The Digital Divide Jeff Weisberger Independent Study, Fall 2011

2 Introduction Ironically, the idea for this research study first came to me when I was watching television at home during a break from college. A commercial for Time Warner Cable came on, depicting a White, presumably middle to upper class family of four in which every member is digitally engaged in some fashion. Dad is working on his laptop at the desk, Mom is peeking out from the kitchen on her tablet, and the kids are probably social networking or watching videos on the flat-screen television. This depiction may not seem out of the ordinary for some Americans, who perceive Internet access as something that has become fundamental to modern, everyday life. We wake up to the sound of our smartphone alarms chiming and fall asleep with our laptops literally atop our laps. But for a minority of the American population, there exists a different reality. There is still a substantial percentage of Americans who do not have a computer or do not use the Internet. Although this group has been steadily dwindling in numbers since the advent of the Internet in the mid-1990s, a significant marginalized population is still without the benefits of the Information Age. Furthermore, the differences between those with access and those without it are especially concerning, because they reflect a number of existing social inequalities.

3 One may wonder why the Internet, of all things, is important in the midst of poverty, unemployment, health, education, and other major national concerns. Of course, access to the Internet does not provide a cure to our nations problems. However, there is no doubt that the Internet is quickly proving itself to be one of the most incredible and vital technologies we have ever seen. Take this quote from President Obama in April 2011: We will invest in medical research. We will invest in clean energy technology. We will invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education. We will invest in job training. We will do what we need to do to compete, and we will win the future. For those who are not yet convinced of the Internets importance, first consider the substantial consequences of not having Internet access. Social, economic, and educational exclusion for those without Internet is becoming an increasing reality as the Internet shifts from a luxury to an everyday necessity. Employment opportunities are steadily moving to online media. According to Connect 2 Compete (2011), 80 percent of Fortune 500 Companies today, including WalMart and Target, require online job applications. Studies show that students without access to the Internet cannot access the vast information available online and have lower rates of academic achievement. Even high-achieving students can be hampered by nonaccess, since scholarship opportunities and up-to-date college

4 information are largely online. Internet users have seen the benefits of buying goods online, while those without access miss out on a variety of savings with all types of purchases. Popular websites that compare prices and rates keep retailers honest, and sites like eBay and Amazon sell goods from around the world at slashed prices. Access to health information is also a major benefit of Internet access, with a myriad of nutritional, fitness, and disease advice available on the Web. Political and community information has been gradually shifting online as well, under the assumption that people would rather have vital information and news delivered to their computers. Lastly, online communication (such as e-mail and instant messaging) and Web 2.0 (social media, user-generated content, video sharing, blogs, etc.) have been instrumental in connecting people in real-time and encouraging human expression and interaction more than ever before. Meanwhile, the Internet continues to spread on a global scale. But, in this case, the majority is without the technology. Most sources agree that around two-thirds of the global population does not have access to the Internet. Not surprisingly, developing countries and regions are the most digitally disconnected, while more developed nations have been reaping the benefits of information technology and E-commerce. The term World Wide Web is not being realized in that the Web is not available worldwide, not being accessed worldwide, and its content does not represent a truly worldwide perspective.

5 Before diving into the issue at hand, I must note that on a personal level, my outlook on the Internet is greatly biased. I was born, raised, and live in the United States. I grew up in a middle-to-upper class suburban town in New Jersey; received an education at a solid public school system; and am now a senior at a private liberal arts college in Connecticut. My father is a market researcher, so he has always been up to speed with computing technology and taught me from a young age the importance of digitally literacy. Furthermore, I was fortunate enough to grow up in a household where we could afford a desktop with Internet access. I am also a member of the so-called Y Generation, which according to Wikipedia, is characterized an increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies. I have studied abroad for three months, but only traveled to a handful of European countries where my digital experience was for the most part unchallenged. In this sense, I cannot claim that my relatively wired and privileged Western upbringing is separated from my choice of research sources and my opinions in this paper. Even a realization of my bias does not change the fact that I am strongly pro-Internet and even America-centric in many ways. Despite this, my experience with the Internet over time is instrumental in shaping many of my praises and criticisms of it as a source of information, communication, business, and so on. My familiarity with the Internet, as well as my being a

6 student of Human Relations, lends itself to a thorough analysis of how it can shape and influence ones role in society. Definition The National Telecommunications and Information Association (NTIA) first popularized the Digital Divide in the mid-1990s in order to highlight the implications of unequal access to the Internet (and other information technologies like mobile phones and PCs) among demographic and socioeconomic lines (Buente & Robbin, 2008). Since then, there have been numerous efforts to accurately and comprehensively define the Digital Divide in scholarly literature. Almost all academic opinion acknowledges that the word Divide can be misleading, in that it implies a tangible gap that separates two distinct entities or populations. Most experts agree that the Divide is complex and multi-dimensional, requiring it to be defined in respect to a variety of characteristics. Hillbert (2011) breaks down stages of analysis into a four dimensional matrix: (1) the kinds of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in question; (2) the choice of subject; (3) diverse attributes of the chosen subjects; and (4) levels of adoption, going from plain access to effective usage with real impact. Utilizing this comprehensive definition would yield hundreds of unique ways to research the Divide. Consideration must also be given to the continually fluctuating nature of the Internet, insofar that new ways to explore the concept can be generated at any moment.

