digital divide essay introduction

The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity – Essay Example

Introduction, what is the digital divide, causes of the digital divide, reducing the divide, digital divide: essay conclusion, works cited.

The invention of the computer and the subsequent birth of the internet have been seen as the most significant advances of the 20th century.

Over the course of the past few decades, there has been a remarkable rise in the use of computers and the internet. Sahay asserts that the ability of computing technologies to traverse geographical and social barriers has resulted in the creation of a closer knit global community (36). In addition to this, the unprecedented high adoption rate of the internet has resulted in it being a necessity in the running of our day to day lives.

However, there have been concerns due to the fact that these life transforming technologies are disparately available to people in the society. People in the high-income bracket have been seen to have a higher access to computer and the internet. This paper argues that the digital divide does exist and sets out to provide a better understanding of the causes of the same. Solutions to this problem are also addressed by this paper.

The term divide is mostly used to refer to the economic gap that exists between the poor and richer members of the society. In relation to technology, the OECD defines digital divide as ” the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities.” (5). As such, the digital divide refers to the disparities in access of communication technology experienced by people.

While the respective costs of computers and internet access have reduced drastically over the years, these costs still remain significantly expensive for some people in the population. As a result of this, household income is still a large determinant of whether internet access is available at a home.

Income is especially a large factor in developing countries where most people still find the cost of owning a PC prohibitive. However, income as a factor leading to the digital divide is not only confined to developing nations. A report by the NTIA indicated that across the United States, internet access in homes continued to be closely correlated with the income levels (3).

Education also plays a key role in the digital divide. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration indicates that in America, certain groups such as Whites and Asian Americans who possess higher educational levels have higher levels of both computer ownership as well as access to the internet (3). This is because the more educated members of the society are having a higher rate of increased access to computers and internet access as opposed to the less educated.

A simple increase in the access to computer hardware resources through the production of low cost versions of information technology which is affordable to many does not necessarily result in a reduction in the digital divide. This is because in addition to the economic realities there are other prominent factors.

The lack of technological knowhow has been cited as further widening the digital divide. This means that even with access to technology, people might still be unable to make effective usage of the same. Sahay best expresses this problem by asserting that “just by providing people with computers and internet access, we cannot hope to devise a solution to bridge the digital divide.” (37).

Another cause of the digital divide is the social and cultural differences evident in most nations in the world. One’s race and culture have been known to have a deep effect on their adoption and use of a particular technology (Chen and Wellman 42).

This is an opinion which is shared by Sahay who notes that people with fears, assumptions or pre-conceived notions about technology may shy away from its usage (46). As such, people can have the economic means and access to computers and the internet but their culture may retard their use of the same.

The digital divide leads to a loss of the opportunity by many people to benefit from the tremendous economic and educational opportunities that the digital economy provides (NTIA 3). As such, the reduction of this divide by use of digital inclusion steps is necessary for everyone to share in the opportunities provided. As has been demonstrated above, one of the primary causes of the digital divide is the income inequality between people and nations.

Most developing countries have low income levels and their population cannot afford computers. To help alleviate this, programs have been put in place to reduce the cost of computers or even offer them for free to the developing countries. For example, a project by Quanta Computer Inc in 2007 set out to supply laptops to developing world children by having consumers in the U.S. buy 2 laptops and have one donated to Africa (Associated Press).

Studies indicate that males are more likely than females in the comparable population to have internet access at home mostly since women dismiss private computer and internet usage (Korupp and Szydlik 417). The bridging of this gender divide will therefore lead to a reduction in the digital divide that exists.

In recent years, there has been evidence that the gender divide is slowly closing up. This is mostly as a result of the younger generation who use the computer and internet indiscriminately therefore reducing the strong gender bias that once existed. This trend should be encouraged so as to further accelerate the bridging of the digital divide.

As has been illustrated in this paper, there exist non economic factors that may lead to people not making use of computers hence increasing the digital divide. These factors have mostly been dismissed as more attention is placed on the income related divide. However, dealing with this social and cultural related divides will also lead to a decrease in the divide. By alleviating the fears and false notions that people may have about technology, people will be more willing to use computers and the internet.

A divide, be it digital or economic acts as a major roadblock in the way for economic and social prosperity. This paper set out to investigate the digital divide phenomena. To this end, the paper has articulated the issue of digital divide, its causes and solutions to the problem.

While some people do suggest that the digital divide will get bridged on its own as time progresses, I believe that governments should take up affirmative action and fund projects that will result in a digitally inclusive society. Bridging of the digital divide will lead to people and nations increasingly being included in knowledge based societies and economies. This will have a positive impact to every community in the entire world.

Associated Press. Hundred-Dollar Laptop’ on Sale in Two-for-One Deal. 2007. Web.

Chen, Wenhong and Wellman, Barry. The Global Digital Divide- Within and Between Countries . IT & SOCIETY, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 7. 2004, PP. 39-45.

Korupp, Sylvia and Szydlik, Marc. Causes and Trends of the Digital Divide. European Sociological Review Vol. 21. no. 4, 2005.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Falling Through the Net: Towards Digital Inclusion . 2000. Web.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Understanding the Digital Divide . 2001. Web.

Sahay, Rishika. The causes and Trends of the Digital Divide . 2005. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 30). The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/

"The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." IvyPanda , 30 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example'. 30 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

• Bridging the Gap in Meeting Customer Expectations
• Artificial Intelligence: Bridging the Gap to Human-Level Intelligence
• Bridging Uncertainty in Management Consulting
• Excess Use of Technology and Motor Development
• People Have Become Overly Dependent on Technology
• Technology and Negative Effects
• The Concept and Effects of Evolution of Electronic Health Record System Software
• Americans and Digital Knowledge

• Purdue University
• Purdue Engagement
• Community Development

The State of the Digital Divide in the United States

August 17, 2022

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic shed a bright light on an issue that has been around for decades: the digital divide. As parents, children, and workers scrambled to learn, socialize, and work from home, adequate internet connectivity became critical. This analysis takes a detailed look at the digital divide as it was in 2020 (latest year available), who it affected, and its socioeconomic implications by using an innovative metric called the digital divide index . It should also increase awareness on this issue as communities and residents prepare to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime investment in both broadband infrastructure and digital equity, components of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Data for this analysis came primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau 5-year American Community Survey. Additional sources include but are not limited to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Lightcast (formerly known as Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. or EMSI) and Venture Forward by GoDaddy. The unit of analysis was U.S. counties for which DDI scores were calculated 1 .

Digital Divide Index

The digital divide index (DDI) consists of three scores ranging from 0 (lowest divide) to 100 (highest divide) and includes ten variables grouped in two categories: infrastructure/adoption and socioeconomic. For purposes of analysis, the overall DDI score was utilized. Counties were divided into three roughly equal groups based on the DDI score: low (1,031 counties), moderate (1,031 counties), and high (1,063 counties).

These groups were then utilized to analyze a host of other variables to better understand this issue. Figure 1 shows a map of U.S. counties by DDI groups. Of the 1,031 counties with a low digital divide, 747 or 72% were considered urban (population living in urban areas 2 was more than 50%). On the other hand, of the 1,063 counties with a high digital divide, only 187 or 17.5% were urban.

Figure 1 – U.S. Counties by DDI Group

Figure 2 shows the average DDI scores by group. The low group had an average score of 17.33, the moderate group an average score of 26.35, and the high digital divide group an average score of 36.58.

Figure 2 – Average DDI Scores by Group

Next, we look at a host of variables by the DDI group to better understand who it affected and its socioeconomic implications.

Demographics

Figure 3 shows selected demographic characteristics in counties with a low and high digital divide. A higher share of the population in counties with a high digital divide are rural, veterans, living in poverty, and disabled. On the other hand, a higher share of the population in counties with a low digital divide are minorities. While this was somewhat surprising, keep in mind that many counties with a low digital divide are urban, which in turn have a higher share of minorities. Please note that minorities include all but White, non-Hispanic. The share of children is roughly the same between low and high digital divide counties at roughly one-fifth.

Figure 3 – Percent of Population by Selected Demographic Characteristics in Low and High DDI Counties

As the economy continues to digitize, it is important to understand who is being left behind from a workforce perspective. Figure 4 shows the share of population by selected workforce-related variables in low and high digital divide counties. As shown, the share of children enrolled in K-12th grade without a computer or internet subscription is higher in counties with a high digital divide. In fact, one-quarter of children enrolled in Pre-K through 4th grade in high digital divide counties did not have a computer or internet subscription.

Regarding educational attainment, the share of those 25 years or older in high digital divide counties with a bachelor’s degree or higher is 20 percentage points lower compared to the share in low digital divide counties (16.6 versus 36.7). Likewise, the labor force participation rate among the working age population (ages 16 to 64) as well as the prime working age population (ages 25 to 54) is lower in counties with a high digital divide compared to counties with a low digital divide.

Figure 4 – Percent of Population by Selected Workforce Variables in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

Additional household characteristics need to be understood within the digital divide context. Figure 5 shows the share of households by selected characteristics in low and high digital divide counties. The share of lower earning households was higher in high digital divide counties as was the share of households with a person 60 years or older. The share of households with a person 65 or older living alone was also higher compared to low digital divide counties. Regarding the share of households with limited English, the share was slightly higher in counties with a low digital divide compared to a high digital divide.

Figure 5 – Percent of Population by Selected Workforce Variables in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

Digital distress and internet income ratio.

A related metric our Center developed is called “digital distress”. This metric utilizes fewer variables than the DDI but also offers insights for community leaders and residents regarding digital inequities. Figure 6 shows the four variables used to calculate digital distress by low and high digital distress in counties.

Figure 6 – Percent of Households by Digital Distress Metrics in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

One of the variables recently added to the DDI is the “Internet Income Ratio” or IIR. The IIR gauges digital inequality by dividing the share of homes making less than $35,000 without internet access by the share of homes making $75,000 or more without internet access. A higher IIR denotes a higher inequality. Figure 7 shows the share of homes without internet access as well as the IIR in low and high digital divide counties.

In other words, the share of lower income households without internet access is 7.1 times higher compared to the share of wealthier households without internet access in low digital divide counties. This number is higher compared to the 4.4 in counties with a high digital divide. This may seem counterintuitive but nonetheless makes the argument that digital inequity continues to be an issue even in counties with a low digital divide.

Figure 7 – Internet Income Ratio (IIR) in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

Homework and senior gap.

The homework gap has been discussed widely during the pandemic. It refers to the percentage of children that do not have internet access and struggle to complete their homework assignments. Another gap—that is not discussed as much—is the senior gap. This refers to the population aged 65 or older with no internet or computer access. This group can enhance their quality of life significantly if they can participate in online activities. Figure 8 shows the percentage of children and the population ages 65 or older with no access to computers as well as having access to computers but no internet.

As shown, counties with a high digital divide—as measured by the DDI—have a higher children (homework) and senior gap. However, it is important to note that while lack of internet is an issue among seniors, lack of computers is more of an issue. Consider that one-quarter of the population age 65 or older in high digital divide counties did not have a computer compared to 10.5% having a computer, but no internet access.

Figure 8 – Percent of Children and Seniors by Selected Characteristics in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

Digital economy.

This last group of variables shed light on the digital divide and digital economy implications. Figure 9 shows the share of jobs by selected characteristics in low and high digital divide counties. Note that the number of jobs in counties with a low digital divide grew by 11.7% between 2010 and 2020 compared to a 0.5% decrease in counties with a high digital divide. As expected, the share of digital economy jobs 3 in counties with a low digital divide was higher compared to the share in counties with a high digital divide, as was the share of remote work friendly occupations and workers ages 16 and older working from home.

Figure 9 – Share of Jobs by Selected Characteristics in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

Regarding the roughly 80% of occupations, whose digital skill levels were measured, Figure 10 shows that counties with a high digital divide had a lower share of occupations requiring high digital skills (21%) compared to counties with a low digital divide (30.8%). Likewise, the share of jobs requiring low digital skills was larger in counties with a high digital divide compared to counties with a low digital divide.

Figure 10 – Share of Occupations by Digital Skill Level in Low and High Digital Divide Counties

To wrap-up this analysis, we look at two innovative metrics developed by the Venture Forward project by GoDaddy . This project has calculated a microbusiness density metric (the higher the number, the better) that is highly correlated with economic benefits as well as the microbusiness activity index, that considers three components. Infrastructure refers to how ready the county is in terms of physical and intellectual infrastructure. The participation component looks at the number of GoDaddy online microbusinesses run by residents in the community. And the third engagement component looks at how active the websites are in the community. These new metrics are very insightful because there were 2.8 million more online microbusinesses in 2020 compared to 2019.

As shown in Figure 11, the average microbusiness density in low digital divide counties was double the density in high digital divide counties (6.4 versus 3.2). In addition, microbusiness activity index was 15 points higher in low digital divide counties (106.3 versus 91.6). What is interesting, however, is that the difference in the infrastructure and participation components is not as high. This implies that high digital divide counties have some elements in place to take advantage of the digital economy. The issue seems to be more about sophisticated online presence (engagement).

Figure 11 – Microbusiness Density and Activity Index in Low & High Digital Divide Counties

Conclusions and discussion.

The objective of this analysis is to provide a deeper understanding of who the digital divide affects and what socioeconomic implications there are to help communities as they plan and implement their digital equity and broadband infrastructure plans. Please note that we deliberately included metrics that shed light on specific populations targeted by the digital equity act. A couple of disclaimers first, before we jump into conclusions.

First, a tradeoff of grouping counties and analyzing averages is that critical and underlying dynamics are overlooked. Even if your county is included in the low digital divide category, this does not mean that the issue has been addressed. On the other hand, if your county has a high digital divide, this does not mean the situation is dire. There are certainly assets and resources that can be mobilized. Second, this data is two years old. The urgency and nature of the pandemic caused things to go in overdrive creating a highly dynamic landscape. We encourage our readers to use this as a baseline and pursue their own strategies to gather more timely and granular data, including assets and resources.

As shown in this analysis, the digital divide affects groups and areas in different ways. While a greater share of residents living in high digital divide counties are rural, this issue affects urban areas as well. An example of this is the fact that the share of minorities living in high digital divide counties was lower than those living in low digital divide areas. In other words, the share of White non-Hispanics was higher in high digital divide counties. This finding is surprising but makes the point that this issue is affecting residents across all races/ethnicities.

Poorer, disabled, older, less educated populations, and lower labor force participation rates are seen in higher digital divide counties. It is not clear from the analysis if this is a result of the digital divide or simply that these characteristics were already in place and the digital divide is just one more wrinkle to iron out. Also note that lack of devices, and not necessarily internet access, is a larger issue among the population ages 65 or older (also known as the senior gap).

