Does 'Digital Divide' Rhetoric Do More Harm Than Good?
Wednesday, November 7, at 2 p.m. U.S. Eastern timeIs the public discussion of "digital divide" issues hindering the development of Web content that would attract minority users to the Web? What should be done to diversify online content and to encourage more members of minority groups to use technology?
In 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a report called "Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide." Ever since, the "digital divide" has been a hot issue among educators and technology experts, who have held meetings, issued papers, and consulted with lawmakers about how to attract a more diverse group of users to the Internet, how to diversify Web content, and how to help low-income areas without much Internet access. Now a number of scholars and technology experts are speculating that this discussion may be having a negative impact on the very groups that the educators are trying to help. These experts fear that the digital divide is a self-fulfilling prophesy, portraying members of minority groups as technophobic charity cases and discouraging businesses and educators from developing Web content that would appeal to them. The scholars also say that the discussion ignores the vibrant online resources that focus on minority-related topics and that attract large minority audiences.
» Does 'Digital Divide' Rhetoric Do More Harm Than Good? (11/2/2001)
Tara McPherson is an assistant professor of gender studies and of cinema and television at the University of Southern California. She also helped organize a conference called "Race in Digital Space" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She believes that the digital-divide discussion has obscured the real history of the Internet and the diversity of Web content. Ms. McPherson is the co-editor of Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture (Duke University Press) and is completing work on Reconstructing Dixie: Race, Place, Femininity in the Deep South (also for Duke). She will respond to questions and comments about digital-divide issues on Wednesday, November 7, at 2 p.m. U.S. Eastern time. Advance questions are encouraged and may be posted now.
Jeff Young (Moderator):
Hello, and welcome to Colloquy Live, The Chronicle's real-time discussion forum. I'm Jeff Young, a technology reporter here, and I'll be moderating the discussion.
Today, we're talking about issues of race and technology, focusing on the notion of the "digital divide." Some scholars are arguing that the rhetoric of the digital divide could be doing more harm than good to African-Americans and other minority groups, portraying them as technophobic charity cases who lack the desire to adopt new technologies on their own. What do you think? And what should be done to diversify online content and to encourage more members of minority groups to use technology?
Our guest is Tara McPherson, an assistant professor of gender studies and of cinema and television at the University of Southern California. She helped organize a conference this spring called "Race in Digital Space" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and she plans to hold another conference on the topic next spring, to be held at U.S.C.
During the next hour or so, Ms. McPherson will be answering your questions and responding to your comments. A transcript of the discussion will be posted immediately after the chat.
Thanks for joining us today, Tara.
Tara McPherson:
The digital divide is certainly real and access is still a problem in America, especially in low-iincome communities and rural communities. But when scholars comment on problems with digital divide rhetoric, they're also signaling that discussions of access are never enough. First, access to hardware alone will not empower communities. Instead, we need also to focus on content relevant to particular communities, and to training educators to teach information literacy. Second, the digital divide rhetoric runs the risk of obscuring a rich history of minority engagement with technology, creating a stereotype that minorities do not engage with new technologies. Such a stereotype can limit technological investment in communities of color, making the digital divide rhetoric a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Question from Jeremy Crampton, Georgia State University:
I share many of your concerns over the characterization of the divide as a technological one because it implies there will be a technological "fix." But won't new deployments of technology just ensure new rounds of inequity? If technology is not the solution, where should we target our efforts? Thank you.
Tara McPherson:
Certainly we need to avoid the assumption that there's an easy technological fix to the complex factors impacting the digital divide. Across history, popular American approaches to technology display this kind of technological determinism, an avid belief that technology itself is the answer to social ills.
For instance, many believed that developments like cable television would help foster a greater democracy based upon the technology's placement within local communities. While cable technology in and of itself could (theoretically) allow for greater community interaction, the technology was also situated within larger networks of business and power. Commercial interests soon overran the more progressive possibilities the technology offered. We shouldn't forget these lessons today, particularly as the internet is developing largely as a commercial enterprise free of government guidance or citizen input.