7 Over time, the Digital Divide has become an umbrella term that represents and encompasses several other related and/or more specific concepts. One associated idea that emerged in 1970 (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien) is the knowledge gap, or the theory that new information that enters a society is unevenly distributed among socioeconomic lines. Another related term that has surfaced more recently is the information divide, a more informal phrase that refers to disadvantaged groups lesser opportunity to access vital information (i.e., health or election information). A third and more recent term is E-Inclusion, which is often used to describe the movement toward bridging the digital gap. Its not difficult to imagine how these concepts directly tie into the Digital Divide literature, as both knowledge and information are conferred via the Internet, and policy initiatives are natural to any matter of inequality. The last term that is most commonly entwined with Digital Divide discourse is ICT, or Information and Communication Technology. This term encompasses technology (such as telephones, mobile phones, Internet, and any other mass audio/visual transmission procedure) that is used to process information and to connect people through communication. The Digital Divide on a global scale is often analyzed using access to or penetration of ICTs, since major differences in ICT levels between regions and between developed and developing economies persist (International Telecommunication Union, 2009).

8 Literature Laced With Policy The significance of the Digital Divide lies mainly in its relationship with public policy and opinion. Since the advent of the Internet as a popular commodity, informational and technological inequality have garnered much partisan consideration due to the vast breadth of implications on disadvantaged populations. It is therefore uncommon for literature or discussion on the Divide to be merely factual and devoid of political or economic recommendations. Yu (2006) extensively describes how Digital Divide research and their corresponding views have been generally divided into four policymotivated ideologies. The first camp argues that inequalities in ICT access and usage can be viewed as a natural occurrence, much like related disparities that both have existed in the past and that currently exist. This position recommends little to no public policy directives because it is rooted in the belief that the market will progressively make ICT products cheaper and more available. The second camp is characterized by an opposing economic perspective that suggests that the digital divide is in fact holding back the ICT market. This stance suggests that because gaps are widening, the government should play a role in bridging them in order to promote further economic growth and expansion (specifically in the technological sector). The third camp takes a more liberal approach, proclaiming that the Digital Divide is a social and political concern, rather than mainly a

9 technological or economic one. This viewpoint is firmly against policy derived from the first two camps, because it believes that social inequality should be at the forefront of the debate rather than commercial affairs. The fourth and final camp strays away from recognizing the Divide as relevant in the big picture. Advocates of this viewpoint imply that the Divide stems from larger, more critical inequalities, so that governmental policy to bridge the Divide will only further disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups (as well as developed and developing nations). Decline of Digital Divide Consideration Over the Past Decade The issue of the Digital Divide has been gradually fading into obscurity over the course of the past decade or so. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, public attention regarding the Digital Divide has near consistently declined since its peak around the early 2000s (Google 2011). As public consideration has seemed to fade, academic attention has also diminished over time, as evidenced in Figure 3 by the decreasing number of scholarly articles that appear when searching for digital divide (JSTOR 2011). Google Trends- Digital Divide

10

Google Trends- internet access

Number of JSTOR items containing Digital Divide over the years

Its not surprising that attention directed toward the Digital Divide has waned. The access divide has been getting better consistently. Rates of global Internet adoption have been improving at an astonishing rate, and more than three-quarters of the United States population is reportedly online. Yet, we should not be fooled into thinking that great successes like this are enough. We have some questions to ask ourselves: 1. Is the Digital Divide fading enough to warrant its decline in attention? In short, yes. The Digital Divide, as it has been defined in

11 the past, means the divide between those that have access to the Internet and those that do not. This has been greatly improved, which makes for an understandable amount of attention to be diverted away from the access divide. However, the Digital Divide has always been discussed in terms of how to bridge the divide. In this sense, the bridge is only about three-quarters of the way built. Meanwhile, the completed part of the bridge is already being renovated further and improved while the missing part of the bridge, although still acknowledged to exist, is being overlooked by many and even ignored by some. Even others are suggesting that building a full bridge will never happen. So why propose building a bridge in the first place? In other words, the access phase of the Digital Divide requires further examination. Since the majority of access-related Digital Divide literature was written during a time when disparities were far more severe, it is more difficult to find it relevant and continue to learn from it. There needs to be a greater emphasis on finding out how to reach the segments of the population that have lower rates of Internet adoption, rather than supposing that they will eventually adopt it or accepting that they dont want to. 2. Has the Divide changed? The evolution of the Divide from stressing access to usage has been widely covered in the media and in the literature, especially in the West. It is certainly true that as the access divide narrows, the usage divide remains a problem.

12 Simply having computers and Internet access does not guarantee that one knows how to utilize them to their full potential. Some new terms being tossed around the media and political sphere these days include digital literacy and knowledge gap. These generally newfound issues have been addressed mainly by proposing/implementing educational programs and training. 3. What should we do? First, we should not forget that the access divide has only been improved and remains unsolved, particularly on a global scale. We should also recognize that those without access are largely lower-class citizens, which suggests that this gap is furthering the inequality between the haves and have-nots. In terms of public policy, the Divide should be viewed as a priority. Of course, technology should never replace more basic needs. Yet, it is becoming increasingly important for households to have quality Internet and for individuals to have the opportunity to access and use it. The main purpose of this paper is to present the Digital Divide in both a historical and modern context. I will discuss a number of aspects of the digital divide as they have been explored in the literature as well as by the media, by governments, nonprofits, and any other individual or organization that has considered the Divide. At times I will support certain positions on the Divide, while at other times I will criticize them. At some point of each section, I will provide a breakdown of the category that is as up to date as possible. This will