The digital divide is holding back counties from participating fully in the digital economy. Again, it is not clear if this would have been the case regardless of the digital divide, but nonetheless it is placing communities at a disadvantage. As shown, counties with a high digital divide lost jobs between 2010 and 2020 while counties with a low digital divide saw an 11 percent increase. Likewise, the share of occupations requiring high digital skills was larger in counties with a low digital divide. Lastly, microbusiness density and activity were also lower in counties with a high digital divide. However, regarding microbusiness activity, the issue seems to be more about sophisticated online presence rather than infrastructure and number of businesses online.

Granted, these findings may be affected more by external, well-known urban and rural trends given that many counties with a low digital divide are urban. However, should this continue to be the case? What would happen if rural areas and other disadvantaged groups were at digital parity with their urban and more advantaged counterparts? Could they benefit from the digital economy as well? Luckily, significant investments will be taking place in the next several years to begin tackling these digital inequities with real-life consequences.

• Due to data availability, the DDI was calculated for 3,125 counties of the 3,143 in total (18 were excluded).
• Since the official 2020 urban/rural definitions will be released until December of 2022, we used one of the metrics being considered. This metric considers any Census block urban if it has at least 425 housing units per square mile, the equivalent to 1,105 people. The prior urban definition used 500 people per square mile. Please note this estimate is preliminary as the official definitions have not been released.
• Includes 44 industries with 6-digit NAICS codes considered to be “fully” part of the digital economy. These are mostly semiconductors, service providers, batteries as well as software developers and data processing to name a few. Does not include warehousing or retail associated with e-commerce.

Roberto Gallardo is the Vice President for Engagement, Director of the Purdue Center for Regional Development and an Associate Professor in the Agricultural Economics Department.... read more

Industry Clusters and Spatial Machine Learning Methods

Kumar Named New Director of the Purdue

Introducing the New IRS Migration Tool

The Rural Urban Continuum Code: What Changed?

• Broadband (24)
• Data Explorations and Insights (2)
• Data Tools (12)
• Digital Inclusion (7)
• Economic and Business Development (7)
• Engagement (2)
• Health Data (3)
• Indiana's Digital Equity Landscape (5)
• Remote Work (3)
• Strategies (2)
• Workforce & Talent Development (3)

• AHA Communities
• Buy AHA Merchandise
• Cookies and Privacy Policy

In This Section

• Bridging the Digital Divide
• Project Summary
• Note to Instructors
• Photoanalysis of a Family Photograph
• Finding the Historical Context for the Family Photograph
• Sephardic Jews and Their History
• The Ladino Language
• Sara's Story
• Jacob's Story
• Morris's Story
• Clara's Story
• Photoanalysis of the Marriage Photograph
• How This Family History Project Has Been Researched
• Connections to World History

Bridging the Digital Divide: Reflective Essay on "Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age"

Introduction.

During the past decade there has been considerable discussion about the "digital divide," the widening gap between the technological "haves" and "have nots" in the US and globally. 1 Many have predicted that this gap will become ever wider over the next decades, and that significant numbers of poor peoples and nations will be left behind in the revolution in information technology that is sweeping the globe. It is indeed disquieting to think that the global technological transformation now occurring will only serve to intensify disparities and inequities among peoples, however, my observations of this project in relation to recent trends, I am optimistic that over time, the "digital divide" in the US will be narrowed, and that most sectors of society, domestically and globally, will partake of the new technologies and utilize them towards their ends. While digital divide issues have played a role in the experiences of the Southern California cluster in this project, I believe that the conditions that created them are rapidly changing and that the spread of new technologies will shortly lead to an outburst of creative development in higher education, and possibly towards the emergence of a new paradigm in teaching and learning.

Historians and The Digital Divide

My role in "Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age" as Southern California cluster leader has largely been that of coordinating the efforts of six historians to develop web-based teaching materials for the world history survey course, and to identify and work with a small group of historians to review and "field test" those materials. Our objective has been to see ways in which web-based materials can facilitate the use of active learning strategies using primary sources in the survey course, so that history survey courses can also be used to enhance the teaching of critical thinking skills in the general education curriculum. Through all, our objective has nurture a small "learning community" of historians who span the gap between two and four year institutions and who engage in constructive dialogue on the nature of the project and the teaching and learning issues it embodies. Although "digital divide" issues have played a role in the unfolding of the project during the past two or more years, these will cease to be as critical as the new educational technologies become more commonplace, easy to use, and as more computer-literate persons enter the historical profession in years to come. When the technologies become more familiar, we will be able to reflect on the teaching and learning issues with greater assurance than we are at present.

Many history faculty express some reluctance to incorporate Internet-based assignments into their classes because of the problem of access. On my campus, for example, a recent survey indicated that 30% of our students do not have Internet access at home. Thus, if we assign our students web-based materials, many will have to work on the project at one of the computer labs on campus. Additionally, some colleges have very limited student computer facilities, further complicating the problem of access. As many students are juggling their education with work and family obligations, problems of access are sometimes viewed as a hardship. Many instructors have worried about this problem. Are we discriminating against our students if we mandate that they complete computer and Internet-driven assignments? At the same time, we know that to be competitive and functional in their world, they must be computer literate. Paradoxically, are we discriminating against them if we do not require them to do computer-based assignments.

Although this has been the first question raised by faculty with respect to this project and hence has become the de facto framework guiding discussion, I believe there is often a deeper reluctance at work. The fact is that many faculty members in history and other fields in the humanities are only minimally computer literate (simple word processing and, increasingly, email). In my small History department, which consists of eight tenured or tenure track faculty and a cadre of approximately 4-6 part-time instructors, three of the eight full-timers do not have Internet access from their home office computers and are only now getting office computers that will enable easy Internet access.

Moreover, and more to the point, most of my colleagues believe that the Internet has little to offer them as a research tool, as either they work with textual materials not presently available on the Web or they specialize in types of research (e.g., close reading of texts) that makes the Web irrelevant. They have little incentive to explore the use of the new technology in their teaching, nor any particular interest in the use of technology for its own sake. It is a hard sell to convince them that they should try something new and technologically different from what has been tried and true both in their classes and in their experience as professional historians.

Thus if my department is not atypical, although the reluctance of history faculty to explore the new teaching technologies may be framed in terms of concern for students, the "culture" of the historical profession is an equally significant or even greater factor. In a subtle way, I believe these factors have also emerged in the work of our core group. Completing our projects has required far more computer literacy than we had anticipated, and for a majority of the core faculty, the technological dimension was the most challenging aspect of the project.

While at present use of the Internet is largely "transparent," i.e., easy to access and user friendly, at this time in the history of the technology, construction of web-based sites is not so transparent, although it is becoming easier all the time. That is to say, construction of web-based lessons requires much more than minimal computer literacy, as well as use of fairly expensive equipment such as fast and large computers, scanners, digital cameras, etc. While many people in the US do have such equipment for their personal use, the struggling academics I have worked with by and large do not, nor do they have lots of disposable income with which to purchase them. This equipment has not yet become part of their repertory of home consumer products the way that television sets and other appliances are, for example.

For most of the Southern California core faculty in this AHA project, the technology has been the most daunting aspect of our charge. Except for Nancy Fitch of CSU Fullerton, who easily was the most advanced among us in terms of her experience with the technology of developing web-based materials, the others were inexperienced and had varying degrees of understanding of the enterprise as a whole. Again, most of us had little or no experience engaging in our own research using the Web and no experience at all in using computer-based technologies in our teaching. Although Professor Jan Reiff of UCLA helped to orient us to the issues implicit in the project, most of us have had to learn by doing-evidence for the constructivist learning model?

For most of us, technical support from our institutions ranged from non-existent (Bill Jones at Mount SAC and Tom Reins at Fullerton College) to partial (Dave Smith at CSU Pomona and Lael Sorenson at CSU Los Angeles). For myself, I relied upon a colleague who teaches computer-based instruction courses at my university. Without Nancy Fitch's personal one-on-one assistance to several core faculty, we all would have had a far more difficult time. Thus our institutions reflected the digital divide in American higher education--between two and four year institutions and between teaching institutions and research-focused institutions--in terms of computing capability and especially in terms of technical support. In this respect, the participants in this project have been on the other (wrong) side of the digital divide during the time the project was underway.

Problems in the History Survey

As our charge in this AHA project was to focus on the role of new educational technologies in the teaching of the world history survey course, it is of interest to see ways that the core faculty considered the use of technology to address the problems inherent in the teaching of the survey course. These problems are: 1) the problem of student motivation; 2) the problem of "coverage" and, 3) the problem of integration of skill development with content delivery. 2 Although these problems are interrelated, we will consider them separately here.

With regard to student motivation, the survey course is primarily designed as a venue for students to learn basic historical information as well as basic historical concepts. The former often consists inevitably and unavoidably in the retention of historical facts, such as names of historically important people and dates of historically important events, while the historical concepts are most commonly comprised of notions such as chronological thinking or cause/effect sequences. It is probably fair to say that in our assignments and exams for the survey courses, retention of factual information is emphasized at least equally as understanding of basic historical concepts, and probably more so.

We have a basic contradiction with regard to history survey courses, in that we focus on historical facts but we are reasonably certain, based on anecdotal evidence that students offer, that the majority of these historical facts will not be retained in the students' memories for very long after the class has ended. We must teach our students the historical facts if the students are to achieve any of the other skills and insights associated with historical knowledge. In particular, analysis of documentary materials, interpretation of historical events, and construction of historical narratives all require knowledge of the basic historical facts, and the survey course is where this knowledge, precursor to higher forms of historical understanding, is introduced at the college level.

Yet we know that many students find the memorization of names and dates to be onerous and boring. How many of us have heard from students that they "hated" history in high school because "all we did" was memorize names and dates? A student will likely be turned off to the joys of historical investigation because the names and dates that have to be learned have little or no intrinsic meaning.

By and large, our core faculty did not directly address a technology-based solution to this problem, although it was an implicit element in their projects. A technology-neutral approach to the problem of motivation of students in survey courses generally focuses on three types of classroom assignments or activities: 1) those that personalize history through examples; 2) those that study a certain number of events or topics in-depth ("post-holing"); and, 3) those that emphasize active learning, or "doing history" through investigation of primary sources.

The first solution, personalizing history, is often attempted through lectures and readings about persons who lived in the past, but can also be linked to autobiographical or family history assignments. The second solution, in-depth focus, is usually modeled in lectures and then accomplished through assignment of a term paper based on secondary sources, or through a series of shorter writing assignments based on additional reading of secondary sources. The third, active learning through historical investigation based on primary sources, is less frequently employed in the survey courses but often provides the basis for discussion sections or full classroom sessions devoted to discussion of primary sources from readers that often are companions to world history textbooks.

All of the web-based projects developed by the Southern California core faculty can be used to implement one or more of the solutions to the problem of motivation. All of the projects use primary sources in conjunction with discussion questions developed by the lesson designer (active learning through primary sources); all lend themselves to production of one or more specialized writing assignments (post-holing); and at least two (Fitch and Pomerantz) provide the basis for biography and family history projects (personalizing history).

However, in general the core faculty themselves did not overtly address the issue of the role of technology in dealing with student motivation. As a rule, each instructor develops and refines solutions on a dynamic, on-going basis through the process of teaching, and generally these solutions are achieved by relying more on in-class discussions, either whole class or in small group format, and through refining the selection of assigned materials. These solutions have been made, for the most part, without having thought about technology as an aspect to the solution of a teaching and learning problem, and most of the core faculty simply reproduced the structure for in-class discussions and group work onto the web. A basic question that needs to be asked, and which has not yet been asked, is: what do these web-based lessons add to the solution of the problem of motivation that is unique, that cannot be solved effectively through non-technological means?

The second problem, related to the first, is that of "coverage." The greater the chronological and geographical scope of the survey course, the harder it is to cover all the material, and the more critical the problem of student motivation becomes. If what I have noted above is true, then students become more interested when there is time to stop and smell the flowers, so to speak, rather than "viewing flowers on horseback," as the Chinese expression goes. I think it is fair to say that none of the Southern California core faculty in this project consciously considered the role of technology in addressing this problem, although it was implicit in their choice of lessons to develop in the web environment. As with the first problem, a next step is to consciously ask the question of whether technology can provide a different or better solution to the problem of "coverage" in the survey course. Is there some new or different way that computer-technology can assist us in addressing this problem?

Finally, we have the problem of the integration of basic skill development with course content. All of us fret about how to organize our courses so that all the relevant periods of history are covered in sufficient depth, while at the same time using the opportunity afforded by the course to teach or reinforce basic skills such as critical reading, writing and analytical thinking. While in theory this interface should work smoothly, in practice it often involves a constant juggling act in the allocation of instructional time between skill development and content coverage. Many faculty members express frustration at what they perceive as their students' low level of basic skill mastery and resent having to "take time away" from the content of the course to spend time working with the class on writing effective theses statements or topic sentences, for example, or ways to develop a good paragraph, or how to read for the main idea.

As with the issues described above, each instructor develops his or her own individual solution to deal with the problem of integration of basic skills, and in general, as in the cases described above, these solutions have generally been made without regard to technological solutions. Indeed, some faculty may feel that adding technology to the mix poses additional problems for the instructor. Not only does one have reading, writing and critical thinking skills to take time away from the course content, but now one has to deal with problems of computer literacy! Rather than being an enhancement, therefore, technology may be seen as a burden by faculty struggling with the problem of covering a great deal of course material.

The task of the Southern California cluster in this AHA project was specifically to see how we could use the new technologies to facilitate the development of critical reasoning skills of students in the survey courses through use of different types of primary sources. The focus on critical thinking derived from our view that history as a discipline lends itself to strengthening of critical reasoning skills, especially by teaching students how to read texts closely and evaluate their utility as historical sources. While historical habits of mind may differ somewhat from critical reasoning as defined in the general education curricula, there is still considerable overlap, and this is where our group of historians wanted to focus their efforts.

As in the case of the other problems delineated above, however, there was some ambiguity in the ways we dealt specifically with the role of technology in addressing this problem. At least three of the six projects (Fitch, Sorenson, Pomerantz) sought to integrate pictorial sources with written texts, and in one case also began to experiment with incorporation of audio-based source materials as well, thereby utilizing one of the important features of the new technology. We have yet to address the question, however, of what is different about using these sources in a computer and Internet-based environment from using multimedia resources in an in-class environment.

Similarly, we did not address ways to use hyperlink technology to specifically focus on basic skill development. For example, we have become accustomed to using spell checkers and sometimes grammar checking software to improve writing and expect our students to use these word processing features. Dictionaries and multimedia encyclopedias are yet other examples of hyperlink reference functions that aid in writing, as is software specifically designed to help students organize essays and develop generalizations. Are there ways we could have used hyperlink functions to aid in critical reasoning skills? Perhaps, this must remain for further research and exploration.

