The sources used for this study were a combination of books, electronic journals, departmental reports, and World Wide Web pages. The initial search strategy returned over one thousand results but this was reduced significantly by adjusting the search strategy to look for specific documents relating to definition, origin, validity, type, measurement, and resolution.
- References were selected based upon authority, scope, currency, purpose, and objectivity
- Only electronic journals accessed via recommended University databases were used
- Only web pages from departmental web sites were used
- All references had clearly defined scopes
- All references were published within the last ten years
- References were primarily focussed on UK data backed up with secondary US and Global data.
The words ‘digital divide’ have become buzz words in the world of information management. This paper reviews the literature relating to its definition and when and where it originated. It questions if it is quantifiable, and if so how each type can be measured. Programs and methods to reduce the digital divide are evaluated at local, national, and global levels.
While world leaders make plans to bridge the divide, some commentators argue if the divide really exists, whilst others have opposing opinions as to what it actually is. Research by Hongladarom (2003) reports that some commentators believe the phrase should not be used at all and should be replaced with the more positive ‘social inclusion’.
The phrase was first coined in 1995 by the US government when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued the report titled ‘Falling Through the Net’ (Servon, 2002, p.2). The report highlighted the existence of a digital divide in America that separated those with access to information technology and those without.
Cullen (2003) describes the digital divide as ‘the gap that exists in most countries between those with ready access to the tools, information and communication technologies (ICTs), and those without such access or skills’. Conversely, Servon (2002, p.2) reasons that ‘the technology gap is only one link in a causal chain that has bound certain groups repeatedly to disadvantage. The digital divide is, therefore, a symptom of a much larger and more complex problem – the problem of persistent poverty and inequality’.
Similarly, Lax (2001, p.194) relates to such social and economic factors in his study. He confirms that the cost of setting up a system capable of Internet access is low on the list of priorities in many low-income families in both the US and the UK. Additionally, economic and taxation policies have widened the gap between rich and poor over the past two decades so that the digital divide compares with the economic divide. He reports that figures for UK family expenditure in 2000 showed Internet access at only three percent in the poorest households, and forty eight percent in the richest.
Additionally, Wyatt et al. (2000, p.28) highlight a ‘persisting digital divide’ in the research conducted by the US Census Bureau on behalf of the NTIA in 1994, 1997, and 1998. Although substantial increases in PC and modem ownership were noted, the growth had taken place ‘to a greater extent within some income levels, demographic groups and geographic areas, than in others’. This resulted in an ‘even greater disparity in penetration levels among some groups’. The report concluded that in most cases the digital divide had widened.
None the less, Fink & Kenny (2003) challenge these definitions in their research and question the validity of the digital divide. They discuss four interpretations often used by commentators and their possible measurements:
- A gap in access to use of ICTs – crudely measured by the number and spread of telephones or web-enabled computers.
- A gap in the ability to use ICTs – measured by the skills base and the presence of numerous complimentary assets.
- A gap in actual use – the minutes of telecommunications for various purposes, the number and time online of users, the number of Internet hosts and the level of electronic commerce.
- A gap in the impact of use – measured by financial and economic returns.
They argue that ‘looking at various measures of the digital divide, there is a divide in per-capita access to ICTs but developing countries show faster rates of growth in network development than developed countries. Moreover, when employing a per-income measure of access, developing countries already “digitally leapfrog” the developed world’.
There is no consensus on the extent of the divide or whether the divide is getting larger or smaller. Data supporting all four measurements is lacking and further research is needed to establish evidence to fully illustrate the status of the divide and it’s growth or decline. However, researchers are mostly agreed that some sort of divide exists. Norris (2000) describes the divide as having more than one dimension: the social divide (the gap between information rich and information poor in a country); the democratic gap (the distribution of power and influences between those who do and do not make use of ICT to participate in politics); and the global divide (existing between the highly industrialized and developing countries).
The global divide was discussed on July 2000, by the leaders of the eight major industrialized democracies at the 26th G8 summit in Okinawa. The communiqué (G8 Communiqué Okinawa, 2000) confirms that their aim was to ‘maximise the benefits of IT and ensure that they are spread to those at present with limited access’. Additionally, the Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society ([http://www.dotforce.org/reports/it1.html], 2000) states that ‘everyone, everywhere should be able to participate in and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the global information society’.