13 provide an insight into how each characteristic of the Divide has changed over time and how each should be viewed from a modern lens. Aside from my preliminary section on the Global Divide, most of my discussion will be centered on the Divide in the United States. As an American citizen, my perspective of this issue will be more informed and germane. Yet, the Global Divide is much more of a pressing issue that needs to be addressed by international organizations and by national governments. This is why I present the Global Divide first, followed by specific characteristics of the American Divide. However, I will avoid a completely dichotomous discussion by also occasionally relating Divide issues from other parts of the world, since many elements correlated to computer and Internet diffusion rates do not differ markedly even between developed and developing nations. (Fairlie 2008) The Global Divide Gaps Between Developed and Developing Nations When the Digital Divide was originally introduced as a concept in the 1990s, one of the priorities of the movement was to bridge the persistent gaps between developed and developing nations. Many view the global divide from an economic perspective, suggesting that developing countries will eventually see the benefits and invest in this modern technology, as they traditionally have done with past

14 innovations. Yet this view is challenged by experts that realize the essentiality of the Internet in modern global development. As developed countries continue to further their application of ICT for progress and profit, developing regions that lack this modern technology will be even more disadvantaged. Castells (2001) argues that the new techno-economic system seems to induce uneven development, simultaneously wealth and poverty, productivity and social exclusion, with its effects being differentially distributed in various areas of the world and in various social groups. Much responsibility has been placed on governments worldwide to set goals in furthering access to the Internet in order to promote sustainable development and further global inclusion. International governments have been making vast improvements over time, with every major region of the world closing the divide with North America (U.S. and Canada). North and Sub-Saharan Africa as well as the Middle East have made tremendous developments, expanding Internet access to its citizens more than 10 to 100 times more than North America has since 1995 (Robinson & Crenshaw, 2010). Despite this progress, the rates of Internet penetration in the developing world are still low. According to current statistics from the website Internet World Stats as of 2011, African countries on average have 11.4% penetration, fewer than one-quarter of Asians

15 have access, and less than a third of the Middle East has Internet2 (internetworldstats.com). Causes of the Global Divide The literature on national governments influence on the Divide is mixed. Some studies suggest that the Global Divide can be attributed to cross-national measures, specifically economic, demographic, infrastructural, and regulatory differences that exist between developed and developing nations (Chinn & Fairlie 2007). In this sense, the Global Divide can be viewed as an unfortunate consequence of already existing inequalities. More specific examples of these characteristics that have been found to be correlated with the global divide are level of urbanization (Hao & Chow 2004) and market structure (De Boer & Walbeek 1999), among others. Further studies suggest that cultural factors, such asgovernments commitment to educational/scientific development or involvement in world affairs (Drori & Jang 2003), are better determinants. This view places more accountability on individual nations and could even beget the notion that the Global Divide produces further imbalance on a global scale. Another viewpoint (Tiene 2002 & Afullo 2000) is that cost of access has a negative correlation to rates of ICT usage, suggesting that high prices may be unaffordable in developing countries where many citizens live on a working wage. Internet as a Basic Human Right

16 At the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003, the United Nations declared that access to the Internet should be a basic human right. Its Declaration of Principles states Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society offers (Geneva, 2003). The United Nations also applied its human rights laws to Internet use in 2011, in response to the Syrian governments blocking of access during political turmoil, as well as French and British laws that dictated suspension of access to those thrice convicted of piracy or file sharing (Kravetz 2011). Furthermore, a 2010 BBC-sponsored poll across 26 countries found that 79% of respondents considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental right (BBC 2010). As we can see, the modern definition of the Internet has far surpassed the notion of it as an amenity and instead pronounces it as indispensable on a worldwide scale. Benefits of Internet Adoption Across the Globe One of the clearest examples of a benefit of ICT adoption is the economic advantage. Computers and Internet capability are instrumental in terms of increased efficiency, productivity, and sustainability. In fact, studies find that a 10 percent increase in national household broadband penetration can account for a .6-.7% growth in annual GDP (Qiang & Rossotto 2009, CEBR 2003). Increased foreign investment is an incentive. Sellitto (2004) found that wineries

17 in Australia that used direct e-mail marketing had an increased amount of subsequent Web sales than their competitors. In 2000, an Indian company started E-Choupal, a computerized marketplace where farmers can interact directly with producers and also learn about market prices and best practices. As a result, incomes among farmers in a Northern state of India have reportedly doubled (Yee 2008). Social benefits are also being seen as ICT adoption spreads around the world. Internet technology can improve the way governments serve their people. A growing literature called ICT4D promotes the use of information and communication technology for the betterment of social conditions in developing countries. Unwin (2005) suggests that a well-planned framework can support use of ICTs for training teachers in Africa. More governments are also considering the move to an E-Health program (which has been instituted efficiently in Denmark) in which doctors can easily access patients medical records and are available digitally. E-government is also becoming more popular in countries like Singapore3 where it has been successful in making transactions with its citizens easy and user-friendly (IDA 2009). The Arab Spring, a historic series of revolutions and protests in the Middle East and Northern Africa that began in late 2010, is a perfect example of how the Internet can play a role in liberating citizens from oppressive regimes. Citizens used social media to unite and raise awareness around the world for their protests. Similarly, a radio

18 broadcast in Burundi was active in taking mobile calls from young citizens that wanted to take a stand against rampant political corruption (World Bank 2010). As we can see, there is a clear demand around the world for Internet as a forum to express political opinions and free speech. Problems One of the biggest issues with the spread of ICTs is that the beneficiaries are often not evenly distributed among the population. In India, for example, those who benefited from ICT-based initiatives were found to be almost always not the poorest or most disadvantaged groups (Walsham 2010). Another issue is that computer or Internet access does not guarantee a positive impact. Some cultures may not be initially receptive to the introduction of this technology because it is viewed as a Western invention. Some governments may have legal barriers in place that monopolize or control the national communications industry, while others (more totalitarian in nature) have their own Internet systems in place that restrict access to certain sites. In the poorest areas of the world, there is often no electricity and illiteracy is common. Even if literacy is high, language is also a common problem. Carr (2007) and other experts argue that bridging the Divide is a smaller task than actually being able to connect people through a cross-cultural method of conveying and viewing information.