Thus, the Southern California historians who have participated in this project have varied in their approaches to the questions posed above. For all of us, I think it is fair to say that the web-based projects we developed have served as "extras" rather than as "staples" in the survey course "diet." For most of us that diet consists largely of lecture/discussion format, with some emphasizing the former over the latter. For example, one core faculty member, Dave Smith, has developed his own survey teaching method that emphasizes group projects oriented along structured comparative categories for analysis ("Doing World History"); this method was developed for use in an in-class environment and has not been expanded to consider its functioning in a web environment. Others are eclectic, incorporating group work as aspects of class discussion time. As our classes vary in size from about 40 over 100 students, there are different choices instructors make about how to structure in-class as well as out-of-class time.

One further point needs to be noted about the experiences of the core faculty in developing their materials, and that is the problem with fair use of copyrighted materials. For in-class use, instructors tend to be very informal about their use of Xeroxed materials and rarely perceive the need to obtain permission of the author or publisher. For our web-based lessons, however, we had to be very cautious in this regard and could utilize or link only to materials in the public domain. This necessitated considerable searching in some cases, and considerable hand-wringing. In one case, that of Lael Sorenson's lesson, the web-based lesson differs considerably from its printed version because of the constraints the project observed with regard to copyright regulations.

In general, the core faculty approached the problem of their "assignment" in this project by thinking about topics and assignments they were already teaching, and seeing how those topics and assignments could "translate" to the web environment. This is a reflection of our current level of understanding of technology and its impact on learning. If we consider teaching, especially the integration of new technologies into teaching, as a developmental process, then this project has served to provide each of us with a "snapshot" of our stage of development at this particular point. I think that as the technologies become more familiar and more transparent, we will become more sophisticated in our thinking about their role in the teaching and learning process and more adept at using them to inform our work.

Towards a New Paradigm?

In November 2000 my campus (relatively small and underfunded, beset with many of the same problems experienced by other small, relatively poor colleges nationwide) celebrated its first ever "Technology Day." This day-long program provided an opportunity for the campus community to learn about the technological infrastructure that has been put in place during the past few years on our campus. In the past ten years, approximately $2-$2.5 million has been spent (in campus, CSU system, and federal funds) to upgrade the campus "backbone" and to purchase up-to-date desktop PCs for each faculty office. Starting next year, the University plans to provide each class and each faculty member with individual web sites, so that on-line discussion groups, class sessions and examinations, in addition to web-based lessons and assignments, will be feasible. Additionally, in the next couple of years, "smart" classrooms will be constructed throughout the campus, giving faculty instant access to our multimedia resources in their classrooms, including digitized films and videotapes. Faculty will be able to access Internet sites directly in the classroom as well, and students will have enhanced Internet access from campus computer labs and from terminals at student housing facilities.

One may think that even the relatively modest capital investment made by my university is beyond the means of many struggling colleges and universities in the US, but on the contrary, it is within the resources of many more. My university is about in the middle of the nationwide curve technologically. It is also worth noting that the rapid expansion of wireless technology may soon lower even these relatively modest capital outlay costs. The wireless revolution is presently enabling the "have nots" to leap directly into a wireless-based technological transformation without much capital outlay at all. This means that what I have described above either has happened already at your institution, or will be happening soon. We in higher education will soon no longer be able to think of ourselves as "have nots" with respect to the "digital divide," and it is time to examine the possibilities embodied in the new educational technologies and to think about what implications they hold for the teaching and learning process in our field.

We are in the midst of an era in which many changes are occurring in higher education, some but not all of them fueled by new communications technologies. In particular, Internet technology is facilitating an explosion in distance learning or mediated instruction courses and programs. The web-based projects developed in the AHA's "Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age" are ambiguous as to the ways they might be used by instructors. They might be used as an adjunct to the traditional survey classroom, or they could conceivably form part of a course taught entirely through Internet-based distance learning. Both non-profit and for-profit educational institutions are experimenting with the use of synchronous and asynchronous instructional modes that allow students to take courses "anywhere, anytime," at their own convenience, a phenomenon that may be a fad but more likely is not.

From teacher-centered instruction, the focus shifts with computer-based technologies, subtly or not so subtly, to student-centered learning. The student's active learning is facilitated in that the computer-using student is in a better position to direct his or her own access to information through use of the Internet. This possibility carries with it enormous potential for shifts in the teaching and learning process.

The changes in the "teaching" part of the "teaching and learning process" as a result of the new educational technologies are more readily apparent than are those in the "learning" part. As we undergo transformation from a teaching-centered to a learning-centered model, from passivity to activity on the part of the student, and from information-centered to analysis-centered as to course content, it appears that the role of the instructor is diminished. From master of the classroom, quite literally dominating the classroom from the lectern, the instructor now becomes a guide or facilitator. It is a more modest, and perhaps a more passive role than that to which we are accustomed, and instructors may feel that they have less control over their student's learning. The outcomes seem even more intangible and transient than in the conventionally taught class, because at least in the traditional classroom we knew that something had happened, because we made it happen. As noted recently by Lloyd Armstrong in Change , the publication of the American Association of Higher Education, the role of the instructor in the new educational technology is now "unbundled," with potential that poses many problematic issues for us as faculty:

The knowledgeable professor defines the material to be taught; experts in multimedia pedagogy create the structure of the course, technical people implement it; and assessment experts evaluate the course's success in enabling students to learn. The resulting course may contain lectures by the professor who defined the course, a multiplicity of experts lecturing on specific points, or lectures by a hired presenter to reinforce the course's concepts, or it is also possible the course may have no "talking heads" at all. 3

It is more difficult to get at the changes we might anticipate in the "learning" part of the "teaching and learning process" under this technological transformation. Instructors who have taught recently using asynchronous Internet transmissions report anecdotally that they feel their students are more actively engaged in the class material through the virtual discussion groups and greater opportunity for student-instructor interaction. 4

But to date the research on student learning in distance learning or mediated instruction environments is generally unhelpful in addressing more concretely the question of how or in what ways the student learning differs from that in the traditional classroom. Much of the research has framed this issue in terms of whether or not the learning in distance learning is comparable with that in on-campus classrooms, by looking at various equivalencies, e.g., whether the student is receiving the same level of quality in instruction and services, and by examining student attitudes towards their educational experience in the distance learning environment. Although a great deal of effort is going into the study of these questions (by accrediting bodies and funding agencies, for example), to date the research is inconclusive. 5

The "Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age" project has provided us with the opportunity to reflect upon these issues as we developed our materials and began teaching with them. It think it is fair to say that we are still at the stage of framing questions for research and reflection. Because we as a group have been at such an early stage in our understanding of the new instructional technologies, our formulation of these questions is still tentative. There are two areas of particular interest and concern to historians, however, with regard to the impact of computer technology on student learning. These are, first, the implications for short-range versus sustained examination of materials and concepts, and the second concerns the distinction between linear and associational thinking.

In her thoughtful reflective essay, Nancy Fitch has speculated about the inherent distinctiveness of texts in their printed and electronic forms. 6 In the latter, text is limited by the size of the computer monitor rather than by the size of the printed page, and the thrust of the technology leads to fewer lines, fewer words, and a more distinctive graphic arrangement of text on the screen. Readers become accustomed to taking in text a screen at a time. We can speculate on the unhappy implications of this mode of reading for historical thinking skill and critical reasoning skill development, but these speculations remain just that at present. This is clearly an area of research that historians will find of great interest.

The second area of interest concerns the distinction between linear and associational modes of thought. At least part of the package of "historical habits of mind," particularly chronological thinking development, is linear in nature, as is what we commonly think of as "logical" thought patterns stressed in critical reasoning. Yet we are all aware that hyperlink technology facilitates associational thought, wherein the way links are structured on the Internet enables the student to break out of the instructor's proscribed linear progression into a vastly wider world of associations.

The implications of this shift in thinking modes are yet to be analyzed from the perspective of the historian's craft. Should we be celebrating the creative possibilities of associational thinking, of the prospect of ranging through vast fields of knowledge by means of a few mouse clicks? Should we rethink our goals in the light of this technological shift? Where do linear thinking modes intersect in this new domain, or do they?

These are but two of the types of significant questions around which to frame pedagogical questions in the future. It will take years of experimentation and reflection to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of how to define or redefine our pedagogical goals in the new era, and how to accomplish our pedagogical goals with the new means at hand. We have made a good beginning, thanks to the American Historical Association and the National Endowment for the Humanities, but it is only a beginning.

1. See, e.g., http://www.digitaldivide.gov/

2. These problems, in my opinion, boil down to the essential problem of attempting to incorporate a constructivist learning model into the structure of the survey course. They seem antithetically opposed, and what emerges is an uneasy hybrid.

3. Lloyd Armstrong, "Distance Learning: An Academic Leader's Perspective on a Disruptive Product," Change, 32.6 (Nov.-Dec. 2000) 20-27.

4. Ronald Bergman, November 14, 2000.

5. "What's the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education," Institute for Higher Education Policy, April 1999.

6. Nancy Fitch, " Reflective Essay ."

The digital divide - An introduction

door Alexander van Deursen en Jan van Dijk

During the 1990s, researchers and policy makers began discussing the presence of a so-called “digital divide,” a distinction of people who do and do not have access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). The concept of the digital divide stems from a comparative perspective of social and information inequality and depends on the idea that there are benefits associated with ICT access and usage and negative consequences attending non-access and usage. Originally, the term “digital divide” mostly referred to gaps in access to computers. When the Internet became widely accessible in society and began to provide a primary means of computing, the term shifted to encompass gaps in Internet access. Defining the digital divide in terms of access to the Internet is now the most popular convention. However, other digital equipment such as mobile telephony and digital television are not ruled out by some users of the term digital divide.

 The term digital divide probably has caused more confusion than clarification. According to Gunkel (2003) it is a deeply ambiguous term in the sharp dichotomy it refers to. Van Dijk (2005) has warned against a number of pitfalls of this metaphor. First, the metaphor suggests a simple divide between two clearly divided groups with a yawning gap between them. In fact the divide is more like a spectrum with on the one side people who use computers and the Internet for about every daily task and the people not using them at all at the other side. Secondly, it suggests that the gap is very difficult to bridge. A third misunderstanding might be the impression that the divide is about absolute inequalities, that is between those included and those excluded. In reality most inequalities of the access to digital technology observed are more of a relative kind (see below). A final wrong connotation might be the suggestion that the divide is a static condition while in fact the gaps observed are continually shifting.

An important theoretical distinction concerned is that between individualistic and relational conceptions of social inequality. The first conception departs from so-called methodological individualism (Wellman and Berkowitz, 1988). Differential access to information and computer technologies (ICTs) is related to individuals and their characteristics: level of income and education, employment, age, sex, and ethnicity, to mention the most important ones. This is the usual approach in survey research, which measures the properties of individual respondents. Making multivariate analyses of several individual properties and aggregating them to produce properties of collectivities, one hopes to find background explanations. An alternative notion of inequality uses a relational or network approach (Wellman and Berkowitz, 1988). Here the prime units of analysis are not individuals but the positions of individuals and the relationships between them. Inequality is not primarily a matter of individual attributes but of categorical differences between groups of people. This is the point of departure of the pioneering work Durable Inequality by the American sociologist Charles Tilly (1999). “The central argument runs like this: Large, significant inequalities in advantages among human beings correspond mainly to categorical differences such as black/white, male/female, citizen/foreigner, or Muslim/Jew rather than to individual differences in attributes, propensities, or performances” (Tilly, p. 7). In this conception gender inequality in using ICTs, for example, is not explained by the presumed characteristics of males and females (females having less technical interest etc.) but by the gender relations between them in which males first appropriate new technologies and exclude females in daily practice..

Despite these conceptual problems the term “digital divide” drew attention to the important issue of information inequality in scholarly and political communities at the turn of the century. Countries increasingly realized that the digital divide reduces the potential of the labor force and of innovation. Information and communication technologies were considered to be a growth sector in the economy that should be supported in global competition. Between 2000 and 2004, scientific and policy conferences concerning the digital divide were exceedingly popular, but attention to this matter began to decline in 2004 and 2005 (Van Dijk, 2006). On political and policy-making fronts, many observers, particularly those in rich, developed countries, reached the conclusion that the problem was almost solved, as a rapidly increasing majority of their inhabitants obtained access to computers, the Internet and other digital technologies.

The common current opinion among policy makers and the public at large is that the divide is closing between those who do and do not have access to computers, the Internet and other digital media. In some countries, Internet connection rates in households have reached the figure of 90 percent. Computers, mobile telephony, digital televisions and other digital media are becoming cheaper by the day, while their capacity to perform complex tasks increases. These media are introduced on a massive scale and into all aspects of everyday life. Several applications appear so easy to use that basic literacy supposedly is the sole prerequisite for using them. However, simultaneously defining the digital divide in terms of physical access to a technology is considered superficial by digital divide researchers; physical access alone is no longer considered to be the most important factor explaining information superiority observed. The emphasis is shifting to new dimensions, that is inequalities of skills and usage.  

DIMENSIONS OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

First dimension: physical and material access

An important reason for the decreasing attention given to the digital divide in the first decade of the 21st century may lies in the fact that divides in physical access to the Internet are closing in most western countries. Concerns about acquiring physical access to digital media have completely dominated public opinion and policy perspectives in the last two decades. Indeed, these concerns are still paramount, as many people think the digital divide is closing because 90 percent of the population or more have access to a computer and the Internet. Such a number would put the Internet on a par with television as a media source. One should note that the diffusion of the Internet in the last two decades has occurred even faster than that of television. However, on a global scale the situation is different; in 2010 Internet access was estimated between 20 and 25 percent of the world population, while in many developing countries, Internet access is still restricted to less than ten percent of the population (UN/ITUstatistics). 

Moreover, physical access is not equal to material access. Material access includes all costs related to the use of computers, connections, peripheral equipment, software and services. These costs are diverging in many ways, and people with physical access have very different computer, Internet and other digital media expenses. Considering the current economic crisis in the Western world, the problem of material access to computer and Internet resources for particular parts of the population might become more serious. In this regard, several scholars have pointed toward mobile phones and other portables such as tablet computers as technologies that have the potential to reduce the digital access divide. Mobile phones offer a more affordable means of access to the Internet than computers do when only simple applications that require small data capacity are used (Akiyoshi and Ono, 2008). They are supposed to offer a viable alternative for developing countries. However, one should also keep in mind that mobile phones are by no means a substitute for computers as they lack many advanced applications.

