torres, C., & Arnove, R. (2007). Comparative education: the dialectic of the global and the local. Plymount: Rowman & Littlefield.

Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge Maps: ICT in Education. Washington, DC: InfoDev.

Tselentis, G., Domingue, J., Galis, A., Gavras, A., Hausheer, D., Krco, S., et al. (2009). Towards the Future Internet: A European Research Perspective. Amsterdam: IOS.

UNESCO. (2009). Brain Gain Initiative: A digital infrastructure linking African and Arab. Paris: UNESCO / HP.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Massachussets: MIT Press.