Still, I wouldn't want to say that new deployments of technology inherently ensure new rounds of inequity. I think it matters how we situate these technologies, how we frame access to them, how we structure regulations which might help foster greater diversity in content and broader access. Technology need not automatically divide society, but it will take careful planning to avoid such divisions. As of late, the FCC hardly seems up to the challenge.
Question from Bill Barowy, Lesley University:
Following the logic of the "scholars and technology experts" cited in the discussion abstract, how is it that this very Chronicle discussion does NOT promote the possibility that digital divide issues are primarily rhetorical, and thus NOT hinder the wider recognition of, and action on, the racial, economic, and gender inequities that appear in the data of demographic studies?
Jeff Young:
Thanks for your comment, Bill. So how should we phrase the question for this debate so we don't fall into a rhetorical trap? I address this question to you and/or others out there who might have a comment on this issue.
Question from J. Finn, U. New Hampshire:
What are your thoughts about programs that give computers and/or training to low income or at-risk groups. Is this money well spent, or should it go into different kinds of services?
Tara McPherson:
Programs that provide hardware often fail if not accompanied by a focus on software and content as well as on culturally relevant information. The most successful programs begin with infrastructures already in place within a community and strive to address a community's particular needs. There's a rich tradition of social justice organizing within communities of color, and there's much to be learned by technology centers from these ongoing historic efforts. Successful programs usually combine a community's existing organizers with technological outreach.
Question from Dr. G. Jay Christensen, CA State University, Northridge:
Dr. McPherson, hasn't the digital divide been somewhat overcome by more colleges and universities increasing the numbers of their computer labs? Is it so important the subject matter of the Web links or that students understand the information literacy necessary to properly manipulate the Web? I find many minority students do not understand the concept of non-linear links when they are looking for information on a website. They only want to think linearly.
Tara McPherson:
While universities have certainly expanded access to computer equipment for their students, I'm not convinced this expansion goes very far in addressing many of the core issues of the digital divide. The university in many ways remains a privileged space, and access to computers needs to be much broader. Community-based computing centers are an important development, particularly those which develop from the communities they're located in, addressing a group's specific needs and interests. Beyond access to equipment, it's crucial that content be relevant, that information literacy be stressed, and, perhaps most importantly, that users be encouraged to see themselves as producers of content and as active citizens (rather than as consumers.)
There are some excellent community technology centers in Los Angeles which provide a number of services to their constituencies. OnRamp Arts encourages youth to become producers of technology, creating video games which address
their lives and concerns. USC's Multimedia Literacy Program brings technology into the classroom at some of LA's most troubled high schools, helping students
to explore new modes of responding to traditional course content. Programs like these encourage youth to see themselves as technologically skilled and savvy, fostering information literacy skills and situating technology amongst
familiar environments and scenarios.
Question from anonymous:
I see the "digital divide" issue as a social justice issue. This means that having access to technology hardware, the Internet, knowledge and skills provide a way to increase employment and life opportunities. Having access to the Internet has become vital to being an informed citizen. If you take this perspective on the digital divide and the need for citizens to have access to the knowledge, skills and hardware which support use of information technologies, then your question about hindering the development of Web content becomes irrelevant and myopic.
Question: What is the definition of "digital divide" which is being used by researchers who suggest that it is hindering minority use of the Web? Framework is critical.
Tara McPherson:
Most researchers don't deny the existence of the digital divide and all recognize the importance of access. But attempts to foster an informed citizenry require more than access to hardware and often digital divide conversations focus exclusively on access. By the development of web content I mean precisely access to that information which is necessary for an informed citizen to make decisions in today's world. If left to develop solely as a commercial enterprise, the internet runs the risk of looking a lot like television. The current chair of the FCC has clearly illustrated his lack of interest in using the internet to promote an informed population of citizens when he compared the digital divide to the "Mercedes divide." Such a statement positions Americans not as citizens, but as consumers, and neglected the vitial role the internet can play in making relevant information available to everyone.
Question from Abdul Alkalimat, University of Toledo:
What can be done to recruit more Black intellectuals to become spiders, to move their work into a digital environment in the form of web pages? Most intellectual production remains in the form of written texts.