Whatever opportunities mobile phones offer, it is certainly a misconception to think that physical or material access to the Internet automatically bring all the benefits associated with Internet use. Indeed, it is rather schematic and superficial to conceive the digital divide in terms of a binary classification between those with and without physical access to computers or the Internet. Such a belief directly links rates of access to differences in material resources: one either does, or does not have the resources to establish a connection to the Internet. Moreover, such a belief assumes that having a connection correlates with having access to all the advantages the Internet offers. Compaine (2001), for instance, relied on the Diffusion of Innovations (DI) theory of Everett Rogers (1963/1995), who theorized that innovations would spread through society in an S-curve. The S-curve measures the relative speed with which members of a social system adopt a particular innovation and focuses on  the time required for that innovation to be adopted by a certain percentage of the system (Rogers, 1995). The adoption rate accelerates at a first tipping point, called critical mass; at this point, an innovation has been so widely adopted that its continued adoption is self-sustaining (Markus, 1987). At a second tipping point diffusion begins to slow down as the market starts to reach saturation. Here the access divide starts to close. Van Dijk (2012) has portrayed the current situation of the physical access divide on a world scale in terms of the S-curve with the locations of developed and developing countries mapped into it.

The two curved lines in Figure 1 are splitting the main curved line that has the shape of a S to indicate that we have two sides or populations in the digital divide with different  representations of the S-curve (that portrays the average). One curve is for those on the ‘wrong’ side of the digital divide, usually people with low education, low income and higher age and those on the ‘right’ side of the divide, mostly people with high education, high income and lower age. When the two lines come together the physical access divide is closing. However, at this point in time we still do not know whether it will close completely – this is called ‘normalization’ in the Figure - or that a gap will remain because the social categories in the higher curve continue to have a lead because they first adopt every new innovation in the field of digital media (for example the transition from narrowband to broadband). This is called ‘stratification’ by Norris (2001).

If Compaine and van Dijk were correct in applying DI theory to the digital divide, increases in physical access to the Internet would no doubt correspond to the S-curve measuring the adoption of innovations. From this point of view, the digital divide should steadily disappear as the diffusion rate reaches saturation, particularly when ‘normalization’ applies. The likelihood of the correspondence between the declining digital divide and the increasing rate of innovation diffusion would further be augmented as a result of the migration of the Internet to platforms such as digital television and mobile phones; indeed, the mistaken notion that the digital divide is a temporary problem of physical access has been reinforced by these migrations (Golding and Murdock, 2001). However, there are serious problems with applying the DI theory to the study of computer and Internet diffusion (Norris, 2001; Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). Van Dijk (2005: 62-65) mentions several weak assumptions of this theory. First, why should the diffusion of each medium necessarily reach a hundred percent? Instead of this ‘normalization’ it might stop far before the stage of population-wide diffusion or become stratified (some categories keep adopting more and earlier than others). Second, while the DI theory assumes the existence of a single confined medium that does not change, in fact digital media devices often are combined (multimedia) and they continually change in functionality, quality, price and appearance (think about the history of the PC), Finally, the determinism of DI theory is striking: why should there be innovators, early adopters and early or late majority users with every medium?

Other dimensions come forwards: the second-level digital divide

Because it is wrong to assume that physical access to computers and the Internet automatically entails all benefits associated with their use, the digital divide should not be considered as a divide of physical access only. In the literature about the digital divide published after 2000, this conclusion comes forward stronger and stronger. Other dimensions have come forwards. Kling (2000), for instance, suggested a distinction between technical access (i.e., material availability) and social access (i.e., professional knowledge and technical skills necessary to benefit from information technologies). Attewell (2001) distinguished between a first digital divide and a second digital divide. Hargittai (2002), however, suggested what has become perhaps the most familiar distinction: that between first- and second-level digital divides. Besides these dimensions Warschauer (2003) also argued that factors such as content, language, literacy, educational level attained, and institutional structure must be considered. Van Dijk (2005) proposed a causal model with four types of access to ICTs: motivational access (e.g., the lack of the elementary digital experience by people who have no interest or feel hostile toward ICTs), physical access (e.g., the availability of ICTs), digital skills (e.g., the ability to use ICTs), and usage access (the opportunity and practice of using ICTs). He calls the shift from physical access to skills and usage a ‘deepening divide’ as unequal skills and usage are deeply entrenched in existing social inequalities and because they will deepen these inequalities again.

  The dimension of motivation

Each of these scholars shares the following view: while gaps in physical access might be closing in certain respects, other digital divides have begun to grow. In his discussion of motivation access, for instance, van Dijk (2005) argues that the wish to have a computer and a connection to the Internet precedes physical access. Thus, many of those who remain on the excluded side of the digital divide do so for motivational reasons. According to van Dijk, there are not only ‘have-nots’ but also ‘want-nots.’ At the start of the diffusion of new technologies, motivational concerns are the strongest forces to stimulate or prevent the acceptance of those technologies. In several European and American surveys conducted between 1999 and 2003, half of those individuals unconnected to the Internet explicitly stated that they would refuse to seek a connection for the following reasons: no need or significant usage opportunities, no time or liking, rejection of the medium (e.g., Internet and computer games viewed as ‘dangerous’ media), lack of money, or lack of skills (e.g. ARD-ZDF, 1999b and a Pew Internet and American Life survey: Lenhart, Horrigan, Rainie et al., 2003). These observations lead us to one of the most confusing myths produced by popular ideas about the digital divide: that people are either in or out, included or excluded. To explain people’s motivations for using digital technologies, mental and psychological conditions are often mentioned in literature about the digital divide. Here, the phenomena of computer anxiety and techno-phobia are still relevant and continue to create barriers to computer and Internet access in many countries, especially among seniors, people with low educational background and segments of the female population (Brosnan, 1998, Chua, Chen and Wong, 1999, Rockwell and Singleton, 2002, UCLA, 2003)).

The skill dimension

In contemporary literature, inequality of Internet skills increasingly is acknowledged as a key dimension of the digital divide. Several terms are used to frame Internet skills, e.g. digital or information literacy, computer skills, ICT literacy or web fluency. To date, very little scientific research has focused on the actual level of digital skills possessed by various populations. Many large-scale surveys have revealed dramatic differences in skills among populations, including those populations in countries experiencing the extensive diffusion of new media (Van Dijk, 2005; Warschauer, 2003). Nevertheless, these surveys measure actual levels of digital skills only by asking respondents to estimate their own proficiency.

A better way to obtain valid and complete measurements of digital skills is to implement performance tests; such tests would require participants to perform those computer and Internet tasks that are regularly performed in daily life. Hargittai (2002) has begun to implement performance tests in this field. Asking 54 demographically diverse Americans to perform different Internet search tasks, she discovered enormous differences in levels of accomplishment and in the time needed to complete the tasks. In the Netherlands, Van Deursen and Van Dijk (2010, 2011) conducted performance tests in a university media lab on a cross-section of the Dutch population; more than 300 people were tested. Subjects who took the test showed a fairly high level of basic operational and formal skills, but they experienced much more difficulty in processing content-related information and in exercising strategic skills.

The results showed significant differences in performance between people of different ages and levels of education. Age primarily appears to be a significant contributor to the basic skills to use the Internet medium-related skills, as younger people perform better on these skills than older people do. In contrast, older individuals performed better where content-related skills, including information and strategic skills, were needed; this occurred in all instances where the older individuals possessed an adequate level of medium-related skills. However, because many seniors tend to lack medium-related Internet skills, they are seriously limited in their content-related skills. Nevertheless, this observation provides another perspective on popular notions about the abilities of the so-called ‘digital generation.’ It also shows that the skills inequality problem will not automatically disappear in the future and that life experience and substantial education of all kinds remain vital for acquiring digital skills.

The usage dimension

Aside from divergences in skill levels, the digital divide debate has increasingly drawn attention to the actual usage of the Internet. As a dependent factor, Internet use can be measured in several ways (e.g., usage time and frequency; number and diversity of usage applications; broadband or narrowband use; more or less active or creative use). Statistics regarding usage time and frequency are notoriously unreliable, as they rely on shifting and divergent operational definitions that are often determined by market research bureaus. These statistics give only some indication of the difference between actual use and physical access. It is certain, for example, that actual use diverges greatly from potential use. Furthermore, those who have a computer and/or Internet connection not always actually use them. Many assumed users actually use the computer or the Internet only once a week or a few times a month; some people never use them.

It is important to understand that when a physical access gap for a particular social category closes, usage of the medium concerned does not automatically equalize. Here the concept of ‘usage gap’ might apply. This concept is comparable to the concept ‘knowledge gap’ created in the 1970s by Tichenor, Donohue and Olien (1970). While the knowledge gap concerns the differential derivation of knowledge achieved through mass media and focuses, in particular, on mass media’s influence on perception and cognition, the usage gap concept is much broader and potentially more effective in terms of social inequality because this gap concerns differential uses of and activities with computers and the Internet in all spheres of daily life, not just the derivation of knowledge.

The usage gap closures becomes most apparent when looking at types of usage. It is generally assumed that some Internet activities are more beneficial or advantageous for Internet users than others. Some activities offer users more chances and resources to move forward in their career, work, education and societal position than others that are mainly consumptive or entertaining (e.g., Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Kim and Kim, 2001; Mossberger, Tolbert and Stansbury, 2003; Van Dijk, 2005; Wasserman and Richmond-Abbott, 2005). In terms of the theories of capital inspired by Bourdieu (1984), one could also say that certain Internet activities allow users to accrue more economic, social and cultural capital and resources than other activities. While some sections of the population will more frequently use those applications that have the greatest advantages for accruing capital and resources (work, career, study, societal participation, etc.), other sections will choose to use those entertainment applications that have little or no advantage for accruing capital and resources (e.g., van Dijk, 1999; Bonfadelli, 2002; Park, 2002; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009).

These differences in types of Internet use call into question the belief that growing up in a digital world results in an intuitive and unproblematic use of digital technologies (see Prensky, 2001). A difference exists between the personal and purposeful uses of technologies such as the Internet. Recently, several scholars have addressed the digital divide by attempting to classify Internet usage types. Some of these classifications take the uses-and-gratifications approach (Katz, Blumler and Gureitch, 1974) as a starting point, while others make use of the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) or Social Cognitive Theory. Finally, there are scholars who account for differences in usage by grouping Internet users into use typologies (e.g., Ortega Egea, Menéndez and González, 2007).

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND INEQUALITY

What is the stake or concern of the digital divide? Do people with no access or limited access actually experience disadvantages? Two contra-arguments are given frequently by people relativizing the importance of the digital divide. The first argument is that people still have the traditional media at their disposal, which also deliver information and provide the needed communication channels. For those who have no Internet, a multitude of broadcasting and print media is available, and for those who have no access to e-commerce, physical shops abound. People searching new social contacts or romantic encounters do not necessarily require a social-networking site or an online-dating service, as the choice of physical meeting places is immense. Those individuals who want to make a reservation can still pick up the phone. The second argument is that the non-hierarchical nature of the Internet, in conjunction with the declining cost of computing technologies and their increasing user friendliness, encourages social leveling and undermines existing patterns of class, race, and gender inequalities (see Tambini, 2000).

However, after the times of the Internet hype around the turn of the century most scholars now agree that differences in Internet access among segments of the population tend to reinforce social inequalities. Witte and Mannon (2009), for example, argue that the Internet is both intertwined with and consequential for inequality. Considering the Internet in a paradoxical way, they contend that it is not only an exemplar of a free and open society but also an active reproducer and potential accelerator of social inequality. To understand this paradox one has to realize that the digital divide is more characterized by relative than by absolute inequalities (see Introduction). The digital divide signifies a spectrum of positions of inclusion and exclusion, not a binary classification of absolute inclusion and exclusion. Ninety percent or more of a population might have access to computers and the Internet while social and information inequality continue to rise on account of unequal material access, digital skills and usage opportunities.

A classification of resources suggested by Bourdieu (1984) is often mentioned in discussions of the Internet’s contribution to inequality. Bourdieu reimagined both Marx and Weber’s ideas of social inequality in industrial society by defining economic, cultural, and social capital. Economic capital reflects Marx’s ideas of property assets and other economic inequalities such as particular positions in the relations of production that might increase one’s capacities (Hoffman, 2008). Meanwhile, social capital consists of resources based on group membership, relationships, networks, and support; according to Bourdieu, social capital “constitutes the totality of current and potential resources connected to a durable network of more or less institutionalized relations characterized by mutual knowing or acknowledgements; in other words, social capital is a resource based on the affiliation to a group” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 190). Finally, cultural capital is formed by knowledge, skills, education, and social-cultural distinction, all of which give a person a higher status in society.

All forms of capital defined by Bourdieu are applicable to the Internet. In fact, Internet use and Bourdieuian forms of capital reinforce each other. On the one hand, all forms of capital affect Internet access: economic capital is a requisite to acquire physical and material access to computers and the Internet; social capital is needed to learn from others how to connect to the Internet, how to use it and how to connect to those others; finally, cultural capital is required to cope with the diversity of content available to people of different cultural backgrounds. On the other hand, when these three requirements are met, the Internet in turn starts to affect the three forms of capital. For example, economic capital is increased by buying profitable resources online or by finding better jobs; social capital can be augmented by extending physical networks into virtual ones, perhaps increasing civic engagement and a sense of community (Katz and Rice, 2002); and cultural capital can be increased by using the Internet for learning purposes.

The result of the mutually determining relationship between forms of capital and the Internet is the usage gap discussed before which means that some individuals use the Internet in capital-enhancing ways, while others either do not use it or use it in less effective and less profitable ways; and the Internet may, of course, also be used simply for leisure (Hargittai and Shafer, 2006; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009). Furthermore, the intensive and extensive nature of Internet use among the well-off and well-educated correlates with an elite life-style, one from which those with less capital are excluded (Van Dijk, 2005; Witte and Mannon, 2009). The result of this last observation is that groups with fewer forms of capital are likely to be affected in negative ways by the Internet: flights will be booked, concerts will be sold out, jobs will be given away, and dates will primarily be granted to those having access. This is the main counter-argument against the argument that traditional channels still offer all opportunities called above. Rather than encouraging equality, the Internet tends to reinforce social inequality and can lead to the formation of more permanent disadvantaged and excluded groups unless deliberate economic, cultural and educational policies are installed by responsible policy makers (Golding, 1996; Van Dijk, 2005). As Witte and Mannon (2009) contend, Internet access can be understood as a tool for the maintenance of class privilege and power as the inequalities upon which they rest are reproduced from one generation to the next.

