Laura Boyd (UTM Student #995376132)

Professor E. Littlejohn

CCT260: Web Culture and Design

November 10^th, 2009

Return to index.html

The Digital Divide

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) defines the digital divide as, “The unequal distribution of information communication technologies (ICTs) and the lack of information access for a large majority of the world population” (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 7). The term has become synonymous with the “gap” between the “information haves,” or those who have access to information technologies (ITs), and the “information have-nots,” or those lacking access to IT (Servon 2). In actuality, there are multiple divides and as Manuel Castells highlights, the most important divisions are not measured by the number of connections to the Internet, “but by the consequences of both connection and lack of connection” (Bunz 56; Castells 269). It is well known that the young, better-educated, and wealthier individuals have easier access to information technologies and the knowledge base required to use them, but there remain a number of other determinants that still need to be addressed (Losh 74). As information technologies become inherent in global culture, lack of connection facilitates the exacerbation of existing inequalities and the exclusion of minorities from full participation in society (Losh 74; Servon 1). Therefore, this paper will substantiate the claim that despite advances in supplying more people with physical technology, the digital divide is ever-present; the repercussions will be shown through an examination of the divisions along the lines of race and gender, which further entrench existing systems of social inequality.

The digital divide encompasses inequalities based on race, which mirror social stratifications inherent in our society that privileges Western ideals and whiteness. There have been claims that the gaps between the Internet access of different ethnic groups are narrowing, but the veracity of this assertion is contestable. For example, the Pew Internet and American Life Project (Pew) studies suggest that African Americans have steadily increased their Internet usage, showing that sixty-one percent of African Americans were online in 2006, compared to only thirty-five percent in 2000 (King 98). Although this does not prove the existence of an equitable digital environment, as the number of African Americans online is still dramatically lower, by more than ten percent, than the number of White Internet users (King 98).

An October 2003 study also showed that only thirty-eight percent of Latinos and forty percent of African Americans have at home Internet access, compared to seventy-one percent of Non-Hispanic Whites (King 97-98). A study by the National Center for Education Studies emphasized the real world ramifications of such inequalities, with white students having significant advantages because of their privileged at home computer and Internet access, being able to research homework and have greater opportunities to find out about jobs and apply to colleges and universities than black students (The Racial Digital Divide).

These studies also fail to analyze qualitative information, such as the differences in the levels and kinds of Internet access by racial category. Rainie and Spooner’s study in 2000 noted that only thirty-six percent of Black people with Internet access use it daily, in comparison with fifty-six percent of White people, that only twenty-seven percent of the Black users use the Internet to send or receive email daily versus forty-nine percent of White users, and that, “African-Americans are proportionately more likely than online Whites to have used the internet for information about an important life issue (e.g. employment, housing etc…)” (Servon 31). This means that diverse ethnic groups use the Web in different ways and that the Internet is providing information that is not being supplied within social networks and communities based in the real world. Therefore, lack of access to these networks of information is detrimental to one’s social inclusion and real world opportunities. Interestingly, the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute study in 2000, which analyzed the online activities of Latinos, found that some of the reasons Latinos are discouraged from using the Internet include the lack of Latino-oriented content and that eighty percent of websites are in English, revealing that making the Web’s content more culturally diverse, so that it has relevance for unique ethnic groups, will be a determining factor in bridging the racial element of the digital divide (Couldry 191; Servon 32).

