With all of the talk about the way that technologies are changing lives, creating generation and digital divides, it can become commonplace to simply accept all of these claims as fact.. The workplace, and non-compulsory educational environments (e.g. colleges, universities and professional schools) are just some of the types of places where these issues are perhaps most exacerbated. In this paper, I have set out to try and understand varying viewpoints of generation as sociological phenomenon, as well as its interconnected relationship to the digital divide. Several texts correlate age and technological skill, with some weighing the importance of access and use of ICTs as being some of the most influencing factors. These debates, whether in the popular or academic literature, appear to be heavily influencing practices, policies and perceptions.
It has been argued that the structure of the debate about the inherent differences in young people and their use of technology (what Prensky coins “digital natives”) is inherently flawed (Bennett, Maton and Kervin, 2008). In other words the evidence, or lack there of, at this point has reached a type of fervor in the way that the issue of the generational digital divide debate is even framed. It has also been said that the discourse on the topic has gone so far that it “can be likened to an academic form of ‘moral panic’” (Bennett, Maton and Kervin 2008, abstract). The authors go on to explain that a “moral panic” does not necessarily reflect an actual measurable panic, but instead is a comment on the way that the debate is argued. “The concept of moral panic is widely used in the social sciences to explain how an issue of public concern can achieve a prominence that exceeds the evidence in support of this phenomenon” (Bennet, Maton and Kervin 2008, p 782 paraphrasing Thompson 1998). All of this to say that these authors recognize the lack of evidence-based research for broad claims about generational or even major technological changes that are argued to be fundamentally changing society. Althouh their inquiry was framed in the context of learning institutions and the perceived changing needs of cohorts of students, others (Dijk 2005, p 25; Warschauer 2003, p 7 and Hargittai and Hinnant 2008, p 616) have made similar claims about the lack of availability of empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a significant shift taking place in society that can be attributed to technological changes. A similar debate is going on with regards to generational theory.
One mistake that I think people often make is the equation of a tool with a technology. For instance, a pen is tool whereas language is the technology. We can communicate our ideas in the written form by writing with a pen, but without the language to read and write, one cannot really be said to be using the technology. I offer up this analogy because although it may seem obvious, I think that it can help to connect some of the psychosocial barriers of new computer user uptake levels with concepts discussed with regards to generation theory.
[discussion on different models of access and resources and lead this into a discussion on the various theories of what challenges people (ex Stanley’s psychosocial barriers]
There is no doubt that having access to the Internet is an important factor as to whether or not people will get online at all. In fact, studies have shown that those with more access points to the Internet tend to have higher rates of usage [citation, StatsCan and others?]. There are however, also non-material reasons why someone may not get online. The power of these psychosocial barriers to connectivity is no less important than the material-based issues. I argue that these psychosocial barriers may in fact be contributing to what is perceived to be the generation gap. I also further argue that the ‘moral panic’ contributes to undermining the self-confidence that new or non-users have, exacerbating the effect of the perceived divides.
A report by Laura Stanley published in 2003 shows that a direct relationship with owning and using a technology cannot be easily equated. As simple as this may seem, it is actually one of those details that have been known to be overlooked, yet assumptions and research based on this correlation are still perpetuated. In the early discussions of the digital divide, the concept of access and even ownership of a computer was considered to be an indicator of success in terms of bridging the divide. One only has to recall the “laptop for every child” campaign which sought out and promoted the aim of every child, particularly those in developing countries, to be given their own laptop. The simplicity of such a concept may appear to level the playing field between the haves and have-nots, but one only has to consider the logistical nightmare of first disturbing such technologies around the world, let alone the feasibility of ensuring Internet access to all these remote computers. A scenario such as this also says nothing of the challenge of ensuring that information is available in the appropriate languages for this potential multitude of users. The list can go on, but that discussion goes far beyond the scope of this inquiry. This also says nothing of the actual availability of content. In such a utopian vision of every laptop for one child, one must also consider who or what will make information available. There is also the wider question of actual literacy, let alone digital literacy. The point I am making is that there is not simply one solution to bridging this so-called divide. To consider the problem in its entirety is no doubt a daunting task, but a worthy discussion to have.
[segue this to Warschaur’s discussion on types of literacies and Dijk’s different resources]
[connect to generations and the benchmarks à see matrix with quotes from Kriegel]