Much theoretical work on the concept of network society also suggests that the Internet increases social inequalities. Castells (1999) considers the divide between those who are and are not networked as one of the major axes of social inequality (Castells, 1999). He contends that the particular framing of ICTs in the context of global, informational, and increasingly de-regulated capitalism has been a major factor in the increase of inequality, in general, and of social exclusion, in particular. Because technological access is essential for both the improvement of living conditions and personal development, ICTs deepen discrimination and inequality in the absence of deliberate, corrective policies (Castells, 1999).

Van Dijk (1999, 2006, 2012) defines the network society as a form of society that organizes its relationships into media networks; these networks gradually replace or merge with the social networks of face-to-face communication. For Van Dijk, media networks have become the nervous system of society and are shaping the primary means of social organization and the most important structures of modern society. In a network society, information should be considered a positional good, with some positions creating better opportunities than others for gathering, processing, and using valuable information (Van Dijk, 2005). The positions people have in networks determine their individual potential power; this concept reflects the Weberian idea that human relationships should be considered alongside economic assets when discussing social inequality. When someone in a network society has only a marginal position or no position at all, he or she experiences social exclusion because the opportunities are reduced.. Meanwhile, those who have a central position in society achieve social inclusion and thereby increase their power, capital, and resources (Van Dijk, 2005). With unequal positions comes an unequal distribution of positional goods. According to the mechanism of opportunity hoarding, those individuals who have central positions in networks tend to appropriate more goods, to exert more control over particular facilities and to wield greater power within networks; they then capture the returns of these resources and use them to reproduce the boundary between themselves and those who are socially excluded (Tilly, 1999).

In conclusion, most recent scientific literature on the digital divide suggests that the Internet has the potential to strengthen traditional kinds of inequality rather than to ameliorate them. Unequal access to the Internet has varying consequences in several areas of society: the economic (e.g., acquisition and maintenance of jobs), the social (e.g., development and maintenance of social contacts), the political (e.g., voting and other kinds of political participation), the cultural (e.g., participation in cyber-culture), the spatial (e.g., the ability to lead a mobile life) and the institutional (e.g., recognition and attainment of citizens’ rights).

• Akiyoshi, M., and H. Ono. 2008. The diffusion of mobile Internet in Japan. The Information Society 24:292–306.
• Attewell, P. (2001). The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of Education, 74 (3), 252-259.
• Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The Internet and knowledge gaps: a theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65-84.
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste . London: Routledge.
• Castells, M. (1999). Flows, networks and identity: A critical theory of the international society. In M. Castells, et al. (Eds.), Critical Education in the New Information Age . Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham.
• Castells, M. (2004). The network society: a cross-cultural perspective . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
• DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital divide’ to ‘Digital inequality’:Studying internet use as penetration increases. Working Paper Series 15: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies.
• DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From Unequal Access             to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality. In Neckerman, K. (Ed.), Social Inequality (pp. 355-400).       New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Golding, P. (1996). World-wide Wedge: Division and contradiction in the global information infrastructure. Monthly Review, 48 (3), 70-86.
• Golding, P., & Murdock, G. (2001). Digital divides: communications policy and its contradictions. New Economy, 8 (2), 110-115.
• Compaine, B.M. (2001). The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? London: MIT Press.
• Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology’, MIS Quartely 13(3): 319-340.
• Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: the role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87 (2), 432-448.
• Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday, 7 (4) .
• Hargittai, E., and Hinnant, A. (2008) ‘Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the Internet’, Communication Research 35(5): 602-621.
• Hoffman, R. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in old age mortality. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Katz, E., Blumler, J.,and Gurevitch, M. (1974) ‘Utilization of mass communication by the individual’, in J. Blumler and E. Katz (eds) The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research, pp. 19–34. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Katz, J.E., & Rice, R. (2002). Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change:             The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16 (3), 217-    232.
• Kim, M, and Kim. J. (2001) ‘Digital Divide: Conceptual Discussions and Prospect’, in W. Kim, T.W. Ling, Y.J. Lee, and S.S. Park (eds) The Human Society and the Internet,             pp. 136-146.  Berlin. New York: Springer
• Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., et al., 2003. The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from http//:www.pewinternet.org .
• Markus, L.M. (1987). Toward a “Critical Mass” theory of interactive media. Communication Research, 14 (5), 491-511.
• Mason, S.M., & Hacker, K.L. (2003). Applying communication theory to digital divide research. IT&Society, 1 (5), 40-55.
• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J., and Stansbury, M. (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ortega Egea, J.M., Menéndez, M.R., and González, M.V.R. (2007) ‘Diffusion and usage patterns of Internet services in the European Union, informations research’, International Electronic Journal 12: 302.
• Park, H.W. (2002). The digital divide in South Korea: Closing and widening             divides in the 1990s. Electronic Journal of Communication, 12 (1-2).
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
• Steyaert, J. (2002). Inequality and the digital divide: myths and realities. In S. Hick             & J. McNutt (Eds.), Advocacy, activism and the internet (pp. 199-211). Chicago: Lyceum Press.
• Selwyn, N (2006). Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and   low-users of computers. Poetics, 34 (4-5), 273-292.
• Tambini, D. (2000). Universal Internet access: A realistic view. Retrieved from http://www.csls.ox.ac.uk/
• Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A., & Olien, C.N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
• Tilly, C. (1999). Durable Inequality . University of California Press.
• Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2011). Internet Skills and the Digital Divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911.
• Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315-327.
• Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a complex and             dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19 (4), 315-327.
• Van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34 (4-5), 221-35.
• Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Wasserman, I.M., and Richmond-Abbott, M. (2005) ‘Gender and the Internet: Causes of Variation in Access, Level, and Scope of Use’, Social Science Quarterly 86: 252–70.
• Willis, S., & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the digital divide. Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 42 (1), 43-59.
• Witte, J.C., & Mannon, S.E. (2009). The Internet and social inequalities. New York: Routledge.
• Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital Distinction: Status-Specific Types of             Internet Usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 274-291.

The Digital Divide: Bridging the Gap for Equal Access to Technology

Paper written on 24-08-2023.

The text was generated by artificial intelligence (OpenAI models), you can work on it freely. The website owner is not responsible for its content.

Related texts you may be interested in:

Promoting pluralism and sustainability: balancing orthodox theocracy and social-democratic values in a democratic society.

Promoting Pluralism and Sustainability: Balancing Orthodox Theocracy and Social-Democratic Values in a Democratic Society Introduction: In a democratic society, there is an inherent need to strike a delicate balance between promoting pluralism and sustainability while accommodating diverse relig [...]

Cyberbullying and Its Forms

Introduction: In recent years, the advent of technology and the widespread use of the internet have given rise to new forms of harassment and aggression known as cyberbullying. This paper aims to explore the various facets of cyberbullying, examine its different forms, and shed light on the consequ [...]

The Emerging Menace to International Stability: The Growing Complexity of Cybersecurity

Introduction: International stability and peace are vital to the progress, prosperity, and security of nations across the globe. However, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected through advancements in technology and communication, new threats pose significant challenges to international s [...]

Understanding the Digital Divide in Education

The Apple I personal computer first hit stores in 1976, and from 1984 to 2015, the number of people who had a household computer increased by 72 percent, according to ThoughtCo. With the increase in internet capabilities and in the number of people who had access to computers and the internet in their homes, educators began relying heavily on digital technology. This is how the digital divide in education began.

While 87 percent of households in the US currently have access to a computer, smartphone, tablet, or other internet-enabled device and 73 percent have access to the internet, a digital divide remains. The issue lies mostly with access to high-speed broadband, which is required for individuals to be able to make use of much of what’s available on the internet.

Marginalized communities including people of color, low-income individuals, English-language learners, people with disabilities, and populations experiencing homelessness are among those most likely to lack access to high-speed internet. The impact of the digital divide on these students has been significant and—due to transition to online learning during the coronavirus pandemic—continues to worsen.

What Is the Digital Divide?

The digital divide in education is the gap between those with sufficient knowledge of and access to technology and those without, according to the ACT Center for Equity in Learning. To examine the divide requires looking at who can connect to what and how they do so. For example, a student who has multiple laptops in their home and has access to high-speed broadband likely will have better educational success than someone who has one computer to share with their entire family and only has dial-up internet access.

As teachers use more technology in their courses, this divide increases and continues to perpetuate socioeconomic disparities for underserved populations, according to the ACT Center for Equity in Learning. About 17 percent of students are unable to complete their homework due to their limited access to the internet. Additionally, 50 percent of low-income families and 42 percent of families of color don’t have the technology required for online education, according to the Education Trust.

To fully understand the impact of the digital divide, looking at the rise of technology in the classroom is an important first step.

History of Technology in Education

The integration of technology into the classroom began during the Cold War era with the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite into space. With America’s initial loss in the race to space, the federal government began pushing math and science education and embracing technology. In 1963, the Vocational Education Act provided funding for technology in schools, according to Classcraft. In the early 1980s, computers made their way into the classroom. By the mid-1980s, Apple computers became common in classrooms.

While the initial funding for technology in schools came from the government, schools had to continue to fund technological advancements once the federal money ran out. Since schools are funded through local property taxes, the schools in low-income areas didn’t have as much money to spend on technology as those in high-income communities.

In the next two decades, technology began to advance rapidly. The introduction of email, video, and other digital media made two-way digital communications possible, including between teachers and students. The increased emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in the 2000s brought about an even greater implementation of technology in education. But, as technology advanced and computers became the norm in most American classrooms and households, school budgets couldn’t keep up, increasing the digital divide in education and creating resource gaps among students.

How Did the Digital Divide Affect Education in the US?

The impacts of the digital divide in education have been significant. The digital divide has affected individual students in the same school as well as groups of students across districts, lowering the academic outcomes of low-income, underserved students and districts.

Impact of Individuals in the Same School

Digital disparities are seen within individuals in schools. A school can implement technology and teach every student how to use it, but if a student doesn’t have access to a device or high-speed internet at home, they won’t show the same academic results. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that students who didn’t have access to the internet or only had dial-up in their home could be broken down as follows:

• 27 percent were American Indian
• 19 percent were Black
• 17 percent were Hispanic
• 12 percent were Pacific Islander
• 7 percent were two or more races
• 7 percent were white
• 3 percent were Asian

Students from marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by the digital divide. In addition to limited access to the internet, 19 percent of underserved students have only one device at home—a rate that is three times higher than it is for more privileged students.

Unequal access to high-speed internet and home devices in conjunction with the increase in teachers assigning homework assignments that require internet use—in 2009, seven out of 10 teachers assigned homework that required using the internet—has made for an expanding digital divide in education. This inhibits students from completing homework, putting them behind in their classes. The result is a disadvantaged educational and socioeconomic outcome for underserved groups of students.

Impact of Student Groups in a District

The disparities between underserved and privileged students in a school are also seen between districts. Rural school districts are more likely to have no or only dial-up internet, and their students are less likely to have multiple devices at home.

Additionally, districts in different areas of a state experience a digital divide due to the socioeconomic status of that area. For example, the Sto-Rox district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was ranked one of the worst districts in the area. The area’s low socioeconomic status has resulted in limited funding for education. The district has only 30 to 60 laptops to share among 1,300 students. This has resulted in students leaving for other districts where they will have more technology and academic opportunity.

Another district near Pittsburgh is on the opposite end of the digital divide because of its partnership with a local university: Carnegie Mellon. The college is helping develop the computer science curriculum in the district as well as training teachers at the school to prepare students for a better digital education.

The same thing is seen at schools in districts in Silicon Valley versus other districts in California. These districts partner with major corporations like Google to provide every student with a Chromebook to use at home and in class, according to EqOpTech. Their socioeconomic status in conjunction with the technological support they receive sets up these students for academic success.

Overall Impact of the Digital Divide

Students experience the digital divide in education across the US. Four major outcomes can result from less access to digital technology, according to the Digital Divide Council:

1. Low performance : Low-income families have less access to information that will advance their education.

2. Competitive edge : Students with access to the internet will do better when they enter college due to universities embracing technology at an increasing rate.

3. Convenience in learning : Privileged students have access to better devices and face less hurdles to complete their education.

4. Different learning experiences : Students from low socioeconomic areas face more disadvantages and have to spend more hours to complete learning objectives.

These outcomes most impact students of color and those in low-income families. They also inhibit the long-term success of students.

Equality in Online Learning

The digital divide has been growing for years, but the global pandemic has accelerated its growth. Moving to remote learning in the spring of 2020, students in low-income areas and students of color experienced a disadvantage over other students. Additionally, the factor of childcare has been added to the digital divide in education. Parents in low-income areas who are more likely to work multiple jobs have struggled to find the time to help their children with their schoolwork, whereas high-income parents have the flexibility to take time off of work and the resources to hire tutors to aid their student’s education. As students have gone back to school in the fall—some fully remote, some fully in person, and others in a hybrid model—reaching equality in online learning has been the primary goal.

As of September 2, 2020, 73 percent of the 100 largest districts in America have chosen to instruct fully online, according to Education Week . This affects over eight million students. A study done by the Pew Research Center in the spring of 2020 found that 36 percent of low-income students couldn’t complete their schoolwork because they didn’t have a computer compared to 14 percent of middle-income and 4 percent of upper-income students.

While schools in more affluent districts are able to provide laptops to all students in need, others don’t have the funding. To help increase equity, some districts have held fundraising events. For example, Chicago public schools received $50 million to provide high-speed internet to 100,000 students. Whereas other districts who lack funding, such as Palo Verde Unified School District in California, provided learning packets every two weeks instead of holding online classes.

To aid in device and internet equity, some states are ensuring every student has access to Wi-Fi and a computer. The California Department of Education confirmed it will provide both of these resources to all students in need.

Bridging the Digital Divide in Education

As the global pandemic has thrown the digital divide into the spotlight, many educational leaders have made headway in bridging the digital divide in education. From providing internet to students with the most need, to ensuring every student has their own computer, leaders are beginning to increase equity among districts and students.

The California Bridging the Digital Divide Fund has raised $12.3 million to help allocate supplies to students, and a California digital divide task force and fund collected donations that bought 56,700 laptops and provided 94,000 hot spots, according to EdSource.

Chicago public schools have also made headway, providing free high-speed internet to 100,000 students. Additionally, they have begun building a permanent support system for Chicago families known as Chicago Connected. This effort works with philanthropic partners to bridge initial costs and will provide internet access to families who need it most.

To further help, the Education Trust recommends educational leaders and policy makers do the following:

• Survey the needs of families most impacted by the digital divide.
• Create conversations with leaders about how to fund additional resources.
• Connect with potential donors and technology companies about digital resource partnerships.
• Look at the school and evaluate the present digital divide, then allocate resources to bridge the gap.
• Provide training and information technology support to educators and parents in the most impacted districts.
• Create a plan with education agencies on how to bridge the gap long term.

By following these steps, leaders can help increase student academic outcomes and lessen the digital divide for future generations of students.

