The Digital Divide

When the U.S. government, in the mid-1990s, began tracking differences between Americans with access to computer technology (the "haves") and those without (the "have-nots"), the gap was wide.

This "digital divide" is the computer-technology version of the traditional "knowledge gap" or "information gap." The idea is that as more information becomes available to members of society -- typically because of some innovation in communication technology -- certain people get more of it, more quickly, than others. In effect, the new technology makes disparities among individuals or groups of individuals WIDEN rather than narrow (contrary to our perpetual hope that technology will bring members of society closer together).

The "digital divide" described a gap that existed along all-too-predictable demographic lines, to such a glaring extent that observers called the divide the biggest civil rights issue for the 21st century:

 

People who earned higher incomes were a lot more likely to have a computer at home (1995 data) or to have Internet access (1997 and 2000 data).**

* Income under $10K: 8.1% (1995), 12.1% (1997), 12.7% (2000, under $15K).

* Income over $75K: 64.4% (1995), 50.3% (1997), 77.7% (2000).

People with more education were a lot more likely to have a computer at home (1995) or to have Internet access (1997, 2000).

* Elementary education: 2.8% (1995), 2.1% (1997), 11.7% (2000).

* Four or more years of college: 50.7% (1995), 39% (1997), 64% (2000, BA only; 69.9% for those with post-graduate education).

Asian-Americans and white Americans were a lot more likely to have a computer at home (1995) or to have Internet access (1997, 2000).

* Asian-Americans: 39.5% (1995), 26.4% (1997, classifed as "other"), 56.8% (2000, including Pacific Islanders).

* Whites: 30.3% (1995), 23.5% (1997), 46.1% (2000).

* African-Americans: 11.8% (1995), 7.9% (1997), 23.5% (2000).

* Hispanics/Latinos: 13.2% (1995), 8.9% (1997), 23.6% (2000).

** 1995 and 1997 data are for urban (including suburban) residents only; in general, figures were even lower for rural and inner-city residents with comparable incomes, education levels or race. 2000 data are for rural, urban/suburban and inner-city residents combined.

After the Clinton Administration left office in early 2001, much of the work of tracking these numbers was picked up by the non-profit Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The Clinton Administration formulated and implemented various policies aimed at closing this digital divide, most of them focused on issues of access to the technology itself. Among them:

The Universal Access Provision of, yes, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (there was a LOT packed into that one Act) required telecommunications companies to ensure that everyone has access to the Internet, and that public institutions get a price break for providing that access.

In other words, in exchange for the myriad benefits they got from the Act, telecomm companies had to give something back to U.S. society. They had to guarantee basic service would be available, affordable and accessible to all. And they had to enable schools, public libraries and public health care institutions to have both preferential rates for basic service and access to more advanced services as they evolved.

The premise was that access to information is too important to our society to be left entirely to free-market forces. Those providing telecomm services were mandated to see to it that EVERYONE has access, not just the people who can afford to pay full price for it.

Probably the most widely known implementation plan for universal access was known as the E-Rate. The "e" is for "education."

The Clinton Administration set a goal: To close the gap in access to digital technology between rich and poor schools. To meet this goal, up to $2.25 billion a year -- funded largely by the telecomm companies under the Universal Access Provision of the Telecomm Act of 1996 -- was earmarked for discounts for Internet access. These funds were available to all public schools and libraries, using a sliding scale based on need.

By the early part of this decade, virtually every school in this country -- rich and poor, rural and urban -- had access the Internet. Before the program began, only about a third had access -- and they were almost all in rich districts.

(The E-Rate program has been far from flawless or controversy-free, however. Most of its woes have involved the way it administers the money. For instance, there have been a number of allegations of fraudulent accounting practices.)

The bottom line seems to be that the digital divide has become less of a problem along some (but not all) dimensions of society, particularly those that public policy can address relatively easily -- notably access to technology in public institutions.

In the past five years, access has soared among all demographics. Moreover, access is increasing FASTER among the "have-not" groups than among the "have" groups. Of course, the "have-nots" were so far behind that they had more room to grow. There also is evidence that the "critical mass" ideas applicable to all interactive technologies are at work: As more "people like me" go online, the pressure on me to join them increases.

Nonetheless, a gap does remain. According to a recent Pew study, people earning $75K or more still are twice as like to be online as those earning under $30K -- 89% of Americans at the higher income level, compared with 44% of Americans in the lower income bracket. College graduates are nearly three times as likely to be online as those without a high school education (88% to 32%).

Some racial gaps have narrowed, though; latest figures show 67% of whites are online, compared with 59% of Hispanics/Latinos and 43% of African-Americans. (The Pew study does not report separately on Asian-Americans.)

In the 2000s, ideas about the "digital divide" have become more nuanced as policymakers and other experts have realized the issue involves more than mere access to communication technology. For example:

"Access" involves more than just the ability to get your hands on a computer keyboard. As Newhagen and Bucy (in Living) point out, other issues include:

* Bandwidth, or the speed of your connection to increasingly multimedia online services (which are virtually unusable with an ordinary phone connection). The gap between those who have either cable modems or DSL (high-speed telephone) connections at home and those who do not looks a lot like the gaps of the 1990s above.

* Motivation to use information technology ("social access") including perceptions of efficacy.

* The psychological resources that different people bring to their computer interactions, including how we process information and engage in computer-based problem solving ("cognitive access").

Others have challenged the term “digital divide” altogether. Warschauer, for one, says it leads to the wrong sorts of “solutions.” The key, he says, is the CONTEXT in which technology is made available and used.

For technology to be successfully and usefully incorporated in any society, it must be introduced and shaped in a way that meets the needs of that society -- and needs are not universal. Considerations include content, instruction and social support.

“Technology does not exist as an external variable to be injected from the outside to bring about certain results. It is woven into social systems and processes.”

Political changes also have resulted in changes in attention to the digital divide and approaches to dealing with it.

Funding for the E-Rate, for instance, has been cut dramatically. Community technology training programs administered by the Department of Education are slated for budget cuts. And the technology sector's downturn has reduced the amount of corporate philanthrophy available to public institutions.

In fact, a number of consumer groups recently charged that interest in the social impact of the divide has declined markedly in both Congress and the FCC. (Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell didn't help matters when, early in his term, he told reporters asking what he thought about improving technological access for low-income Americans: "I think there is a Mercedes-Benz divide. I'd like one. I can't afford it.")

The Bush Administration has eliminated "all public-interest obligations for this advanced telecommunications networks used to provide high-speed and voice-over-Internet service.” (October 2004 joint report of the Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine)
Of course, all this debate about the digital divide, and about how or even whether to try to address it, begs a big sociological question: Is technology all that great in the first place?