Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide Response
In a time when internet access seems fundamental in contributing to society as we know it, the question of whether or not everyone can, or should, have access to information technologies has been discussed many times and been tied to many different terms. The most popular term this phenomenon has been given, the "digital divide", and its possible problems are the subject of Mark Warschauer's paper Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. While the general consensus has been that the digital divide is simply a problem of lack of access for quite a while, the underlying issues behind this divide are more nuanced than one can see at first glance.
As programs that have given undirected access to computers and internet have shown, "minimally invasive education" have resulted in a neglect of community organization, awareness, and language. While access to a computer is easily the first step in bridging any sort of digital gap, awareness on why this technology is important and other educational resources help elevate technology to meaningful access and contribution to the digital space. As the examples in this reading show, there is no binary division between those who use technology (and use it in a "meaningful" way) and those who have no access. Rather, there exists different degrees in which communities are connected to the ever-growing digital space.
Before reading this journal, I had not considered the implications of this binary "have" and "have-not" mentality in relation to digital technology access. However, I can see how this this way of thinking could perpetuate the cycle of the digital divide in its own right; if a marginalized group is thought to be on the wrong side of the digital divide, it could stand to reason that technology groups would not be likely to cater to these "have-nots". What do you think is the best course of action in trying to bridge the digital divide?
Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide." First Monday [Online], 7.7 (2002): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr. 2019
As programs that have given undirected access to computers and internet have shown, "minimally invasive education" have resulted in a neglect of community organization, awareness, and language. While access to a computer is easily the first step in bridging any sort of digital gap, awareness on why this technology is important and other educational resources help elevate technology to meaningful access and contribution to the digital space. As the examples in this reading show, there is no binary division between those who use technology (and use it in a "meaningful" way) and those who have no access. Rather, there exists different degrees in which communities are connected to the ever-growing digital space.
Before reading this journal, I had not considered the implications of this binary "have" and "have-not" mentality in relation to digital technology access. However, I can see how this this way of thinking could perpetuate the cycle of the digital divide in its own right; if a marginalized group is thought to be on the wrong side of the digital divide, it could stand to reason that technology groups would not be likely to cater to these "have-nots". What do you think is the best course of action in trying to bridge the digital divide?
Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide." First Monday [Online], 7.7 (2002): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr. 2019
Based on the article, it seems the downfall of the attempts made to bridge the divide was trying to incorporate new technology too quickly into a society that either didn't want the new resources, didn't need them to function, or simply could not grasp the education aspects. Perhaps the answer is to incorporate digital technology slowly over time within a society rather than all at once so as to not disturb the functions already established. Time is essential to learning something successfully. Forcing it stands to little victory.
ReplyDelete