Become an Advocate for Equitable Education

Bridging the digital divide requires educational leaders and policy makers to advocate for educational equality. American University’s Online Master of Education in Policy Leadership and Online Doctorate in Education Policy Leadership help individuals looking to bridge the digital divide in education as well as promote equality in education receive the knowledge they need to do so. Prepare to promote equity in education at American University.

School Funding Issues: How Decreasing Budgets Are Impacting Student Learning and Achievement

Classroom Segregation: History and Current Impact on Student Education

Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

ACT Center for Equity in Learning, “The Digital Divide and Educational Equity”

Chicago Public Schools, “Chicago Launches Groundbreaking Initiative to Bridge Digital Divide, Providing Free High-Speed Internet Access to Over 100,000 CPS Students”

Classcraft, “The History of the Emergence of Technology in Education”

Digital Divide Council, “5 Ways the Digital Divide Effects Education”

EdSource, “Long Road Ahead to Close California’s Digital Divide in Education Before New School Year Begins”

Education Week , “School Districts’ Reopening Plans: A Snapshot”

EqOpTech, “The Digital Divide in Education”

National Center for Education Statistics, “The Digital Divide: Differences in Home Internet Access”

Pew Research Center, “53% of Americans Say the Internet Has Been Essential During the COVID-19 Outbreak”

The Education Trust—West, “Education Equity in Crisis: The Digital Divide”

ThoughtCo., “Understanding America’s Digital Divide”

Wired , “A ‘Covid Slide’ Could Widen the Digital Divide for Students”

Request Information

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is the Digital Divide?

Understanding the digital divide.

• Consequences

Bridging the Digital Divide

• Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act

The Bottom Line

• Macroeconomics

The Digital Divide: What It Is, and What's Being Done to Close It

Erika Rasure is globally-recognized as a leading consumer economics subject matter expert, researcher, and educator. She is a financial therapist and transformational coach, with a special interest in helping women learn how to invest.

Investopedia / Jiaqi Zhou

The digital divide is the gap created by unequal access to modern telecommunications technology among different demographic groups and regions. This can include inequalities in access to computers, smartphones , the Internet, or digital literacy.

When the term "digital divide" was first used in the late 20th century, it described the gap between those with cellphone access and those without it. The term has since expanded to include the technical and financial ability to use available technology and access the internet. However, the meaning of the "digital divide" is constantly shifting with the development of technology.

Key Takeaways

• The digital divide encompasses the technical and financial ability to utilize available technology, along with access (or a lack of access) to the internet.
• Digital divides exist between developed and developing countries, urban and rural populations, young and educated versus older and less educated individuals, and men and women.
• The consequences of the digital divide include isolation, which can affect mental health, educational barriers as postsecondary education increasingly moves online, and worsening gender discrimination.
• The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the differences in digital coverage in the U.S., such as among children forced to attend school remotely and in less affluent communities where people have struggled to get vaccination appointments.
• The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes $65 billion for narrowing the digital divide.

The digital divide describes the gap between people who have access to affordable, reliable internet service ( and the skills and gadgets necessary to take advantage of that access) and those who lack it.

This is an issue within many countries, with rural populations much more likely to be cut off from digital technologies than city residents are. The divide also exists among countries and continents. And it exists between men and women: In 2022, 62% of the global male population was using the internet, compared with 57% of the female population, a gap that has been narrowing over the past decade.

Beyond the gaps between developed and developing countries, rural and urban populations, and men and women, there are other types of digital divides:

• The access divide: This is the most visible digital divide. It refers to the socioeconomic differences among people and the impact on their ability to afford the devices necessary to get online. In developing countries, many people have limited access to technology or the internet and do not have the skills necessary to use it effectively.
• The use divide: This refers to the difference in the level of skills possessed by individuals. There is a generation gap when it comes to the skills necessary to use the internet. It is also affected by the quality of education that an individual receives. Younger, educated people tend to have more skills than older, less educated ones. 
• The quality-of-use gap: This measure is a little more complicated. It refers to the different ways that people use the internet and the fact that some people are far more able to get the information they need from it than others.

These gaps in connectivity and skills reflect existing differences in wealth and access to education, as well as gender discrimination. The digital divide also exacerbates these same differences by barring many people from the information necessary to break out of their current living situation.

Meanings of Digital Divide

The original "digital divide" was the gap created by unequal access to cell phones. Since then, the term has been adapted to other aspects of communications technology. There are also digital divides in:

• Inequalities in internet access for socioeconomic reasons
• Geographical differences in internet speed and access.
• Unequal access to 4G/5G networks for mobile internet
• Unequal access to computers/mobile devices
• Gaps in digital literacy, due to generation and/or education gaps.

The Global Digital Divide

For many years, the global digital divide was seen as a consequence of economic development. As countries and individuals became richer, the common expectation was that they would purchase digital devices and infrastructure and the digital divide would close naturally.

Yet incomes have risen around the world over the past two decades, and access to digital services has remained stubbornly low in much of the developing world. In many cases, this is due to a lack of investment in internet infrastructure. Citizens may have internet-enabled devices, but still no connection to the World Wide Web. The internet penetration rate still varies widely among continents: In 2022, 80% of Europeans had internet access, compared with just 22% of Africans.

Between 2015 and 2021, the percentage of the world population that was projected to be covered by a 4G network doubled, reaching 88%. More current forecasts project the world to be 95% covered by 2028.

However, those statistics hide a great deal of variation within countries and regions. Large countries with ocean borders tend to have much better internet access, even when they are underdeveloped in other areas. This is why the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations agency for information and communication technologies, started to provide statistics on landlocked developing countries and small island developing states based on aggregate statistics in the developing world.

Similarly, there are major disparities in internet access even within highly developed countries. Many rural Americans are still without adequate internet access, and still more lack the skills to take full advantage of the access they do have. Indeed, the most accurate predictors of the digital divide are not age or country. They are educational level and the urban-rural divide. According to recent studies, people living in urban areas globally have roughly twice the level of internet access in their homes compared with those who live in rural areas.

Some analysts fear that, instead of narrowing, the digital divide is getting wider. In addition, some questionable business practices appear to be widening the gap even within developed nations: The ongoing debates about net neutrality and versioning can be seen as issues about equitable access to the digital world.

Consequences of the Digital Divide

Until quite recently, access to the internet was seen as a luxury, and disparities in digital access were seen in largely the same terms. However, there is now widespread consensus that technological discrimination is a form of social exclusion because it deprives certain citizens of essential resources for wealth development.

This is most visible when one looks at the balance of the world economy and particularly at the rapid growth in the number of jobs that require digital access and skills. In the U.S., for instance, nearly half of all jobs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) are in computing. Lack of access to learning these skills is a barrier to these jobs and the income that comes with them.

You don’t have to aspire to a career in tech to be affected by the digital divide. The impacts of the phenomenon reach many people, in several important ways:

• Lack of communication and isolation: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus the isolation that people without internet access or skills can quickly experience. This can have serious concomitant effects—from not being able to secure appointments for vaccination against the coronavirus to limiting individuals’ job prospects and affecting their mental health.
• Barriers to education: As education is increasingly delivered online, those without the resources to access the internet, including schoolchildren limited to remote learning during the pandemic, can be cut off from opportunities to develop their skills. As a result, children may have educational gaps, and adults may miss out on job opportunities or be unable to gain the basic skills necessary to contribute to their community.
• Worsening gender discrimination: As noted above, the digital divide also exacerbates many existing forms of discrimination. One of the most widespread is gender discrimination. Women who lack equal access to the internet are unable to gain an education or information that could help them challenge (and have a better chance of raising) their status.

As the world becomes increasingly dependent on digital technologies, these consequences are likely to become more serious and widespread. It is incumbent upon societies to address the digital divide in a holistic way that recognizes its many aspects and negative outcomes.

A 2021 study by Deloitte revealed more than $186 billion of economic output and more than 875,000 additional U.S. jobs would have occurred had there been a 10% increase in broadband access the country in 2014.

In recent years, programs have been launched that aim to combat particular aspects of the digital divide. Many of these are being coordinated at the highest level, including within the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9, which allows individual countries to coordinate their activities toward ending digital discrimination.

Within the developed world, some analysts point to successful 20th-century programs that lifted millions of people out of poverty. One commonly mentioned example is the Rural Electrification Act during the Great Depression , which stands as an example of how the government can help provide technology to underserved areas that private companies don't consider profitable enough to include in their networks.

In addition, two programs have been launched in the past few years to address other aspects of the digital divide:

• The Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) aims to reduce the cost of broadband internet in specific areas in the world.
• Starlink provides high-speed internet and global coverage at affordable prices via satellites it has launched into space.

Many countries now also run digital literacy programs aimed at teaching both adults and children the skills necessary to breach the digital divide.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

On Nov. 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. Passed with bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, the many-faceted bill takes dead aim at reducing the digital divide by providing $65 billion to bring high-speed internet to rural areas of America.

Providers who accept the funds are required to offer a low-cost, affordable plan to consumers and display a broadband nutrition label, which will allow people to comparison-shop for the best offer. It also mandates that the Federal Communications Commission must adopt rules prohibiting digital redlining , and creates a permanent new perk to help low-income households access the internet in the form of an affordable connectivity benefit, for which more than one-fourth of American households will be eligible.

Wrapped into the bill is the Digital Equity Act, originally proposed by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in 2019 and co-sponsored by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), which establishes two new federal grant programs “to promote digital equality nationwide.” One program will be run by state governments and provide “state-by-state digital equity planning followed by implementation grants to qualifying programs.” The other program creates a yearly national competitive grant program “to support digital equity projects undertaken by individual groups, coalitions, and/or communities of interest anywhere in the U.S.”

When Did the Term "Digital Divide" Originate?

The term has been around since the late 20th century, when it labeled the difference between people with cellphones and those without them. Today, it refers to the difference between those who have internet access (as well as access to other forms of digital communication) and those who do not.

Who Is on What Side of the Divide?

The divide exists in myriad ways, including between urban and rural areas, developed and underdeveloped countries, men and women, and even ocean-bordering and landlocked countries. In all of those cases, the former category is doing better than the latter.

What Is Being Done to Close the Digital Divide?

There are programs to alleviate the situation, both internationally and in the U.S. The former group includes the Alliance for Affordable Internet, which aims to lower the cost of broadband around the globe; One Laptop Per Child, which supplies low-cost laptops to children as well as programs to teach them digital skills; and Starlink, a for-profit enterprise that offers affordable access to high-speed internet around the world thanks to its dedicated space satellites.

U.S. action is exemplified by the recently passed bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a multifaceted piece of legislation that includes $65 billion for programs that will work to bring high-speed internet to the nation's rural areas.

The digital divide refers to the unequal access and usage of technology, particularly the internet, among different groups within society. This disparity often stems from factors like socioeconomic status, geography, education, and age, leading to limited opportunities for those without adequate digital resources to participate fully in the digital world and benefit from its opportunities. There are many legislative efforts to promote digital accessability.

International Telecommunication Union. " Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures ," Page 3.

International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group. " Bringing Africa Up to High Speed ."

International Telecommunication Union. " Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures ," Page 10.

Ericsson. " 5G Network Coverage Forecast ."

International Telecommunication Union. " Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures ," Page 6.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Why Computer Occupations Are Behind Strong STEM Employment Growth in the 2019-29 Decade ."

Deloitte. " Deloitte: Quantifying the Economic Impact of Closing the Digital Divide ."

United Nations. " Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development Goal 9 ."

Living New Deal. " Rural Electrification Act (1936) ."

Alliance for Affordable Internet. " Affordability Report 2020 ."

Starlink. " Order Starlink ."

The White House. " President Biden to Sign Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Monday ."

The White House. " Updated Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ."

Digital Equality Act. " The Digital Equality Act ."

U.S. Department of Commerce. " Fact Sheet: Department of Commerce's Use of Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Funding to Help Close the Digital Divide ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Nerding it up, by @joahua .

© 2024. All rights reserved.

Josh (the blog)

I’ve delivered simple, clear and easy-to-use services for 20 years, for startups, scaleups and government. I write about the nerdy bits here.

An essay on the digital divide

What is the digital divide, and what implications for society and the individual are seen to arise from this.

A rather broad topic, perhaps, but useful, nonetheless. Warning — it’s fairly long.

Update : Now in pretty PDF form!

What is it?

The term ‘digital divide’ refers to the disparity in terms of access that has emerged following the advent of electronic information and communication mechanisms in the realm of consumer technology. Notably, this notion of ‘access’ applies to more than mere physical proximity and availability of resources – Mark Warschauer’s text, Technology and Social Inclusion 1 argues that the primary barrier to be overcome in terms of equitable access is not simply implementing the technology in the first instance, but implementing it in a way which does not simply view infrastructure as the first and only barrier to be overcome, instead heeding the issue of training and skills development as an inextricably connected aspect of the same problem.

In light of this, the ‘digital divide’ is beyond resolution through simply attaining (or donating, with regard to aid efforts) appropriate resources – ongoing, consistent efforts are required, at least for a period sufficient to rectify the situation in the medium term. That is to say, until industry and, perhaps more importantly, education, exist and are well established in whatever demographic the disparity was evident in (be that geographic, racial, or otherwise), such that this industry and education may be self-sufficient, to sustain and promote the growth of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) literacy in that region.

Having identified that need (although perhaps not having justified it), what is required? Clearly, infrastructure is. In many places, however, this need has already been fulfilled through aid donations from ‘corporate citizens’, aid organisations, and governments – note this does not necessarily mean foreign governments – it is important not to view the digital divide purely geographically, and, even if it is, the geography of an individual state may create a inequitable climate in terms of access – Australian rural areas are an example of this, as recognised in the NET*Working 2002 Vocational Education conference 2 .

It is now commonly understood in circles where the ‘digital divide’ is of holistic concern (that is, not as much the realm of electronic content creation – which may be aware of and actively working to rectify the divide, even though they are not aware of issues associated with it which do not directly impact their activities) that training and recognition of non-physical issues as necessarily a part of any approach to overcome said concern. Understanding this, then, provides necessary grounding for understanding what the ‘digital divide’ is.

Implications for society

The digital divide, viewed at a societal level, is not without a degree of ‘prior art’ that may be applied in order for objective, contextual, examination to occur. In this instance, the ‘prior art’ is found in the Industrial Revolution which occurred globally from the eighteenth century onwards – this is still occurring in many contemporary states, such as (provinces of) China and other nations (primarily in Asia).

What, then, is the picture presented from this ‘prior art’? Is the portrait painted one of bleak defeat and growing societal and economic disparity? Or, in this real-world scenario, is a resolution of this ‘divide’ something that is attainable, and, if it proceeds along the same lines as the Industrial Revolution, the natural outcome to which events shall point?

