The term ‘digital divide’ is used to describe disparity in access to information and communication technologies (Eamon, 2004). The digital divide is extremely important for our societies as it interacts with other existing divides and lack of proficiency in IT becomes increasingly equivalent to exclusion from all the benefits of modern society. Despite efforts to reduce it, the digital divide is widening. The main reasons for this are the inefficiency of existing approaches to reduce the gap and the uncovering of new widening factors by the introduction of ICT in new areas of our society, such as education.
During the past years, the term ‘digital divide’ has evolved to a broader sense reflecting the understanding that fair access alone is not enough to bridge the gap. Currently, the ‘digital divide’ is increasingly used to refer to differences not only in access, but also in skill and proficiency level in the field of computers, the net, telecommunications, and information and communication technologies (ICT) in general (Eamon, 2004).
The digital divide is similar to other social divides such as the economic one. However, its impact is likely to be even greater, as ICT is increasingly present in every aspect of our societies. Consequently, lack of proficiency in ICT is increasingly equivalent to exclusion from all the benefits of society and from all ways of influencing its future development. Being able to interact with ICT and participate in evolving it is a direct requirement of social inclusion (Warschauer, 2003).
The great importance of the digital divide is due to the central role that ICT plays in our societies. The importance of ICT in modern societies cannot be overestimated. The digital computer and the Internet have changed and are currently still changing our societies in ways even more profound than the Industrial Revolution ever had. According to Baird, Ramsower, and Rosenbaum (2000), we are currently living the second stage of the Computer Revolution. During the first stage, computers and the ICT field, in general, developed and refined until they reached maturity. In the second stage, the now mature technology is permeating our societies at all levels becoming an integral part of it.
As ICT becomes an integral part of our societies, it also alters social institutions and transforms the requirements for individual people to be able to play an active role in society. To actively interact with changed social institutions, individuals increasingly need to be familiar with ICT. Consequently, the digital divide has increased implications in a large variety of aspects of human life.
Studying the digital divide, Eamon (2004) considers that it raises important concerns in four main directions: ‘educational advantages, future employment and earnings, opportunities for social and civic involvement, and equity and civil rights issues’ (p. 92).
Educational advantages stem from easy access to information and educational resources. Access to ICT however is not enough as the degree of proficiency in ICT makes the actual difference. Students that have access, but are not yet knowledgeable or skilled enough are likely to struggle with mundane tasks instead of focusing on acquiring the desired knowledge and advancing with their education.
Without benefiting at maximum from the information offered by competent use of ICT, those on the lower side of the digital divide are less likely to obtain a well-paid job and are more likely to be part of lower socioeconomic groups. Consequently, there is a bidirectional link between the digital divide and other social divides as the digital divide might be caused by other social gaps such as the economical or generational one (Clark, 2009), but it also intensifies existing social gaps and creates new ones (Latimer, 2001).
The bidirectional link between proficiency with ICT and socioeconomic profile is an issue of equity and civil rights, but it is not the only such issue raised by the digital divide. As ICT pervades society’s communication and decision channels through the introduction of electronic voting systems, for instance, those without access to ICT or less proficient at it are left behind and cannot make their voice heard.
The digital divide has been an international concern for more than 10 years since the term was initially coined in the mid-1990s. During this timeframe, the views on this issue have been refined and several aspects and divergent opinions emerged. Attempts to reduce the digital divide are still conducted, but their results and even their usefulness are being debated.
Many governments and international organizations try to address the digital divide. Organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union monitor the global status of access to ICT and publish periodically relevant data. However, despite such global effort, the 2010 edition of Measuring the Information Society by the International Telecommunications Union shows that the digital divide is still significant and it did not narrow as developed countries increased their ICT levels, while those with lower levels barely maintain their previous improvements.
The lack of success in narrowing the digital divide might be due to an inadequate approach. As the ICT level measures access to ICT, it can be argued that the problem might come from a too narrow definition of the digital divide.
Many researchers such as Warschauer (2003 and 2004), Eamon (2004), DiBello (2005), or Cooper and Weaver (2003) argue that the digital divide is much more complex and access to ICT is just a prerequisite to bridging the gap.
In addition to access to ICT, narrowing the digital divide requires addressing a complex set of other factors. Warschauer (2003) groups these factors into four distinct categories: physical resources (computers and connections), digital resources (content and language), human resources (literacy and education), and social resources (communities and institutions). Thus, the narrow initial focus of the term digital divide caused the attempts to address only the first aspect while practically ignoring the other three.
The four categories of resources needed to address the digital divide suggest an extremely complex issue. This complexity is in sharp contrast with the narrow focus of existing efforts to address it through improving solely the physical resources. The complexity however goes beyond a variety of resources and it touches on social development issues that require an approach that focuses on effective integration of ICT rather than the simple bridging of gaps (Warschauer 2003).
Existing attempts to bridge the digital gap are criticized not only for their narrow focus. Some commentators argue they might be not only inefficient but also even damaging for developing countries. Wade (2000) argues that developing countries should have lower barriers of access to the global information economy than their more developed counterparts. He considers that the current enforcement of equal requirements for e-governance leads only to a new form of dependency for the developing countries as they have to deal with the inherent complexity and powerful, almost monopolistic providers of key ICT services.
The shortcomings of current attempts to address the digital divide are not the only reason for which the gap is widening. As the ICT permeates new areas of our societies, such as education, it activates new factors that cause a greater divide. Varma (2009) and Cooper and Weaver (2003) present evidence that the current usage of computers in the classroom fits very well the needs of male students, but not those of female students. Consequently, female students do not attain their full potential in ICT and therefore are left increasingly behind in a widening digital divide.
The digital divide is similar in principle to other social divides such as the economic one. However, its impact is far more important as ICT is increasingly an integral part of our societies and ICT proficiency becomes a basic prerequisite for a person to be an active member of society. Despite existing efforts to bridge the gap, the digital divide is still significant. In the future, the digital divide might even continue to widen as ICT permeates new areas of our societies and thus activates new factors that add to existing divides.
References
Baird, R. M. & Ramsower, R. & Rosenbaum, S. E. 2000, Cyberethics: Social & Moral Issues in the Computer Age, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.
Clark, LS 2009, ‘Digital Media and the Generation Gap’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 388 — 407
Cooper, J. & Weaver, K. D. 2003, Gender and Computers: Understanding the Digital Divide, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
DiBello, L. 2005, ‘Are We Addressing the Digital Divide? Issues, Access and Real Commitment’, Childhood Education, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 239.
Eamon, M. K. 2004, ‘Digital Divide in Computer Access and Use between Poor and Non-Poor Youth’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 91-112.
International Telecommunications Union, 2010, Measuring the Information Society. Web.
Latimer, C. P. 2001, ‘The digital divide: Understanding and addressing the challenge’, New York, NY: New York State Forum for Information Resource Management.
Varma, R 2009, ‘Gender differences in factors influencing students towards computing’, Computer Science Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37 — 49
Wade, R. H. 2002, ‘Bridging the Digital Divide: New Route to Development or New Form of Dependency?’, Global Governance, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 443-466.
Warschauer M. 2003, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press, London and Cambridge, Mass.
Warschauer M. & Knobel M & Stone L. 2004, ‘Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide’, Educational Policy, vol. 18, no 4, pp. 562-588.