Tara McPherson:
There are currently African American scholars doing groundbreaking work in the study of new technologies, and some of these scholars are porting their work into digital spaces. For instance, Anna Everett at UC Santa Barbara is completing a book which examines early adopters of new technologies within the black community. She also plans to put some of this content on the web. She's also currently teaching a generation of students to become producers of web materials. Nonetheless, much of the impetus toward new forms of digital expression probably won't come from the academy, a fairly hidebound institution.
Question from Jerry, program evaluator:
We have a program that views information technology skills part of "basic life skills" (such as the ability to write a check) needed for success in this society. What do you think about this notion?
Tara McPherson:
I think it's a great notion, and as US society moves more and more into an information era, citizens will need to be armed with information literacy skills. Such skills include being able to evaluate information received on the internet, understanding basic computer protocols, and ideally, being able to create new media forms. Of course, learning software or tools is not enough, because the tools rapidly change, so the teaching of web skills needs to be embedded within the larger concern of information literacy.
Question from Juan Cisneros ca. st. univ. san marcos:
who are the stakeholders in shortening the gap on this issue. why is it so important to close it; how will this improve their stanard of living?
Tara McPherson:
Most concretely, the stakeholders would be those currently left out of information circuits. But more philosophically, the stakeholders would be all of those broadly invested in social justice and democracy. If we believe that the access to information is important for a vibrant public sphere, ensuring that technology does not increase the divide between citizens helps ensure a more vibrant America. This will demand government attention to the regulation of the internet. Left to commercial forces, there's very little within the history of communications that suggests industry will be very concerned with questions of information and access. It seems to me the FCC is abdicating its role in helping to create a more vibrant democracy through information technologies. Groups like Digital Promise (www.digitalpromise.org) suggest the need for new nonprofit agencies to help ensure our digital future.
Question from Keith Hampson, Ryerson University:
I recently attended a conference during which a keynote speaker suggested that the digital divide is a literacy issue. He noted, in order to prove his point, that all homes (virtually) have televisions, not all have computers. For the speaker, this suggests a difference among people, not of computer access, but of priorities. Any thoughts?
Tara McPherson:
The "most people have televisions analogy" is a common one and illustrates the lack of understandinig around the possibilities for the internet. There's no reason to see internet access and television access as equivalent paradigms, and one goal in bridging the digital divide would be to make widely recognizable the benefits the internet provides beyond the borders of television. This will require information relevant to particular communities, and successful adoption of technology within some community centers suggest the differences between television and the internet today. For instance, the internet can provide richly local information, building upon concerns already existent within a locale, helping to create empowered citizens. Television, on the other hand, has largely abandoned earlier commitments toward localism and fairness. It's important to not view the internet solely as an entertainment device.
Jeff Young (Moderator):
We're about half-way through our discussion. Please keep those questions coming...
Question from Johanna Ward, UC Extension:
Statistics regarding the "Digital Divide" in 1998 do not tell the full story. Current trends indicate that minorities along with seniors are the fastest growing web users. Are you including the use of Internet in libraries, schools, on-the-job,churches and community media centers? Can you give us the current data which is underpinning your statement that the"digital divide" actually exists as constant number which is not in fact changing as computer use accelerates with minorities.
Tara McPherson:
Certainly statistics are a tricky business. Different studies indicate fairly disparate findings in terms of internet access. Some studies include library and community technolgy center access. A 2000 Department of Commerce study suggests 40% of households were connected as opposed to 20% in 1997. Other studies suggest that upwards of 95% of public schools have some connectivity to the internet. Nonetheless, the quality of this access is wildly uneven, and many schools, particularly in low income areas, have had very little investment in software or content. Virtually no federal money has been spent on research and development to help us identify the most appropriate methods for teaching information literacy. All of this again illustrates the limits of using access as the primary mode by which we understand the complex issues of the digital divide.
Comment from Eugene Jones, Technology Consultant-Catalyst:
To what degree is the "digital divide" merely an extension of the "educational divide" that is systemic to our society since both are functions of the same variables (ethnicity, income, ... etc)? The operative question, ... does the digital divide hinder Web content development that attract minorities .. suggest minorities seek "different content" on the Web than non-minories; the Pew Internet and Life studies bear this out. But,in terms of differential access and use of the Internet by ethnic group, how does anyone know what one wants on the Web without first going onto the web first and not finding it? Even NOT finding something one the Web is not assurance that "it" is not there ... someplace ..Or should Web content developers seek to individualize all content ... think not!
Question from Jeff Young:
In a new book, Benjamin M. Compaine of M.I.T. says that earlier technological innovations, such as radio and television, have been adopted over time by most economic and ethnic groups without any government involvement. With those earlier technologies, he adds, no one called for programs to be set up to make sure people had the devices. So why, he asks, should computers and the Internet be treated any differently? Tara, what is your response to this argument?
Tara McPherson:
Again this illustrates a faulty analogy between one-way communications technolgies and two-way communications technologies. In fact, it illustrates a misunderstanding of the histories of technologies like TV and radio. Both of these technologies developed with the potential for two-way communication, most familiar from the figure of the ham radio operator. In these earlier cases commercial interests pursued a development of these technologies as one-way communications devices. Currently, a lack of attention to regulation of the internet could lead to a repeat of these histories. Discussions which see owning a computer as equivalent to owning a television set create a rhetoric which inadvertently makes this development seem inevitable. Tom Streeter's excellent, Selling the Air, powerfully illustrates why we should study the history of these earlier technologies today.
Comment from Bill Barowy, Lesley University:
In response to Jeff Young: As Jeremy points out, there is significant evidence that the problems lumped under the catch-phrase of the "digital divide" are not just technological, but are systemic aspects of our society, which indeed has technological facets. Just as data published by Bowles and Gintis in 1976 indicates that there are real differences in achievement in education in the United States among differing wage earners -- the digital divide studies extend these patterns to access and use of computer technology. The conceptual framework for the discussion is highly important, and if underlying the "digital divide rhetoric" are conceptualizations of technological determinism, then I would argue that our shared framework is faulty. My question then becomes, "Can we keep in mind that the problems of equity are real, and in doing so, how can we focus discussion that furthers the recognition that technology is but one aspect of the problems of increasingly rapid and complex social and economic change in our society?"
Question from June, teacher:
If the digital divide more of a culture gap than a race/income gap, what kind of content is needed to get more "culture of poverty" families interested in getting online?
Tara McPherson:
I think we see good examples of this type of content coming out of community-based technology centers, particularly those centers working with community organizers already known in a particular group. For instance, Community Digital offers a wide array of job training workshops utilizing new technologies and to successfully enable members of low-end communities of Los Angeles access to good jobs in the IT sector. This program created a snowball effect, beginning small, and encouraging more and more members of local communities to engage with the centers' activities. Other programs target youth, illustrating that youth can use technology to create their own relevant content.
Question from Eugene Jones:
What is wrong or right with viewing the information trends using the Internet as as an emerging "utility", in the same form that other technologies have produced. Just as you cannot get "911" service by U. S. mail, you will not be able to get banking or other services except through technology. This perspective removes the mechanics of "how" one make this utility availability, and place it in the "when" category.
Tara McPherson:
Such a model has possibilities but only if we recognize the history of government regulation in the development of utilities. The current embrace of a total free market approach to the internet forecloses the possibility that the internet might develop along the historical models of other utilities in the country.
Comment from Rosa Delgado, Internet Society Geneva Chapter:
This is a comment more than a question. First - digital divide awareness will help world leaders (decision makers) to ensure that technology should not bring new forms of exclusion. Second, Digital divide is not a rethoric it is a fact with more host computers located in Manhatan than in all Africa. Third, there are few divides - English divide, infrastruicture divide, access divide, contents divide, capacity divides, gender divide, etc. Which one to attack first? BTW, the report refer to African-Americans as minorities. What about Latin Americans? they are also part of the minorities in the US. I am Peruvian living in Geneva and chair of the Developing Countries Special Interest Group at the ISOC Geneva Chapter and we are very involved in awareness and education for developing nations.
Question from Jeff Young:
Can you point to other projects that you think do a good job of addressing the issue of the digital divide in more positive ways?
Tara McPherson:
As already mentioned, groups like On Ramp in Los Angeles are doing an excellent job of bringing technology to low income youth. An interesting development is the proposed Baycat technology center, under development in San Francisco's Bayview community. Developed by Herbie Hancock and Bill Strickland in conjunction with the city of San Francisco this center will provide important technological training skills, a basis for artistic endeavors, and most importantly, a clearinghouse for several existent technology centers in the area. Many cities now have a virbrant assortment of small community technology centers. These groups are now faced with scaling their projects, and with forming productive networks between other small technology centers. There's clearly a need for more umbrella organizations to help facilitate these connections. For instance, as part of next summer's Race and Digital Space conference at USC, we'll be hosting a consortium of small technology centers to begin this process of connection.
Question from Anonymous:
Rhetoric (insincere and grandiloquent speech) does more harm than good. However, public discussion of digital divide issues could benefit from the inclusion of those minorities this public discussion is about. The issue is not online content, rather it is the pragmatic applications of the technology, knowlege of its uses, skills to take advantage of those applications, and access. What are your opinions with regard to this?
Tara McPherson:
I agree. Content is not the only important issue. In fact, for me issues of information literacy are more important than particular content. And content is primarily important as it emerges from particular communities. It's vital the these communities play an active role in discussions about our digital future. Again and again, we see the failure of technology initiatives which are imposed on communities from the outside. We know from history that the most successful developments within communities begin from the community's percerption of its own needs. There's much to be learned from the histories of social justice struggles as we strive to move toward a more equitable future.
Question from Chester Grice, National Coordinator BDPA:
The Web is used as much for communications (email, etc..) and information as it is for B2B. Therefore my question is How do we impart among African-Americans the need to sacrifice whatever to insure they have the tools(computer and an ISP) to use the Web.
Tara McPherson:
I suppose one path would rest in improving education more generally if our educational system helped emphasize the importance of information literacy in meaningful ways, the necessity of being plugged in to the digital future would be more readily apparent. This is also an illustration of the way in which certain uses of the digital divide rhetoric may inhibit technology adoption. If we focus on the rich history of African Americans involved in computer technology to date, including computer scientists, software engineers, entrepreneurs, and hip-hop artists, it would become quickly apparent that African Americans already use and innovate with these technologies.
Question from Kate Williams, U of Michigan:
Public computing -- schools, libraries, tech centers, church basements, copy shops ... is where a lot of people of color get online. is it possible that digital divide is a useful rallying concept for all the folks running, raising money for, using these places?
Tara McPherson:
Precisely. The concept of the digital divide has helped facilitate public investments in technology in low income communities. I'm not suggesting that we should abandon the digital divide concept, but instead that we understand that the issue extends beyond mere access to hardware. Likewise, we need to be careful that the rhetoric doesn't obscure the tradition of early adopters of technology within minority communities. It's one thing to use the concept of a digital divide strategically, another to assume it adequately explains all the complex factors in the current situation regarding technology and equity.
Comment from Anonymous:
Yes, there are several projects designed to address this issue. Take a look at the Technology Opportunities Program website. You will find descriptions of over 600 projects in the areas of health, education, public safety, public services and more. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/top/grants/grants.htm
Jeff Young (Moderator):
It looks like we're out of time... Thanks to everyone who participated. And thanks again to Tara McPherson for joining us today.
Tara McPherson:
I thank everyone for their questions and comments. it's clear that despite FCC Chairman Michael Powell's dismissal of this issue, that issues of information literacy and technological equity are still important to many citizens. At this stage, it's important to articulate a strong public voice that these issues matter, to insure that the future of the internet does not replay the patterns set by television and radio. We're currently planning the 2002 Race and Digital Space conference. Further information will soon be available at www.annenberg.edu/race
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education