The Industrial Revolution first occurred in any real form in Britain and the United States, and then propagated to various European nations and, to a lesser extent, colonies, in the nineteenth century. Prior to this revolution, it has been noted that China and Japan were at a similar point in societal development to that of Western nations, however industrialisation did not occur there until much later. Reasons attributed to this have ranged from proximity and capacity for communication of ideas (as opposed to the type and rate of ideas and how rapidly these were being explored) to mere geography, however this is largely irrelevant to the present discussion. Of greater consequence is the Meiji Restoration in Japan in the late twentieth century, during which they achieved in less than 40 years an industrial capacity that had taken western nations two centuries to develop. If ever there were a success story with regard to rapid industrialisation, Meiji Japan was it.

Of course, industrialisation does not occur (and has not occurred) without significant societal strain. The Meiji Restoration in Japan resulted in significant social turmoil, especially in terms of their class-structured society, but also in the sudden concentration of population in urban areas. The time period in which this occurred, in contrast with that of Western nations prior to it, accentuated the effects of this change process – whilst industrialisation enabled international competitiveness (especially in terms of high-value silk exports) and economic benefits, the speed with which this was achieved lead to societal suffering greater than that experienced in Western nations, where urban facilities could be developed in step (or at least closer) with the influx of new population from rural areas.

Today, Japan is a globally recognised force economically and industrially, and a leading innovator in the fields of electronic and information technology device manufacture and adoption. It boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world, and one would be hard-pressed to find any remaining disadvantage with which Japan is burdened as a result of its (comparatively) late industrialisation.

Clearly, late adoption is not a barrier to subsequent achievement and even restoration of status. Rudyard Kipling’s Cities and Thrones and Powers may also be cited, if poetic rather than historical-political reference is desired – the point stands. Achievement at one point does not guarantee continued status, and late adoption does not require the continuation of any detriment that may be found in that, either.

A view of the Digital Divide should, perhaps, be akin to this – but possibly not. This ‘prior art’ has shaped the direction and nature of the world, as has the technological revolution which followed it – of which debate is now held. The world, though, has not yet fully industrialised. Nations may be developing, or simply not holding either the desire or the resources to develop – several small Pacific islands are an example of this. Ironically, some of these have achieved a status of technological advancement (albeit at a nation-state level, rather than for the general populace) without ever experiencing industrialisation, as a result of exploitation on an international level of their domestic legal systems – several such islands are now used for the purposes of money laundering, etc.

Inherently, this only serves to accentuate the point that ‘first achiever’ status is non-essential. Viewed holistically, however, this renders any such prior art inconsequential – nations did not achieve an industrialised state through foreign abuse of internal policy.

The digital divide, then, may be likened to past events and linked with past policies, yet these do not clearly encompass its scope or the manner in which the world must proceed in order to achieve resolution to the present situation – partially because there is no established path to trouble-free industrialisation, and as such it is impossible to ascertain such a path for progression in terms of ICT adoption and implementation. Clearly, nations that are generally considered ‘prosperous’ and ‘developed’ are more likely to fall on the ‘developed’ side of this digital divide, and, given wise internal policy, are likely to stay there through continuing change. Having said this, however, even within nations there are factors that may affect the access of specific groups to resources, such as geography (speaking of networks, for a moment, there is a clear limitation that arises in terms of the quality of resources, more than anything, as a result of physical distance) and regional demographics.

At a societal level, then, ICT adoption in terms of the emerging divide cannot simply be likened to a past revolution of technology, even in the manner discussed above. Viewed in greater detail, the potential parallel collapses even further, as the ICT “revolution” occurring at present is in terms of access to information , restructuring society and, ultimately, creating horizontal networks, which is perhaps the reverse of the outcome of the Industrial revolution (the creation of hierarchical networks) in its consequence, and entirely different in process – the Industrial revolution being about innovations in production and industry, resulting in the creation of a new class and a restructuring of society (evident in the social turmoil during the Meiji Restoration period in Japan)? through the process of ‘deskilling’ in which the capacity for independent thought is renounced, rather than actively promoted as with the freedom of expression inherently a part of this ICT revolution.

ICT can be seen to similarly result in the restructuring of society, however in doing this, it damages or alters class structures, and create a new degree of equality in the potential it gives for use to achieve common communication. Conversely, limited adoption of ICT, as evident in the digital divide, could be seen to have another effect – the widening of divisions within society, not into class, but into a new class system of access.

A common misconception would have this new class system being labelled as binary in nature (pun unintentional, undesired, and unrelated) – that is, that it could simply be split into two categories of ‘have’ and ‘have not’. Whilst cursory examination of the matter may result in this understanding of the divide, any attempt to delve deeper will quickly result in an understanding that there are many levels within this seemingly binary divide.

Many factors combine to form this multi-faceted divide, the main aspects being:

• Physical access to technology
• Quality of technology
• Usability of technology
• Internationalisation/localisation of technology (specifically software platforms)
• Access to training
• Presence and impact of regional information technology sector facilitating further personal and professional development in terms of IT usage

Clearly, these factors cannot be condensed into simple categories of ‘have’ and ‘have not’ – representation of these in terms of the degree of access on a linear scale would likewise fail – a two-dimensional modelling of a six-dimensional issue (those six being the key factors outlined above) is overly simplistic and probably not advantageous in its modelling of the problem.

At a societal level, the problems that result from this divide are widespread and complex, and often beyond any attempts at visual representation in this regard, if not in scope alone. Analysis of the impact of the digital divide, and indeed the impact of ICT generally, at a societal level, is possible in a variety of forms focussing upon a variety of specific issues, however, for the purposes of the task to which this essay relates (namely a creative piece exploring the aforementioned issue), it appears more prudent to examine the role of ICT in relation to the individual within the construct of society, rather than the same in relation to society as a standalone issue; this lends itself to creating a deeper understanding of the requirements of characterisation within this text, rather than simply exploring environmental requirements, themselves shaped largely by the experience and interactions of the individuals which exist within them.

Implications for the Individual

The individual within this new environment brought about by the (limited) proliferation of ICT resources is simultaneously burdened and empowered. In one sense, technology inherently comes with problems, as adoption of this becomes widespread; it is a collective action problem in which, for a time, the technology offers benefit to its users – but as adoption becomes widespread, the potential negative effects of this technology or action are realised. In an article entitled “Technology Bites Back” 3 , Dr Rob Sparrow from Monash University’s Centre for Human Bioethics cites the example of standing on seats at a rock concert to gain a better view: “The first person who does it gets a great view, but if everybody does it, no-body sees any better than before. They’re worse off, in fact, because they’re standing rather than sitting.”

The competitive advantage offered by mobile phones ten to fifteen years ago is now neutered by widespread adoption – and now an unprecedented expectation of constant connectivity and reaction/response exists, placing a burden upon, rather than granting an advantage to, many people. A similar situation is witnessed with more conventional electronic networks – the advent of email in the context of global commerce requires rapid responses to the point that consideration of the response does, in some circumstances, require notification that the message has been received and the responder is indeed considering the issues raised; customers have been heard to express dissatisfaction with email response times of greater than a day, compared to conventional (physical) mail, with which same-day responses are not the norm in a global context, and rare outside of a corporate environment in which physical proximity renders this realistic.

The individual on the ‘have side’ of the divide (protestations regarding categorisation stand, however, this terminology is retained with the traditional semantics attached to it held in mind, for the sake of brevity), then, is seen to be burdened with a need for immediacy in response to this change beyond that to which people of previous generations were subjected. This communication is, of course, at a peer-to-peer level, as opposed to any mass dissemination, although the same technologies could (can) be applied in this way (an example of this is evident in mass emailing, solicited or unsolicited), with varied effects. It has been argued that, with the adoption of mass marketing techniques (not limited to those technologies relevant to the present discussion, although certainly including them), corporate and government entities have adopted a new form of language, which, though saying much, communicates very little and obfuscates what is communicated through the use of language “as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th Century French court” 4 - in other words, to their audiences at least, companies sound “hollow, flat, literally inhuman.” 5

The Cluetrain Manifesto 6 was a work published online in 1999 in the form of 95 Theses, and, in the foreword to the published text, The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual 7 , the writer of this foreword, Thomas Petzinger, Jr. of The Wall Street Journal claims that book is “one of the first books written as a sequel to a Web site” 8 – a claim probably not far from the truth. This wouldn’t be of significance, but for the content of what was written in both. Just as the author of this essay may chose to use an electronic form for the extension 2 task that he writes this for but does not, due to the inappropriateness of that form for the task at hand, The Cluetrain Manifesto’s message is one which requires an electronic form (in the first instance – the published book is an extension, not a basis) – for content, for distribution, for authenticity, and, ultimately, for the preservation of the ideals presented in the work itself.

What ideals, then, are presented? Authenticity is valued, certainly. Humanity is valued. The metaphysical construct of ‘the corporation’ is valued, but shunned in its present form – it is seen to have drifted away from its constituent’s nature, and into its own egocentric entity that fails to value the consumer. Open collaboration and discourse are valued. Interesting dialogue is valued, with authenticity, disclosure, directness, and a genuine voice.

The Cluetrain Manifesto challenges the corporate mindset regarding marketing in a post-industrial society, in which companies aim to ‘create relationships’. This is perhaps best addressed in point 25 of the manifesto, which reads “Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.” The advent of global electronic networks has simultaneously been a blessing and a curse for the individuals connected to them. In one sense, it has allowed for the creation of smarter, networked markets – in the words of manifesto, “Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy” (point 7). In another, the misunderstanding of the nature of these global networks has resulted in a curse; the burden of the faceless entity upon this new ‘market’ – notably not this new ‘community’ or ‘connected people’.

This sentiment is echoed in Meikle’s book, Future Active 9 , which models the Internet around two basic concepts, known throughout the text as version 1.0 and 2.0. Somewhat ironically, the older version (version 1.0) is perceived to be the better model, with version 2.0 misunderstanding and corrupting the former. Examples are given throughout the work, which cites the success of Amazon.com as a byproduct of its version 1.0 nature, despite it being a commercial entity. Simply, version 1.0 refers to the pre-commercialisation Internet of open military-academic communication, extending forwards to the opening of the Internet to the public, but essentially prior to any overwhelming commercialisation of the Internet; version 1.0 is about open publishing and discourse.

Version 2.0, however, is closed publishing. It’s corporate websites, flashy reports, stuff-designed-for-print-but-stuck-online-anyway, and content and websites that generally fail to recognise the collaborative potential of the medium, instead viewing it as a network that is a market, rather than a network that is a meeting place. Amazon.com is about pre-developed content with commercial presentation, but is successful (according to Meikle’s text) due to its creation of a community around its products, in the form of allowing users to comment on books/products and leave reviews – for free, in recognition of the pulling power of this open publishing that people flock to. The Internet, for companies that don’t understand the importance of this “version 1.0″ model, is just an extension of another form of mass media – without recognising that, here at least, their ‘target market’ is free to switch to any ‘channel’ they wish – and the Internet is rich enough in content that this is of no substantial detriment to the targeted user, unlike its traditional broadcast counterparts.

The Internet, then, is another avenue for forced ‘broadcast’ (top down) communication, if this is how corporate entities perceive it. This communication is often very much in the same style, if in a different form, from more conventional broadcast communication – that is, still top down, still non-interactive, still “hollow, flat, literally inhuman”? but the Internet is more than this, and “markets” (correctly people) understand that – “hyperlinks subvert hierarchy”. With this in mind, use of the Internet as though it were simply another form of ‘mass media’ is, in most instances, misguided (exceptions being electronic presences of existing publications, specifically news sources – although these too would do well to permit a degree of interaction, a good example of this being the discussion features on CNet news.com and, to a lesser extent, some articles on the SMH.com.au website) and backwards-thinking. Meikle’s Future Active proposes that activism is “backing into the future” 10 , applying old techniques and mechanisms to a new environment (the web) and then subsequently changing accordingly – not the other way around. This is equally true of the majority of electronic news outlets, and, as is beginning to be realised, with corporate websites such as englishcut.com 11 adopting a different mindset in the nature of their electronic presence, as the significance of open publishing and ‘version 1.0′ frameworks is realised.

With the recognition of the importance of this different mode of publishing, the present (overwhelming redundant) manner that many businesses currently utilise for all electronic communiqués will be seen to subside, to be replaced by more open, honest discourse between business, employee and customer, in a way that views “the Internet” as its own medium, not simply “TV with a buy button” 12 .

What does this mean in terms of the digital divide, then? Before the paradigm shift in the way corporations approached and thought about this new medium, in terms of business-to-consumer or business-to-employee communication, the “have not” group weren’t, in terms of communication, missing out on anything significant. In fact, the communication was so facile, so trite, and so backwards looking that the “have not” group would find a better experience in television, print media, or simply reality itself. The Cluetrain Manifesto book carries throughout a “market” metaphor for the Internet – it brings people together, not as a target market, or any business-based understanding of the term, but rather as with markets in the most basic sense – a gathering of people to share, to converse, to exist in a common environment where not only goods are traded, but also stories and experience.

This, it is argued, is what an open Internet looks like.

Canadian comedy group Three Dead Trolls 13 have satirically described ‘multimedia’ as being “just like normal media, but not as good!” 14 . Multimedia is like “owning a TV that’s three inches wide” 15 . In a way, that’s how many aspects of the Internet are currently presented. Many content authors don’t appreciate or understand how “multimedia” can be appropriately applied, and the overall effect is a far cry from cohesive, consistent, or usable. And yet people use it anyway, immerse themselves in it, despite its shortcomings.

What of this divide then? If, despite the imperfections of the medium and (more significantly) its applications, people who can access this resource by their volition elect to – then these imperfections are outweighed by the perceived advantages the medium offers. Apparently.

Is the value misplaced? Is the implementation of this seemingly empowering technology such that the ‘empowering’ is lost and the ‘technology’ is a ruling influence? The timeless question resounds – is technology serving us, or is the reverse true?

Given sufficient access to technology, the answers to all these questions is no. The Internet can be used for empowerment, for collaboration, as a global ‘marketplace’ (in both a commercial and a social sense) and to serve humanity socially – it is not purely a military tool, or a commercial tool, but a tool for communication in an altruistic sense sans any ulterior motive – simply, communication for the sake of discourse, existence in a social network, connectivity within this ‘web’.

Having said that, however, the effects of the digital divide on the individual are wide-ranging, depending on the social context and the degree to which access exists. Mark Warschauer’s book, Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide 16 , identifies a scenario where partial ‘access’ to technology results in a worsened situation than that which existed prior to the provision of technology in the first instance. By ‘access’, it is important to remember that this term must not be solely applied to physical access to technology – training, knowledge, ability (especially motor skills and physical disabilities), usability and internationalisation all constitute ‘access’, in this context.