19 All things considered, ICTs should be part of a strategy for improving social conditions in developing nations. The Digital Divide- Characteristics Location The issue of rural vs. urban access has been well documented in the Digital Divide literature, while also attracting a fair amount of attention in terms of public policy. Rural populations have been shown to have a significantly lower Internet (and broadband) adoption than urban areas, with most current statistics suggesting that rural households are about 10 percent less likely to have broadband Internet access (and also less likely to have computers and Internet in general). One reason often cited for the location divide is the lack of broadband infrastructure in rural areas, making it much less available to nonmetropolitan populations. Broadband companies have been known to avoid installing their services in rural areas because of the lower returns to investment in areas that are sparsely populated, have lower incomes, and have more unpredictable terrain and weather conditions. High prices are also a common cause for non-adoption. The usually big and highly profitable American cable companies (such as Comcast and Time Warner) have a firm grip on their respective regional markets because of little competition, allowing them to raise prices at will (Crawford 2011). The recently retired CEO of Verizon (one of the major cable companies) Ivan Seidenberg recently responded to Susan

20 Crawfords December 2011 New York Times op-ed piece that criticized the American broadband industry. He said that the article contributes to the perception that Americas broadband marketplace is second tier. That is simply not so. About 95 percent of the United States population has access to broadband, with the vast majority having multiple competitors to choose from. Seidenbergs statement is encouraging and aligns with recent initiatives such as the FCCs Connect 2 Compete, which offers discounted broadband to families with children that are eligible for the National Free Lunch program. Unfortunately, Seidenberg fails to mention the details of this extensive coverage. As of 2007, 82% of all Internet-adopting homes used broadband, but only 70% of rural homes chose to adopt broadband (Stenberg et al 2009). This is because many rural users cannot afford or the high costs of regular broadband and instead use satellite broadband, a slower and more unreliable form of broadband that is even prone to shutdowns in poor weather. S.E. Smith, a rural-dwelling blogger, cites the frustration of rural communities: having their Internet shut down when its snows, often being unable to load videos or graphics, and having to constantly deal with the common assumption that all Internet is high-speed (Meloukihia 2011). Furthermore, Smith explains how cable companies advertise satellite as high speed and lock their customers into expensive deals that cost up to $100 a month. Seidenbergs viewpoint

21 offers a bleak glance into the geographic divide, and we can only hope that broadband initiatives continue to improve the digital plight of those in rural areas. Galloway (2007) presents an interesting viewpoint in the case of the UK governments promotion of broadband. She suggests that the primary issue in spreading broadband to rural areas would not be access, but that rural businesses tend to lack propensity for growth and diversification. Although Galloway may be right in stating that rural industry in less enterprising than urban industry, she underestimates the value of ICTs in benefiting business practice. Stenberg et al (2009) found that rural economies generally benefit from broadband. Specific examples included using E-commerce for improving efficiency and market reach, satisfying supplier requirements, and boosting online sales for rural farmers. Cases like these are another justification for efforts to bridge the urban-rural divide. Socioeconomic Status The American Psychological Association defines socioeconomic status as commonly measured by a combination of education, income, and occupation (2011). These three closely intertwined factors have all been cited as characteristics of the Divide. Income has been well documented as a source of the digital divide, if not one of the most significant causes. According to the NTIA (2010),

22 among households with incomes less than $25,000, only 54% own a computer and only 43% used broadband. Meanwhile, households with an income between $50,000 and $75,000 have an 81% adoption rate of broadband, and 88% of these households have a computer.

The graphs above from Pew show similar rates that support the claim that income is a significant cause of the access divide. This makes considerable sense because a higher income allows for ease of spending on computer and Internet costs, while lower income individuals or households are not given this opportunity. Jansen (2010) controlled for factors such as community type, education, race, and age and found that income was a statistically significant independent predictor of Internet use. Adult educational attainment, another facet of socioeconomic status, has also been shown in studies to have a relationship to the

23 Divide. The latest statistics by Pew Internet (2011,a) suggest that only 42% of adults who didnt finish high school use the Internet, while 69% of high school graduates and 89% of adults who attended some college are online. In addition, Livingston (2010) found that differences in Internet use between Hispanic Americans and whites largely disappear when adjusting for income and educational attainment, suggesting that these two factors are likely behind the gap. Occupation, the third aspect of socioeconomic status, has also been linked to computer and Internet use. A supplement to the 2003 CPS (Current Population Survey) found that workers with higher education were more likely to use computers and the Internet at their workplace (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005). The survey also concluded that, understandably, the majority of white-collar workers (managers, professionals, sales and office personnel) were likely to use a computer at work, while only about one in four blue-collar workers (e.g., construction, maintenance, production and transportation) do so. Age There is no doubt that the use of computers and broadband Internet has been steadily increasing among all generations. The graph below (Pew 2009) shows a comparison of broadband adoption between 2005 and 2008:

24

Despite incredible growth, especially among the older generations that have tripled their adoption rates over a period of four years, there is still a significant Divide that exists with regards to age. Older individuals are less likely to be digitally engaged, with current statistics suggesting that among those age 65 and older, only around 61% use a computer and around 42% use the Internet (Pew Internet 2011,a; NTIA 2010). However, the next generation of elderly seniors (ages 50-64) is far more likely to use the Internet (around three-quarters currently do so), suggesting that the age gap will narrow with time. Yet, not everyone is convinced that the elderly want, or even need, the Internet. The following segment is from Deutsche Welle, a German international broadcaster. On its website, it featured an article from December 2011 about a new European Union report finding that 24% of the more than 100 million people living in the EU nations have never used the Internet. Although the article does call this divide non-

25 negligible and does a good job of acknowledging its relationship to infrastructure and literacy rates, it offers a risky viewpoint:

Viik may be right that much of this disparity is due to an aging population in developed European nations. Yet, this ignores the myriad of other possible reasons for the access divide. Suggesting that local communities can survive quite well is unreasonable in a modern global economy that is hinged upon technological advancements. As Castells states, development without the Internet would be equivalent of industrialization without electricity in the industrial era (2001). Rather than recommend that policymakers take note of the digitally-excluded segment of the population, Viik should be suggesting that policymakers attempt to reach them. This digital inequality is not inescapable, and it is disappointing for someone considered an Internet expert to express such a nave reason for the divide.

26 Viiks assumption that one-quarter of society probably will never use the Internet is groundless when looking at the steady global growth of the technology over the past decade and a half. His rationale is also flawed because the aging population will only continue to increase over time with further advancements in medicine and technology. How can Viik accept the digital marginalization of the fastest growing demographic, especially one that can undeniably benefit from access to online information and communication? Many studies have found that seniors are capable of learning to use computing technology and the Internet, and that doing so produces countless positive effects that include easier access to health information and enhanced communication with family and friends. Nevertheless, Viiks explanation lacks the foresight to realize that every cohort that grows into old age will be more familiar with technology than the previous generation, and this trend is already being realized as mentioned earlier. If the digital trends continue, it might not be long before elderly populations are fully involved in the access of information technology. Other Characteristics Disability has often been cited as a significant barrier to Internet access, with most sources reporting that only a little more than half of disabled Americans use the Internet. Depending on the definition, most surveys show that about 19-27% of American adults live with

27 some kind of disability. Disabled adults are also more likely to have low incomes and low educational attainment as compared to nondisabled adults, which likely accounts for their lower rates of Internet access. Incidentally, individuals with disabilities have been shown to benefit greatly from Internet adoption. Taylor (2000) found that disabled adults that used the Internet found more positive effects than adults without disabilities. These results included feeling better informed and connected to the world around them, as well as having positive interactions with other similarly-disabled Internet users. Gender, although not a significant issue in terms of the American Divide, is found to be substantial in predicting Internet use in some other nations. The World Internet Project (WIP) found that many countries, including Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Italy, Macao, and Mexico, had at least an eight percent difference in Internet use between men and women (Pierce 2010). Italy, considered a technologically developed country, surprisingly was found to have over a 20 percent gender difference in Internet use. The Second Divide As access has been consistently improving over time, a new second divide has been getting a boost in consideration. This divide has several closely-related monikers that suggest that access alone is not a solution to problems of the Internet.

28 The first new Divide is called the Skills Divide, also known as or connected to Digital literacy and E-Learning. This concept refers to the issue that follows the access divide: the disparity between those who know how to use the Internet/computers and those who do not. According to Digitalliteracy.gov (2011), a website that was introduced by the Obama administration, the ability to navigate the Internet is critical to participate more fully in the economy. Age and education level have been commonly cited as predictors of digital literacy (Hargittai 2002; van Dijk 2005). Ones ability to successfully use the Internet depends to a degree on whether the user is a digital native, someone born into the digital age, or a digital immigrant that was born before this era and has adopted technology later in life (Prensky 2001). Digital natives may be highly adept in the online operational aspect, but they have been found to lack in strong ability to critically evaluate online content (Gui & Argentine 2011). On the other hand, some experts are calling for increased or mandatory digital literacy training for digital immigrant teachers, since their ability to educate teens relies upon a better understanding of their subjects digital upbringing and experience. Another issue with the skills divide is overall familiarity with online debauchery. This includes the ability to recognize online hoaxes, scams, viruses, and phishing attempts at identity theft that usually take advantage of the digitally illiterate. Also, proficient Internet navigation can have positive benefits such as

29 saving money on online purchases, finding important on the Web, and building ones online identity through social networking. The other new divide that often is mentioned as a complement to the access divide is the participation divide. This suggests that the vast majority of people on the Internet will only view content as opposed to creating or contributing. A common theory is the 90-9-1 Rule stating that 90 percent of Internet users will lurk in an online community, 9 percent will contribute something, and 1 percent will create. An extreme example is Wikipedia, a free online collaborative encyclopedia containing over 20 million articles in 282 languages. It is currently the sixth most-visited website on the Internet and is estimated to have 365 million readers worldwide (Alexa 2011). Although anyone can create and edit content, the most active 1,000 members have been shown to contribute about two-thirds of the sites content. While the participation divide is less drastic than most other divides, it does represent a significant issue. Those of us that watched videos on YouTube know that the comments usually contain male teenage angst or toilet humor rather than representing a diverse range of opinions and responses. As the Internet becomes more of a resource and a social space, a more varied perspective on the Web will be needed to represent its users. Criticisms

30 In the Executive Summary section of their 2011 report, the NTIA/ESA share the following footnote regarding the phraseology used when discussing survey results from 2010:

Streamlining a concept as multifaceted as the Digital Divide can create a number of issues. First, the data presented can be misleading because different components of the Divide are being presented through terms that are either unsuitable or unclear. Access generally indicates whether an individual or household can somehow obtain the Internet. This term can be appropriately interchanged with adoption. On the other hand, the word use can be interpreted in many ways. It could mean the sole ability to use the Internet, which is where it could be synonymous with access or adoption. Yet, use could also mean how the Internet is used, exemplified by amount of use, skill of the user, or even what it is used for. Utilization, another word chosen as a descriptor, indicates some form of effective or practical use, but for some reason these words are deemed substitutable by the authors of the report. Additionally, the inclusion of the word connection provides even further confusion because it could mean the ability to connect to the Internet (like access or adoption) or the type of connection. The survey included both dial-up