Research by Giri (2002) reports how the United Nations have established a number of projects to help developing countries. Mr. Kofi Annan has emphasized that ‘information technologies can give developing countries the chance to leapfrog some of the long and painful stages of development that other countries have had to go through’. In addition to the United Nations, other international organizations such as World Bank, IMF, and WHO are implementing several initiatives to reduce the digital divide by sending volunteers, providing training, and loans and grants to Internet and ICT related projects.
Domestically, the social divide was addressed by the UK government when it announced in March 2000 that all Government services would be available electronically by 2005 (Electronic Service Delivery, 2002), and stated in their 2002 Annual Report (UK Online, 2002) that their goal was to ‘ensure that everyone who wants is has access to the Internet by 2005’.
The UK Government aims to:
- raise awareness of the Internet by: informing citizens about the services they can access and the places they can do this.
- promote affordable Internet access at home, at work, on the move and in the community by: supporting a range of channels including the personal computer, DTV, and public Internet access points.
- improve ICT skills by: providing opportunities for citizens to acquire the appropriate skills and the confidence to use the Internet.
- build trust in the Internet by: advising citizens about how best to use the Internet safely and by building a coherent regulatory framework to increase consumer confidence.
The targets aim to address four key issues, not dependent on socio-economic status alone, highlighted by Cullen (2001) from the Gartner Group Report, ‘The Digital Divide in American Society’: physical access to ICTs; ICT skills and support; attitudes; and content.
These key issues require further research and measurement to test the suitability and effectiveness of the UK Governments strategy: have we closed the digital divide by providing communal access to ICT, or must ICT be available in the home? Does ICT have to mean a PC equipped with modem, or can it consist of a digital television or mobile phone? In any case, it should be noted that studies carried out by Whaley (2004) demonstrate that although any resulting growth in computer ownership and Internet use will offer optimism that the digital divide is narrowing, focused intervention such as public and private programs, focus groups, and pocks of community activism will still required to correct any disparity of access.
An independent study conducted for British Telecom (http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/PDF/Digitaldivide2025.pdf, 2004) summarises that the ‘profile of the digitally excluded population in the UK highlights the complexity of issues involved in the debates surrounding digital inclusion and the digital divide’. It concludes that digitally excluded adults are more likely to be older and to have no educational qualifications. Of the 9.5 million adults living on low incomes over seven million are digitally excluded. These statistics are useful in developing a baseline for research into the progress of the divide. The report also attempts to predict the status of the digital divide in 2025. This acts as a useful indicator to where we might be as ‘Bridgers’ of the digital divide in the future, but cannot possibly account for changes, or the pace of change in technology.
To conclude, the digital-divide is well documented although interpreted differently by many commentators. It is accepted by most as real, including Governments and international organisations, and resources have been made available to counter the growing gaps between the information rich, and the information poor. However in a world of full of standards there is clearly a question to be asked regarding the lack of structured measurement and control of such an important dilemma as the digital divide. There is much scope for further research in this area.
References
Cullen, R. (2001) ‘Addressing the digital divide’, Online Information Review, 25(5), pp. 311-320.
Cullen, R. (2003) ‘The digital divide: a global and national call to action’, The Electronic Library, 21(3), pp. 247-257.
Electronic Service Delivery (2002)
Available at: [http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/esd_menu.htm]
(Accessed: 13/09/05).
Fink, C. & Kenny, C.J. (2003) ‘W(h)ither the digital divide ?’, info, 5(6), pp. 15-24.
G8 Communique Okinawa (2000) Available at: [http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate?ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097587800852]
(Accessed: 17/09/05).
Giri, J. (2002) ‘Digital Divide: Exploring National and International Approaches to Bridge the Digital Divide and Formulating a Strategic Model that can be Implemented in Developing Countries’, IT Journal.
Hongladarom, S. (2003) ‘Exploring the philosophical terrain of the digital divide’, Computers and philosophy, 37, pp. 85-89.
http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/PDF/Digitaldivide2025.pdf (2004)
(Accessed: 16/09/05).
[http://www.dotforce.org/reports/it1.html] (2000)
(Accessed: 15/09/05).
Lax, S. (2001) Access Denied in the Information Age. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Norris, P. (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communication in Post-Industrial Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Servon, L.J. (2002) Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy. Bodmin: MPG Books Division.
UK Online (2002) Available at: [http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/reports-annrep-2002/]$file/indexpage.htm
(Accessed: 15/09/05).
Whaley, K.C. (2004) Americas Digital Divide: 2000-2003 Trends, Journal of Medical Systems, 28(2), pp. 183-195.
Wyatt, S. et al. (2000) Technology and Inequality: Questioning the information society. New York: Routledge.