The male dominated society in which we live is also reflected in the analogous gender inequalities that exist in relation to information technology. There have been improvements in Internet access rates for women, but this certainly does not demonstrate complete gender parity (Gorski). For instance, women compose fifty-two percent of the American population, but only constitute fifty percent of overall American Internet users (Losh 75). As well, there are other remaining inequalities that, “mirror deeply entrenched and historically cycled inequities in professional, economic, and education opportunities for women” (Gorski). There are far less women than men represented in fields that require the “sophisticated” use of information technologies, such as architecture, the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering (Losh 74-75). Research shows how females are systematically directed away from these pursuits as early as elementary school, “through school culture, classroom climate, traditional gender roles, and other societal pressures” (Gorski). Moreover, men are still the first to acquire the latest technologies, and every year, men continue to log “significantly more hours online” than females (Gorski; Losh 83; Benick). Men have also been cited as more “intensive” users, using the Internet for more diverse purposes than women, with women mainly using the Internet for communication, while men are reported to seek out financial/stock information online, news, visit government sites etc, which reinforce societal stereotypes of men being more logical than women (King 105-106; Losh 74, 84).

Adding to the gender disparities is the fact that women often underestimate their skills when it comes to technology; research shows that women report experiencing computer anxiety more frequently than men, leading to a feeling of inadequacy that may be limiting female computer and Internet usage (King 105; Bunz 61). Likewise, family responsibilities and the associated time constraints are having negative consequences for the equal inclusion of women online, as mothers often feel guilty “neglecting” their children and spouses in spending time online (King 106). Thus, it is apparent that gender is a key aspect of the continued digital divide that both mirrors and replicates social inequalities and male dominance, as identified by the United States Agency for International Development, “Without full participation in the use of information technology, women are left without the key to participation in the global world of the twenty-first century” (USAID).

The digital divide is an ongoing problem that is often concealed under the guise of an increased availability of physical technology, but the real inequalities exceed this surface analysis. Social disparities in the real world, such as the subordination of certain ethnic groups and females to white, male dominance, are being expressed online, which ultimately materialize in the fortification of these inequalities both online and off. This is of particular concern because access to and use of technology is intrinsically linked today with social and economic development, so a lack of access to computers and the Internet is a determining factor in the further marginalization of individuals and groups in society (USAID). Possessing the skills necessary to utilize communication technologies is another key factor, so there is hope in bridging these socially entrenched divisions through establishing such resources as Community Technology Centers (CTCs) (Servon 2). These non-profit sites offer access and education about information technology and help break down social and personal barriers that inhibit people from participating in the global network made available through the Internet (Servon 2).

Works Cited

Anonymous. “The Racial Digital Divide: A Narrow Rift in the Classroom But a Wide Chasm in the American Home.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. CH II Publishers, 2006. 24 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/ye4eme>.

Benick, Gail. “The Digital Divide.” CCT205 Class. University of Toronto Mississauga and Sheridan College, Oakville, Ontario. 2 April 2009. CCIT Lecture.

Bunz, Ulla. “A Generational Comparison of Gender, Computer Anxiety, and Computer Email-Web Fluency.” Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education. Volume 9. Issue 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. 24 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/ya74nzl>.

Castells, Manuel. “The Digital Divide in a Global Perspective.” The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford, 2001. 29 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/ya4exf8>.

Couldry, Nick. “The Digital Divide.” Web.Studies. Eds. David Gauntlett and Ross Horsley. London: Edward Arnold Hodder Headline Group, 2004. 185-194. Print.

Gorski, Paul C. “How Computers STILL Cheat Girls.” Multicultural Education.Prakken Publications, 2002. 25 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/yj5stoa>.

King, Bridgett. “From the Digital Divide to Digital Citizenship.” Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Eds. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J Tolbert, and Ramona S. McNeal. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2008. 94-122. Print.

Losh, Susan Carol. “Gender and Educational Digital Chasms in Computer and Internet Access and Use Over Time: 1983-2000.” IT & Society. Volume 1. Issue 4. Stanford University, 2004. 24 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/yl64ehl>.

Servon, Lisa J. Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2002. Print.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). “Gender, Information Technology, and Developing Countries: An Analytic Study.” Contemporary Women’s Issues Database. 2001. 24 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/ydfr28z>.

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs.” Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society. 8 December 2003, Geneva. 29 October 2009 <http://tinyurl.com/yjarztc>.

Return to index.html