These are some notes and thoughts about a few things related to the digital divide. I will be incorporating some of these ideas into my actual chapter drafts.
Dijk’s proposed framework for understanding the digital divide is grounded in two interconnected issues, that of resources and access (Deepening Divide p 20). Advanced understanding of the digital divide recognizes that access goes beyond simply obtaining access to technologies. Dijk articulates access as being a component counterpart to resources. [list resources and access]
The research seems to suggest that motivation actually plays a large role because motivation can both reinforce and be reinforced by the level of resources that one has available (Dijk Deepening Divide 2005, p 43). “I have tried to explain the level of motivational access in regard to, fist of all, the distributions of a large number of resources … The analysis in this chapter shows that motivational access problems are complicated” (Dijk 2005, p 43) [do not intend to include this quote in my final draft, but have put it here to help place this concept into context and the importance of motivation/resources]
“Increasingly, search engines show the most popular and commercially viable sites first; they may be adequate for many users, but it is not at all certain that they are the best options” (Dijk 2005, p 87). [place this quote on the matrix along with discussion on networks and the consolidation of power]
Data from Dijk et al (2000) and de Haan and Huysmans (2002) show that people of different age brackets
…illustrate that people in different age brackets learn to different degrees by different groups that influence them. For instance, participants aged 18-34 appear to have received less benefit fom computer courses than did people in the age range of 35-49 and 50+ (qtd in Dijk 2005, p 91). In all age categories, ‘self try’ had the largest beneficial influence compared with other methods but did show a noticeable decline as age increased. [insert table]
The concept of relational power is important for Dijk’s proposed framework for understanding and evaluating the digital divide. Citing from Max Weber, Dijk explains the mechanism of how social exclusion, by which the consolidation of power is used to exclude (Dijk 2005, p 18).
Dijk discusses that the control of resources, what many in the past have called capital (be it social, cultural or physical).
Dijk’s definition of “resources” over capital clearly defines the position he is coming from. “All resources should be measurable in a quantitative way in regards to individuals having more or less access to digital technologies…For instance, the (unequal) distribution of mental resources is, first of all, the result of personal intelligence and educational positions stirring particular mechanisms of social exclusion and control in the transfer of information” (Dijk 2005, p 20).
The digital divide is something that is quite ephemeral; it is not something that can be touched and can only be defined by the elements that signify it. I position the digital divide as similar to generations in that they can both be considered a social phenomenon.
There are some key characteristics that have been used to measure indicators of how far along the spectrum of the divide one lies. The name of the concept is important because it sets up expectations, in other words frames, the idea.
“…technologies are embodiments of social and cultural structures that in turn get taken up in new ways by existing social groups and cultural categories” (Ito, p 4 of book Networked Publics ed. Kazys Varnelis).
This is an interesting quote to me because the language used reminds me of how I’ve seen generations talked about as a type of cultural renewal. This is also indicating to me that social groups and cultural categories are a more meaningful way of dividing people into groups for analysis as this frees them from some of the more arbitrary definitions.
Cyberbalkanization is about surrounding one’s self with only like-minded ideas creating a sort of insulating effect (Putnam p 157)
Dijk Deepening Divide p 130 – argues that there is a difference between the knowledge gap of the mass media and the knowledge gap in the information society today. This chapter deals with what has been coined the ‘Matthew effect” taken from a biblical expression that at its core means that those with higher resources will tend to benefit more from new technologies than those who start off from an under-privileged position. Returning to the argument of the knowledge gap however, Dijk asserts that the role of ICTs in the network society has become more important, and infused into our daily lives, that a simple knowledge gap has deeper ramifications than it ever did before. I tend to relate this concept to what Varnelis says about how networks tend to consolidate power and reinforce power structures in other areas of life. Again, I draw an analogy of these above concepts to cyberbalkanization, where in essence people insulate themselves from differing viewpoints and insulate themselves away from difference. After discussing it in this way, it becomes easy to see how the problem of the network, or of the digital divide, really is not about technology at all, but about how technologies are being used to reinforce the inequalities that already exists in our social realm.