31 and broadband service as a type of Internet access service despite the fact that dial-up, widely considered to be obsolete, produces an entirely different type of use than broadband. The report makes up for this element by displaying detailed data regarding broadband in households, which is found to be at 68%. The Pew Internet & American Life Project runs into similar lexical trouble when trying to generalize American Internet use for its most current (2011a,b) statistics. Since the Pew project has been one of the most followed and publicized American-based Internet resources to recent date, its detailed publications are usually summarized by short descriptions or tables that make the findings easy to decipher. Its website currently states that 78% of men and women use the Internet, but does not specify a particular amount or type of use that qualifies. Finding the answer requires further delving into the Explore Survey Questions, where you can search for the keyword use and discover its methodology. The following is the question that determines use of the Internet:

Pew is technically making a valid statement in saying that 78% of Americans use the Internet. But most would agree that its summarized presentation of the data is ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation. It would be hard to argue that someone who uses the Internet

32 occasionally can be considered a user when compared to those users that routinely go on the Internet or e-mail. Yet, Pew employs the terms interchangeably. For example, their most current statistical table on its website is entitled Demographics of Internet Users with this description: Below is the percentage of each group who use the Internet, according to our May 2011 survey. Pew, NTIA, and other Internet-studies organizations have to find a more balanced approach in the future by presenting their data in laymans terms while providing sufficient detail to ensure correct interpretation. Why Arent They Online? One of the most important findings of the Department of Commerces (NTIA/ESA) 2011 report was the reason for lack of Internet adoption. Here is one of the graphs displayed in the report:

33

The data shows that the most popular response was Dont need it, not interested among those households without Internet access and/or without a computer. In other words, the report suggests that 16 million households in the United States have no expressed necessity or desire to have Internet. According to current statistics, these households are generally low-income, rural, or containing elderly residents. Why do these people believe they dont need one of the most undeniable technological advancements of our time? I have three possible explanations for this survey response: 1. Doesnt it seem coincidental that the vast majority of people that claim to not need or be interested in the Internet are the same people who often cant afford the technology or dont have it available? It seems plausible that many of these respondents are being dishonest, because they are ashamed of either not being able to afford Internet or of living where Broadband isnt offered. They may have responded this way as a defense mechanism, in which something that cant be owned becomes something that isnt needed in the first place. There is strong evidence for what is called a Social Desirability Bias in the social psychological literature, suggesting that survey participants will sometimes respond in an ego-protective manner when asked a question that threatens their self-image. Since lack of Internet access may lead to social stigmatization, dishonest answers may certainly be

34 existent in the Dont need it, not interested response numbers. If this is the case, government intervention is encouraged to limit this identity-affective divide as much as possible. As mentioned earlier, the U.N. has declared Internet access a basic human right in response to instances of governmental Internet shutdowns in times of turmoil. Other basic rights include the right to freedom, property, and privacy. Would it seem legitimate if just under half of people without freedom or property claimed to not need or be interested in them? 2. Many are clueless. They think the Internet is a luxury and they really dont need it. They may equate the Internet to a form of entertainment (like television) rather than a vital source of information. They may even acknowledge that the Internet provides an advantage, but they dont understand that this advantage is becoming more and more imperative. As stated by the Social Science Research Council (Dailey et al 2010), the Internet has become increasingly a basic requirement of social and economic inclusion. If this many Americans are simply unaware of the Internets importance, then there needs to be more public policy geared towards promoting the importance of the Internet in everyday life and the future. It is undeniable that educational systems, employers, and government agencies at all levels have shifted services online - and are pushing rapidly to do more (SSRC, 2010). The responsibility here lies mainly with the

35 government in trying to get everyone caught up before racing to the finish line. 3. They have an acceptable reason. Maybe they simply do not want to communicate with the outside world or trust information from online sources. They may fear or resist change. Perhaps they lament the loss of community that comes with the new digital age. Regardless of their reasons, people are entitled to their opinions. If the statistic is indeed true, and such a significant amount of people are disinterested in this technology, then the government should leave them alone and stop wasting time and money trying to include them. As the Internet continues to develop and grow, more and more people will eventually gain an interest. In a similar vein, Connected Nation, a nonprofit organization devoted to closing the Digital Divide, conducted a survey of adult heads of households across 10 states (Alaska, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Tennessee). The following graph displays their findings for nonadoption:

36

(from Connected Nation 2011) 4 This survey polled heads of households, as opposed to residents as in the NTIA survey. This survey was also only focused on broadband, while the NTIA polled about reasons for both broadband nonsubscription and overall Internet non-adoption. Interestingly, this survey found that only about 23% responded with Dont need it, not interested, which was represented by the responses of No Content Worth Viewing, Not Needed and Dont Use It Enough. As we can see, there are a number of different other reasons for non-adoption. In fact, many of these responses bring up issues that are not impossible to address. Twenty-nine percent of these respondents cited affordability (Broadband fees expensive, Computer too expensive, and Activation fees expensive) as an issue, which obviously can be solved by the lowering of prices or the distribution of low-cost options by providers. Reponses that reflect availability or quality reasons (Not

37 Available, Have Access Elsewhere, No Computer Access, and Not Fast Enough) make up 15%, and these concerns could also be resolved by greater broadband proliferation and high value service in more areas. Furthermore, reasons involving self-efficacy or knowledge (Dont Know What It Is, Too Complicated, Worried About Fraud, and Uncomfortable Using PC) account for 19% of concerns, which can be mitigated by increased digital literacy training and awareness campaigns. A third source, Pew Internet, also offered up an explanation in its report entitled Home Broadband 2010 (Smith 2010). According to Pew, 21% of American adults ages 18 and older were not using the Internet as of last year, and that many expressed little interest in doing so. Here are some highlights of the report:

With all three surveys in mind, we can formulate an image of those who do not use the Internet and are disinterested in it. As mentioned earlier, we must first consider that it those who do not use the Internet have acceptable reasons. Many of these people have shown a pattern of expressed disinterest in the Internet or broadband because they find

38 it irrelevant to their lives. An argument can definitely be made that these people are intrinsically happier and maybe even smarter because of their avoidance of this new and controversial technology. On the other hand, many of these people are unfamiliar with, fearful of, or confused by technology in general. Since computer and the Internet are relatively new advancements, there are inevitably going to be some people that avoid it. But their reason for doing so should not be construed as wholly valid. This is because many of these respondents have displayed little knowledge or understanding of how the Internet or computers work. Having little grasp on something like the Internet can surely form an attitude toward it that manifests as indifference. If these people had tried the Internet for a few months, decided it was useless to them, and then given it up, this viewpoint would be reasonable. Yet, these people are largely assuming that the Internet is not for them without having the chance to really experience what it has to offer. For those of us that have used the Internet, we realize that life before it existed was quite different. We know that the Internet can offer something to almost everyone, which is why it has become such a phenomenon in every part of the world and among all walks of life. It isnt surprising that a large percentage of people not using something are disinterested in it. Yet, it is suspicious that these people can know that they have little interest in something that is considered

39 so universally interesting, especially without knowing how to use it. I wonder if these individuals would refuse if offered a free computer, free broadband access, and computer and digital literacy training. What will it take to convince these people that Internet is interesting and valuable? Hopefully, this lack of interest is stemming from a lack of affordability or understanding, because costly initiatives and programs toward inclusion are presuming that there is interest. Computer Adoption vs. Internet Adoption

The above table is taken from 2010 data in the Appendix of the 2011 NTIA/ESA Report. This table highlights an important issue that is often overlooked in the digital divide discourse. The arrows show the difference in broadband adoption between all households and computer-using households, specifically for those with low incomes and low educational attainment. For households with incomes less

40 than $25,000, broadband adoption is significantly higher if the household already has a computer, with the likelihood jumping from 42.9% to 78.8%. The same holds true for heads of households that have no high school diploma; only a third of all households in this category have broadband, while about three-quarters have adopted broadband among computer-using households. These statistics were also supported in a December 2008 Nielsen Report: So while there are a sizable number of PC homes that do not have web access, there is actually a greater number who do not have a personal computer, either for economical or technological reasons.
5

So, what do these statistics tell us? Although the wide disparity in Broadband access between computer users and non-computer users may be obvious, it tells us that having a computer at all is a significant first step. The cost of computers has been declining over time due to competition and high demand, yet many still cannot afford the costs or choose not to buy one. Also, cost is not the only issue when deciding whether to purchase a computer. Computers are believed by many to be designed for planned obsolescence, so that they malfunction after a few years or the lithium battery dies and prevents the computer from turning on at all. Computer and software technology is also rapid in its developmental pace, so that models that are a few years old will become obsolete over time or incompatible with newer programs or installations. All these unfortunate factors may dissuade low-income

41 households from investing in computing technology that changes so often. Yet, there could be another explanation. Maybe those who abstain from buying a computer realize that they cannot purchase Internet (specifically Broadband) services to go with it. Modern computers are basically built to operate with Internet capability. Computer updates, troubleshooting, applications, and more are all delivered via the Web. Although free public Wi-Fi is available in major cities and in establishments, this is designed more as a convenience for existing users than a solution. Whether the Internet or the computer industry is the issue here, costs will have to be reduced to a more affordable level in order for broadband adoption to increase among low income and low education households. Conclusion There are signs that the closing of the access divide will continue to accelerate in the coming years. First of all, teens from all walks of life are participating online, according to this table from Pew Internet (2011,b):

42

These statistics are promising and suggest that the access divide may soon give way to the usage divide as the Y Generation grows into adulthood. Will the children of the so-called Net Generation be even more tech-savvy, producing yet another divide? Will the closing of the technological gap facilitate a more equal social playing field? Questions like these will only be answered in time, but the prospects are endlessly intriguing. In addition, although the access divide has been diminishing in its importance in light of the recent economic downturn, the U.S. government is focused on improving in the future, as evidenced by its $7 billion investment to extend the nations broadband infrastructure, expand public computer center capacity, and promote broadband adoption (NTIA 2011). The FCC is teaming up with Internet providers, technology companies, and nonprofits to offer highly discounted

43 broadband and computers to low-income and rural families with children. Although these initiatives are only temporary solutions, since low-cost broadband will be offered for only up to three years, this should convince households of the importance of investing in broadband in the future. However, there are still reasons to be proactive about making the Internet more accessible for a greater number of people. Looking back at the major issues discussed in this paper, here are a few recommendations: The Location Divide: Better quality and cheaper broadband must be extended to rural areas so that residents dont have to choose between pricey high-speed plans or unreliable satellite plans. If cable companies are unwilling to extend their services, the government needs to offer incentives to make it worth their while. Recent actions in late 2011 by the FCC to impose regulations on broadband providers was met with a lawsuit from AT&T, casting doubt on whether the government and the telecommunications industry can cooperate to promote rural access. The government should look into the future of wireless broadband, especially for its compatibility with the budding smartphone and mobile wireless industry. Socioeconomic Status: There have to be continued and better alternatives to proprietary computer software and hardware, as well as increased familiarity with and use of free options of computing. As we