Warschauer presents the circumstance of a village in an Asian nation (probably India, this example is recalled from memory) where an Internet access point had been installed by some benefactor, who freely provided the necessary physical resources for this to occur. Ongoing access fees may or may not have been provided for, but that is not wholly relevant – the donation was futile because of the overwhelming technology illiteracy in the area, and the failure of this donation to encompass any degree of training. Once installed, the primary use of this newly installed technology was not communication and open discourse, but instead found local children using this resource for playing games online.

Similar situations exist closer to home – many local libraries in New South Wales now provide free Internet access to their members, often without formal training provided as well. The author has witnessed e-learning initiatives in such environments fall to similar fates as the Indian scenario above, with children finding online games more engaging than often stale ‘interactive learning material’ – as a result of the presentation, not the content itself.

Neither of these scenarios results in the breaking down of boundaries, or the opening of new and exciting discourse – instead, the technology places a burden upon the community in terms of maintenance, ongoing costs, and initial investment for little or no tangible – or intangible! – return, and the slave/master relationship between humanity and its technology turns, in this case, against humanity.

What ICT isn’t

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of industrialisation. Industrialisation still has to occur; because ICT is dependant upon the infrastructure that industrialisation develops to exist (not just the technology itself in a historical framework, but the electricity to operate the technology, and the physical networks used to connect it!), and cannot come before the other.

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of poverty. It creates industry, and arguably higher standards of living – but the real problems of population concentration versus arable land and other physical constraints will mean this emancipation from certain influences is not absolute in its unburdening? although, ICT in the means it provides the for expression of individual thought, feeling, and voice is such that poverty as a result of political situations may, potentially, be overcome or at least challenged in a way previously unprecedented – an example of this is the recent 2004 election in the United States, covered by ‘blogs’ (web logs, or personal journals) so extensively that, following the election, bills have been proposed 17 to amend laws concerning journalism and the press to include web logs, granting similar rights – and, more importantly, censorship – as that which conventional media is subject to.

ICT isn’t a magic pill for the problems of distance. If anything, it is seen to exacerbate them, as physical locale directly influences availability and subsequent adoption of technology, ultimately resulting in inequality and the broadening of the social divide between people. ICT alters the form and style of communication used, and the early/late adoption rift results in the development of skills to manage this being fragmented between groups, influencing the way in which groups can relate to each other both in the medium used, and in the language used within the confines of that medium – that is to say, stylistically, the feel of communications and the way in which these are written, spoken or otherwise presented alter, based on the author’s experience with different modes of communication. The writing conventions of personal e-mail, for example, are substantially different from those used in the writing of most letters, in its inherently conversational tone merged with the written word and, in some instances, the alteration of language itself in terms of spelling, use of jargon (‘emoticons’ are included in this), and abbreviations not commonly used outside the context of this form of electronic communiqué – reflected, conversely, in other writing by users of said technology, in which adoption of the different language features common to electronic forms of communication are seen to transcend this, and permeate other writings – the use of emoticons and/or abbreviations such as ‘LOL’ (a commonly used abbreviation for ‘laugh out loud’, generally not used in a literal sense, but simply to denote some degree of humour) in letters, for example, or even in speech (albeit to a lesser extent, and only with some terms).

What the divide means

Such is this change in communication as a result of the common adoption of this new media form in groups of people on the ‘have’ side of the divide, that the way in which they communicate is substantially altered to the point of obfuscation of meaning and general incomprehensibility. As with generational differences in language, the digital divide has introduced (and continues to perpetrate) a further gap linguistically, as well as in terms of the mode and form of communication used, assuming resources even exist to receive information published electronically.

At an individual level, this prevents exposure to a diverse range of writing and content created and disseminated electronically – and, at the stage when this exposure and the ‘bridging of the divide’ becomes feasible at some (as yet undetermined) point in the future, there still remains a cultural and communicative gap – some would cite Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock 18 to highlight the possible effects of this gap, once ‘bridged’. Notably, this ‘bridging’ is an un-real concept – whilst the circumstances surrounding the divide may be mitigated, the effects of the divide are longer lasting, at least for a generation, and potentially longer; for example, unemployment propagates through generations in a cyclic manner, as sociologists have observed is the case in certain areas – a contemporary example being parts of Macquarie Fields. The digital divide is perhaps not necessarily as extreme in consequence as the cyclic unemployment in Macquarie Fields, although, arguably, the divide may lead to unemployment as a result of the new skills it requires (perhaps reversing the trend instigated by the Industrial Revolution towards ‘deskilling’), and this unemployment may continue across generations if appropriate training is not available and/or offered to those still lacking in skills.

Of course, communication and training barriers may not necessarily be an issue – the divide holds a lesser relevance to those employed in primary industries, for example. Having said this, changes in technology (not communications-related) have also resulted in changes in requisite skills for employment in primary industry areas – perhaps requiring an understanding of technology to function in a competitive environment, for example, the use of software to determine appropriate use of chemicals, etc.

Not only this, but ICT itself is relevant to these primary industries for the purposes of receiving communications of the requirements of customers, as well as communication of changes in technology for the basic means of production – simply, ‘keeping on top of’ the latest industry developments. This is particularly relevant to the agricultural aspect of primary industry, with mining and logging often already connected to a larger parent company that is likely to already have ICT systems in place for the purposes of such communications.

At an individual level, the divide has the potential to result in communication differences greater than the generational communication gap, as language and the application of language changes, and new forms and modes of expression are adopted on a large scale. The ‘bridging’ of the divide allows this nuance to be realised, as the individual struggles to comprehend and adapt to this different means of communication – Toffler’s concept of “future shock”; an example of which has been observed at the University of Sydney’s Facilities Management department 19 , which has, at some point in the last several years, seen the introduction of ICT in order to audit and manage activities internally. The primary users of this ICT infrastructure are tradespeople, many of who do not use computers at home, or had not previously used them in the workplace – the workplace training co-ordinator 20 at Facilities Management commented on the widespread frustration and difficult transition experienced; and this, in an environment in which appropriate training is provided. “Future shock” is a reality, which, especially in light of the ICT revolution, is increasingly relevant in today’s society, both locally and on a global scale.

Entities and society as a whole faces this revolution as its constituents experience and capacity to deal with change mandates – that is to say, similar challenges are presented to society as with the individual, with cumulative effect playing a role in shaping the society into the future. Requirements for training, such that lasting change can occur, must be met for the divide to be bridged, and, to avoid the linguistic aspects of this gap broadening further, this should occur in a timely manner, before this secondary divide of consequence is permitted to take hold and instigate cyclic disadvantage. The digital divide is but a descriptor for the first effect of a circumstance with consequences far beyond this original manifestation.

• Warschauer, M. Technology and Social Inclusion . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. October 2004.
• http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/nw2002/extras/digitaldivide.pdf – references to Ngaanyatjara Lands
• “Icon” technology section, SMH, April 9, 2005
• The Cluetrain Manifesto , http://www.cluetrain.com/ point 15.
• Ibid. point 14
• http://www.cluetrain.com/ , see also ref. 7, p.xi
• Locke, C., Levine, R. et al. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual . Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus. 2000.
• Ibid. p. iv
• Meikle, G. (Edited by Wark, M.) Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet .
• Ibid. p. 14
• Macleod, H., Mahon, T. English Cut: Bespoke Savile Row tailors . 2005. http://www.englishcut.com/
• Locke, C., Levine, R. et al. The Cluetrain Manifesto: The end of business as usual . p.15
• http://www.deadtroll.com/
• Ibid. “How to Buy a Computer” recording. Also http://www.ampcast.com/music/22488/artist.php
• Warschauer, M. Technology and Social Inclusion .
• McCullagh, D. Bloggers narrowly dodge federal crackdown . 24 Mar. 2005. CNET News.com. 14 Apr. 2005 http://news.com.com/Bloggers+narrowly+dodge+federal+crackdown/2100-1028_3-5635724.html
• Toffler, A. Future Shock: A study of mass bewilderment in the face of accelerating change . London: The Bodley Head Ltd. 1970.
• The author of this essay worked at the Facilities Management Office at the University of Sydney in an IT capacity on a work placement, for a period of time in 2004, during which employees whose profession was in their trade, rather than in management or an ICT role, expressed frustration at the technology which they were required to use for the management aspects of their job.
• Barbara Achilles, also the work placement co-ordinator.

Related Posts

Talking to customers in government and necessary sustainment 15 jan 2024, bible college 09 mar 2023, footprintdns - what is it for 12 jul 2018.

Digital Divide

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 17 February 2024
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Caroline Rizza 2 , 3  

Digital exclusion ; Digital gap ; e-Exclusion

The digital divide is a negative consequence of the introduction of information technology (IT) in society. In the information society, the digital divide is a consequence of the economic, cultural, and social inequalities that already existed in the industrial society. It combines inequalities at the level of access to IT (“economic capital”) and disparities in terms of knowledge and know-how in using IT (social capital, cultural capital ) in specific context digital competences .

Description

The massive introduction and the pervasiveness of IT in society has completely changed the way of editing, processing, and storing information as well as the way people communicate and interact with each other. In the current information and knowledge society, IT is at the core of social, economic, and cultural activities of every citizen. In this context, both accessing this technology and acquiring the digital competences to use it...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Bowie, N. A. (2000). The digital divide: Making knowledge available in a digital context. In OECD (Ed.), Schooling for tomorrow: Learning to bridge the digital divide (pp. 37–50). Paris: Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Jouët, J. (1993). Pratiques de communication et figures de la médiation. Réseaux, 11 (60), 99–120.

Article   Google Scholar  

Miège, B. (2006). La société conquise par la communication, tome 1, Logiques sociales . Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

OECD. (2000). Schooling for tomorrow: Learning to bridge the digital divide . Paris: Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Rizza, C. (2006). La fracture numérique, paradoxe de la génération Internet. Fracture dans la société de la connaissance. Hermès, 45 , 25–32.

Venezky, R. L. (2000). The digital divide within formal school education: Causes and consequences. In OECD (Ed.), Schooling for tomorrow: Learning to bridge the digital divide (pp. 63–76). Paris: Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

Caroline Rizza

Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Rizza .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy

Filomena Maggino

Section Editor information

Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea

Seoyong Kim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Rizza, C. (2020). Digital Divide. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_732-2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_732-2

Received : 16 October 2019

Accepted : 16 October 2019

Published : 17 February 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-69909-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

More From Forbes

Addressing the digital divide in education: technology and internet access for students in underserved communities.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Thomas McElroy is CEO and Founder of  Level-1 Global Solutions , a mission-critical, technology systems integrator.

The digital divide has been a hot-button issue for years. Although there is plenty of data to support the fact that the digital divide is alive and well, many people still do not understand the magnitude of the problem. For instance, although 87% of households have access to a computer, smartphone, tablet or another internet-enabled device, only 73% of households have access to the internet.

Although these statistics have long been troubling, they became particularly dire during the pandemic. The disparities in access to technology and the internet are far more pronounced for many minority groups, low-income or homeless individuals, English-language learners and individuals with disabilities. Yet, throughout the pandemic, internet access was required for many essential daily tasks, such as grocery shopping, attending school and joining work meetings or telehealth doctor appointments. Furthermore, in many instances, the internet was also required to access basic governmental assistance programs — and, not surprisingly, it is those demographic groups with the least access to technology who often need the most help.

Throughout 2020, the impact of the digital divide on the educational system, in particular, became more glaringly obvious. As schools shifted to an online learning format, many students struggled — not just academically, but also due to the lack of access to the internet and/or to a suitable device. Even though 87% of families have an internet-enabled device, that still means that more than one out of every 10 students likely doesn’t have the technology needed to complete daily schoolwork and homework.

In many instances, school systems have been supplying devices for students. But even when schools provide the platform and the technology (often, iPads, Chromebooks or other tablet devices), students still cannot connect and participate without reliable high-speed internet access at home. Without the ability to connect, these students obviously cannot demonstrate the same academic achievement as their peers — and without addressing the digital divide within education, the risk is that an entire subsection of America’s youth will be left behind, unable to move forward academically.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

Similar to digital divide trends seen in other facets of society, those affecting education disproportionately impact students of color — even among student groups who attend the same school. Following is a racial breakdown of students who either had no access to the internet or only had dial-up access in their homes in 2018:

• 27% Native American

• 19% African American

• 17% Hispanic

• 12% Pacific Islander

• 7% reported two or more races

Clearly, these percentages are not proportionate to each of these groups’ total makeup in the general population. The digital divide disproportionately impacts students from marginalized groups. Yet, access to high-speed internet is becoming increasingly important for every student to complete basic educational requirements, even in elementary school.

Because the educational digital divide has such a profound effect on students’ overall growth, safety and well-being — including the opportunity to achieve success, both now and in the future — many community and business leaders are exploring ways of addressing the problem on a local level. Although there are many technological solutions that can positively impact the educational digital divide, the following three are particularly noteworthy.

• Universal Connectivity/Enhancing Connectivity: Currently, the biggest barrier impacting access to education is connectivity. Nearly all policy recommendations that address the digital divide focus on increasing connectivity as the top priority. Inequitable access to electronic devices and reliable, high-speed internet connections has a negative impact on opportunity, achievement and equity gaps in education. Many argue that high-speed broadband should now be considered basic community infrastructure, given that access is so crucial to nearly all aspects of modern life. Programs that address internet access imbalances — including universal community-based Wi-Fi and those developed through the Wireless Reach Initiative — can improve educational opportunities and ensure that all students are prepared to succeed.

• Flexible Educational Platforms: During the pandemic, almost every school began working with a digital platform to deliver content, communicate with students and parents and provide instruction. But as with any other technological solution, the features and benefits vary between platforms, with some offering more flexibility than others. Options are available that provide offline access to content or allow content to be downloaded or stored. However, although these platforms can help improve access to certain materials, they still do not address the underlying problem of no internet access — and thus, do not benefit students who must be homeschooled during a pandemic.

• Working With Families 1:1: For communities where universal Wi-Fi isn't an option, they may want to consider upgrading public access through facilities such as libraries and community centers. The community can also work with a variety of businesses and organizations to assist them with overcoming the challenges with technology access, such as the Closing The Gap Foundation . By identifying the resources that are needed, the community can work together to address the needs and narrow the educational digital divide.

The Covid-19 pandemic did not create the educational digital divide but magnified it exponentially. The flaws in the system are glaring, and unfortunately, many students are suffering because of it. Without devices and reliable connectivity, it is impossible for students to thrive in the modern educational system — especially during a pandemic. However, by prioritizing education and exploring numerous technological solutions, communities can create and maintain an equitable educational structure that allows all students the opportunity to succeed.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions