Technology has the ability to change all lives, but only if all people are provided equal access to it. Application of technology is important because advancements provide critical tools for empowerment. These new technologies are useful in the definition of social as well as economic advancements. Technological advancements around the world have developed a unique platform for supporting change and helping people live better lives. However, the extent to which different people have access to technological advancements is significant to the definition of how challenging it is for people to access the same technological advancements, hence the creation of a digital divide. The digital divide can be defined as the state of social inequality created by unequal access to and use of technology, as well as impacts linked to consistent the use of digital communication options as well as technological platforms. In order to minimize and overcome the growing digital divide there must be active investment, globally, in enabling people to access information, and ensuring more people, in every nation, have a basic knowledge of how to use the various technological devices that are available.
Until 1991, the growing problem of the digital divide, was minimal, and could have remained unknown to the world. However, it was catalyzed by the High-Performance Computing Act, which brought about the high-speed optical network, which would be the ultimate definition of the internet. It created, in the United States, a clear priority for stronger, faster and larger networks, to provide Americans, specifically, with more attractive internet services. Before the creation of the digital connection, home computers had few advantages over typewriter which were mainly in use at the time. As such the invention of the internet, in and of itself, did little to separate well networked nations with those that had little in terms of computing. However, the U.S. was not blind to the opportunity this new digital technology offered the nation, and actively recognized that it was time for a change, and new systems had to be developed to support that change. The value had to be realized with a greater link to the new systems, which would ensure greater success (Qureshi, 2014). This meant, in essence, that digital networks had to be created to maximize the use of other technologies, and the potential benefits that they held for members of society.
The ownership of personal computers in the United States actively grew, after the High-Performance Computing Act as well. After the new technology was introduced in the United States, rapid expansion occurred. More specifically, between 1991 and 1996 the total number of laptops increased from around 300000 to approximately 10 million (Qureshi, 2014). This is an indication that the American society was becoming increasingly connected, and that social and cultural value had been placed in the application of computer technology, within the society over time. Following the adoption of personal computers and the internet, on a basic level, software, commonly known as internet browsers, intended to simplify the public use of the internet, were developed. In the mid-1990s, the browsers that were in existence were Mosaic and Netscape, which were the main gateway to accessing the internet, and beginning to navigate cyberspace.
Emails had become common, allowing the digital age, through the internet, to actively add value to society, in the form of improved communication amongst people. The use of email also, however widened the digital divide (Poole, 1996). As those in the western world gained the ability to send communication in seconds, via the growing digital network, that directly connected one home, or office, to another, those nations without the internet, which continued to lack modern communication, were placed firmly on the other side of the digital divide.
Additionally, however, the divide not only existed, and continues to exist, between nations who were not provided for by the legislation that expanded the digital network in the United States, and similar legislation in other nations, but also between those in the upper and lower classes within the United States. The purchase of computers and gaining private internet access were both extremely expensive, and not all Americans could personally afford the two core elements in establishing digital access in their homes. The rich could easily afford the internet and computers while the majority who were poor could not afford the tools necessary. In short, they could not afford the added monthly bill in their budget, to pay for network access, and likely did not have the savings to purchase a home computer. Therefore, a divide also began to develop between the rich and the poor within developed nations, as only a portion of the population had the financial means to support personal computers and the internet.
Additionally, the application of these technologies also widened the financial gap between the rich and the poor. A time had come when jobs would only be obtained by the few who possessed technical knowledge in computer and internet use (Qureshi, 2014). As such poor families, who could not afford personal technological access, that gave them practice with computers, fell behind in skills critical to employability. This means that they were forced, further, into low paying jobs, and limited access to financial means, generating a cycle of poverty, and technology deprivation that would continue moving forward into the 21st century.
An article published in the New York Times in 1996 provided the most outstanding definition of the digital divide. It reported research on the use of computers and internets in high, middle, and low-class schools around California. Based on the study’s findings, it became evident that the majority of children in high-end schools could afford access to digital devices. In other words, among privilege, high-income students, computer and internet access was near 100 percent.
However, home internet and computer access fell to moderate numbers in schools with primarily students from middle class families. Access was provided in schools, and in a median number of households, also available at home. Further, evidence suggests that middle income homes are more likely to have access through a library, or other social organizations, than those in poor environments. However, low-income students could, consistently, not afford home computers or laptops, as well as consistent access to the internet. As such, a very limited number of students within this social class had the access needed to perform at the same level, in schools, as a similar demographic of students in a high- income school district. Thus, while the prestigious schools around California could afford exclusive digital devices, the public schools attended by the poorest in the community could not afford any platform for the technological devices (Poole, 1996). This means that the digital divide was, and still is, perpetuated, not only in the home, but also in the educational setting, as access to, and application of personal computing technologies is limited by community access, in low-income areas.
In the prestigious schools, the students were being prepared to take part in the growing US economy while a number of the students in poorer schools were being denied an opportunity for growth. This put those in better schools in line for better jobs from the time that their education began. In essence, tracking them into a future of endless possibilities. While in contrast, those in schools with fewer resources received a minimal education with poor technological assets, preparing them for menial jobs and future limited access to technology, and life gains. They were, also, from the beginning of their education, to remain in poverty. While it was professed that introduction of computers and the internet meant connection for the entire nation as well as the globe in the long run, the unfortunate reality is that a large sector of the society was being left out, without the technological advantages of personal computing, barring them from entrance into one of the primary and fastest growing economic sectors, which were happening at the time (Radovanović et al, 2015).
Although the United States, through the application of the legislation in 1996, outlined above, was trying to bridge the digital gap within its boundaries, by federally supporting digital enhancement to the infrastructure, it did not consider the ongoing struggle to access this infrastructure at the personal level, and further ignored the effect that it had on the rest of the world. There was no value gained for people outside the United States as per the concern of the Americans. Therefore, it would have been extremely unfortunate for the United States to be fully digitized while the rest of the world is still behind technologically. This demonstrates a need to focus on the value of increased technological access for all people and the need to ensure progress in the achievement of the digitization of the rest of the world.
This means understanding what digital divide still remains. In 2006, in an article published in the Washington University Gazette, Barzilai-Nahon, assistant professor at the University of Washington Information School, stated that “Ten years ago, when someone had a connection, it was enough,Today, in some places it’s nothing. The idea is what do you do with the content? Do you know how to use it?” (Lewis, 2006). In other words, the digital divide includes getting access to those that do not have network connection, or a personal computer, ensuring everyone has access to a connection with modern speeds, and ensuring that everyone is educated to use the connection, once it is established. Each of these issues widen the technology divide and prevent citizens of the world from enjoying the same benefits that come with technology access and application.
However, this is not a problem without hope. the digital divide could be resolved with the introduction of a number of solutions. The first solution would be the construction of an outstanding infrastructure, which will ensure all the people can access the internet. This means that the global issue of connectivity must be addressed. While American infrastructure has moved from dial-up, to DSL, to fiber connection, for faster speeds and higher performance, the reality is that many areas of the globe are still without access of any kind. However, global support for connectivity is not out of reach. For example, the idea of connecting the world through the fiber optic cables was a welcome idea to solve the problem (Mitrović, 2015). Further, 4G satellite technologies might be implemented, without the time taken to build complex networks, in area where laying that much fiber infrastructure is unfeasible. However, since such an idea has not been implemented fully, it is paramount to have some technology, consistently implemented, in every area of the globe, in order to ensure that the infrastructure exists to provide every household and community with the benefit of technology.
This stresses the significance of the internet satellites, which may be embraced. It is a major point of connection of the entire world through Space. Countries will be given easy access to the internet since no major infrastructural construction is required for connections to be established. The developed countries may support the launch of satellites, which will support the use of the internet around the globe, including in non-developed areas. The less developed nations would only need to build towers, and distribute access points, like hot spots, in order to increase international connectivity. Therefore, a platform for global participation in the acquisition of internet will have to be achieved (James, 2011). The primary concern, in this case, is coordination of services, and financial support for development. Generating support should be a focus for human interest groups and organizations that strive for global development. Given the increasing disparity, and disconnection between developed, and undeveloped nations, it is a need which cannot be ignored.
Simiarly, according to Chinn & Fairlie (2006), the existence of digital divide in the society could have been caused by elements such as lack of supportive infrastructure. The internet and computers require an outstanding infrastructure, which will support their use. Also, each of the elements become significant based on the usefulness and access to one another. This means that the internet cannot be significant in the absence of computers and the computer cannot be useful to its full capacity if the internet is not accessible (Chinn & Fairlie, 2006).
Therefore, there is a need to ensure the appropriate infrastructure exists and progress is assured within a certain digital platform. The infrastructure supports the progress of the internet as well as computers as it is extremely easy to acquire the relevant tools required for specific purposes. The internet will offer an outstanding platform for research for the further development of the computer and computer systems (Radovanović et al, 2015). The infrastructure will guarantee progress and assure individuals of growth within their technological front. Therefore, success is assured for all the individuals and the society shall have been equated. The trend since 1991 has advanced with new technological platforms being created to define progress and bridge the digital divide (Ghobadi & Ghobadi, 2015).
It will be appropriate to consider the ethical approach that will bring deeper meaning to the establishment of infrastructure. It will be ethical to construct balanced infrastructure in support for the elimination of the digital divide. Also, it will be ethical to give men and women equal opportunities in the technological advancements (Radovanović et al, 2015). As a result, all the people will contribute to the elimination of the digital divide and support the global advancement in technology. On the other hand, some areas may be segregated further causing more imbalance as some people may use the money meant for development of poor economies for enhancements in the developing countries (Cooper, 2006). In return, the digital divide will extend.
However, as was demonstrated by American legislation in the mid 1990s, development off an infrastructure for connectivity is not enough. Providing a network for connection in underdeveloped nations is pointless if individuals still do not have the technology to connect to these networks. The computer manufacturing companies should, therefore, seek operations in the undeveloped economies. This does not require the creation of new technology, but rather finding ways to market technologies in areas where extreme poverty has limited access, up to this point. It is extremely unfortunate to have various countries around the globe with the potential to achieve massive performance, being limited from engagement in modern economics, and globalization of trade, because they have no access to technological devices. This stems from having none of the computer manufacturing companies in their geographic region, and no way to import such items, in a feasible way. The marketing of such companies and goods into the economies, without proper digitization would mean lack of adequate development and unbalanced system for the people (James, 2011). However, increased digitization network, without implementation of access to technology devices is also a significant failure. If both issues are not equally addressed the divide will continue to develop.
According to Chen and Wellman (2004), the divide is most visible between the developed and undeveloped economies. For example, in 2001 approximately 169 million Americans were using the internet, which accounted for approximately 60% of the population of the country. In contrast, however, South America was at around 29 million users, which is only approximately 5% of the population. and Africa had approximately 10 million users, which was only slightly above 1.5% of the population (Chen & Wellman, 2004). Therefore, there was an evident technological divide between the internet users around the world. What this means, however, is that internet access had become common place in American schools, businesses, and homes. Even though, as previously noted, the poor have more limited access to these technologies, nearly every school in America, by 2001, had access to computers and were teaching computer classes. However, in Africa, only a very limited number of persons had any kind of access, with more than 98 percent of the population having no exposure to modern computing technology. What this means, from a practical point of view, is that children in American elementary schools have more computer access and knowledge, then adults, working to support families, in most areas of Africa and South America.
The move to overcome the digital divide would not only be informed by the promotion of overall success in enabling people to access information but would ensure more people have knowledge on how to use the various technological devices. The world has to become a hub for technological knowledge. The infrastructure has to offer an outstanding platform through which the internet and computers shall reach all the people. There will be an assurance for excellence over the time since more people will have become exposed to modern technology. The unethical behavior of imbalanced development should be eliminated to assure the world of equal progress.
Martin Hilbert (2011) further works to define the elements of the digital divide, and the
way that it continues to exist and impact society, however he takes a very different approach. Rather than considering access in developed or underdeveloped countries, or in terms of income, he worked to study the problem through a gender view or with consideration for how genders are provided access to technology, and technological training. Hilbert’s study specifically records that women are not technologically advanced, in terms of access or education, as men in the society. There was no equal playing ground for women with men. Men are viewed as technological gurus and they are solely responsible for the technological advancements in many technologies (Hilbert, 2011). As such, changes must be made to ensure that there is gender equality in access to technology, so that men and women can equally gain access to the benefits of connectivity and technological professional advancement.
More specifically, Hilbert believes that value in application of technology and connectivity cannot be fully realized without proper consideration for the two genders. The females equally have an opportunity to impact the technology sector, however in order for female impact to positively impact technological advancement, she must first be provided appropriate education and access. Therefore, any form of a digital divide between the women and men should be eliminated with the highest easiness (Hilbert, 2011). There should be an assurance for change through the use of technology. Hilbert argues that technology is one of the most outstanding platforms through which gender inequality should be eliminated in the society. This is as simple as changing social perceptions related to women’s relationship to technology and providing increased educational opportunities for women globally.
This has been supported in many cases, as can be seen by the global push to support the advancement of women in STEM fields (AAUW , 2010). This includes the elimination of stereotyping, gender bias, and altering the climate of technology and science departments at universities to make them more accepting of both female students, and female instructors. Making these kinds of changes will allow women to take a more active role in the future of technology.
In conclusion, it is clear that healing the digital divide, globally, is not as simple as solving one issue, that prevents meaningful access to modern technology. Rather, it is a matter of updating infrastructure, accessibility, technology, and public perceptions, in order to allow all people equal access to both physical access and educational access to technology. While it is clear that the divide between the haves, and have nots, in the technological realm is still wide, the digital divide is not a problem that cannot be well solved. Rather, it is a problem that should be solved, as a matter of global priority, as a means of ensuring that all nations and all people can engage in the benefits of modern technology, and participate in today’s economy with equal vigor. As such, access to computers, implementation of infrastructural change, increased educational opportunities, and altered stereotypes are all equally critical in minimizing the digital divide, and maximizing global potential.
References:
AAUW (2010). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Available at http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/
Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide–within and between countries. IT & society, 1(7), 39-45.
Chinn, M. & Fairlie, R. (2006). The determinants of the global digital divide: a cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16-44.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: the special case of gender. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334.
Ghobadi, S & Ghobadi, Z. (2015). How access gaps interact and shape digital divide: a cognitive investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(4), 330-340.
Hilbert, M. (2011). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women's Studies International Forum, 34(6), 479-489.
James, J. (2011). Low-cost computing and related ways of overcoming the global digital divide. Journal of Information Science, 27(6), 385-392.
Lewis, P. (2006). We need better yardstick to measure digital divide, researcher says. University of Washington Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/news/2006/10/11/we-need-better-yardstick-to-measure-digital-divide-researcher-says/
Mitrović, Đ. (2015). Broadband adoption, digital divide, and the global economic competitiveness of Western Balkan countries. Economic Annals, 60(207), 95-116.
Poole, G. (1996). A New Gulf in American Education, the Digital Divide. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 17 January 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/29/business/a-new-gulf-in-american-education-the-digital-divide.html
Qureshi, S. (2014). Overcoming Technological Determinism in Understanding the Digital Divide: Where Do We Go From Here? Information Technology for Development, 20(3), 215-217.
Radovanović, D., Hogan, B., & Lalić, D. (2015). Overcoming digital divides in higher education: Digital literacy beyond Facebook. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1733-1749