44 have seen, computer use significantly raises incidence of broadband adoption. Current computers sold on the market are often expensive because of pre-installed operating systems. These operating systems are closed source, meaning they are designed by software companies and then sold with computers in their finalized form. Microsoft Windows and Apple OS dominate the software market, accounting for the vast majority (around 99%) of pre-installed software on PCs sold globally. Since these companies update their operating systems every few years, old computers become obsolete in the process. Furthermore, todays computers have massive hard drives to store many gigabytes of files and are prone to damage and breakdowns. If a computer breaks or needs to be replaced by a new model, data recovery and transfer can be costly and tedious. There needs to be a movement away from traditional computing by an increased awareness of free open source software and cloud computing. Free open source software is editable by users, making it both continually updated and manageable. Some governments have been adapting open source for their needs. For example, in 2009, the White House website moved to Linux (the most popular free open source operating system) servers. Individuals and businesses are also exploring cloud computing as a new exciting option because it allows for the elimination of physical data storage. The cloud is a theoretical space in an online network where people can access, store,

45 and share data from any location (ones computer, phone, tablet, or even the server). This removes the need for physical data storage and prevents the possibility of losing ones personal data. If more people continue to embrace these alternative methods, then maybe computers will drop in price, as they will simply be a screen, a keyboard, a mouse, and a battery. Age: The generation gap in Internet use may eventually disappear, but it is significant now in terms of both access and usage. The main problem here is not inability to access, since many elderly people that use the Internet have broadband. Instead, the issue is lack of interest, perceived irrelevance, or lack of technological skills. These three factors can all be resolved with the help of the younger generation, all with no cost to the taxpayer. Teens can be instrumental in teaching their grandparents how to use computer and Internet technology effectively. Volunteer groups that visit elderly residences should focus more on computer training rather than playing checkers. Teens represent a valuable resource that can used to assist older generations in using new technology. Digital Literacy: Education should be highly reliant on computing as well as digital technology and information. Schools must stress the importance of the Internet as a resource for information, communication, and collaboration. Teachers need advanced training with ICT and should be able to navigate the online world with their

46 students. This cannot happen without funding to modernize educational tools, such as laptops for students and integration of multimedia in the classroom. Although these advancements should not come at the expense of traditional literacy and comprehension, it should be one of the major educational initiatives for the future. It is no longer acceptable to teach with outdated methods; all our children deserve to be educated for contemporary life. The responsibility within schools should fall both with the administration, teachers, and the library. Public libraries (which serve about 97% of Americas population) should also be community leaders in promoting digital literacy and online skills. The Internets capability to unite and connect people is truly unprecedented. Furthermore, it is unique because it has the capacity to constantly evolve with innovations and contributions from people around the world. On the other hand, the Internet is a source of perpetual criticism and concern because of it often becomes a medium for violence, deviance, pornography and other negative behaviors. Even the Developed world is sometimes accused of cultural imperialism in its approach to promoting to spread of wired technology to the rest of the globe. Despite the critics, the Internet is being hailed as the foundation for the new global economy, politics, and society. As Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the One Laptop Per Child Association has stated, Computing is not about computers anymore. It is about

47 living. And this is the best reason to promote the growth of Internet penetration and usage so that more people can truly live.

Footnotes 1- Source: Jeff Weisberger (2011). Created with Microsoft Excel. 2- It is important to note that the Middle East statistics are considerably skewed by Iraq and Yemen. Iraq is the second most populous nation in the Middle East with over 30 million citizens, but is by far the worst at providing Internet to its citizens (the usage rate is estimated to be 2.8%). Yemen is the fourth most highly populated nation in the region at over 24 million, yet it only provides Internet to less than 10 percent of its residents. 3- www.egov.gov.sg/

48 4- Connected Nation is actually partially funded by the NTIA, which makes the slight disparity in their findings even more remarkable. 5- Note: Nielsen fails to consider that there are far more reasons for not using a computer than just economical or technological ones. Two examples could be personal opinion (such as an anti-computer sentiment) and physical reasons (such as a disability that prevents computer use).

References Afullo, T. (2000). Global Information and Africa: The Telecommunications Infrastructure for Cyberspace Library Management 21 (4): 205-213 Alexa: The Web Information Company (2011). http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org APA (2011). Socioeconomic Status http://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/index.aspx BBC (2010). Four in Five Regard Internet Access as a Fundamental Right: Global Poll http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_03_10_BBC_intern et_poll.pdf

49 Buente, W. and Robbin, A. (2008).Trends in Internet information behavior, 2000 2004 Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59: 17431760. doi: 10.1002/asi.20883 Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Computer and Internet Use at Work Summary http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ciuaw.nr0.htm Carr, Deborah (2007). The Global Digital Divide Contexts, 6(3), 58. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. CEBR (2003). The Economic Impact of a Competitive Market for Broadband, a report for the Broadband Industry Group. Chinn M.D. & Fairlie R.W. (2007). "The Determinants of the Global Digital Divide: A Cross-Country Analysis of Computer and Internet Penetration," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 16-44. Connected Nation (2011). 2011 Residential Survey http://connectednation.org/research/ Crawford, S.P. (2011). The New Digital Divide in New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/internetaccess-and-the-new-divide.html?_r=1&seid=auto&smid=twnytimesopinion&pagewanted=all Dailey, D., Byrne A., Powell A., Karaganis, J., Chung, J. (2010). Broadband Adoption in Low-Income Comunities Social Science Research Council. De Boer, S.J. & Walbeek, M.M. (1999). Information Technology in Developing Countries: A Study to Guide Policy Formulation International Journal of Information Management 19 (3): 207-18 Digitalliteracy.gov (2011). About Us Drori, G.S. & Jang, Y.S. (2003). The Global Digital Divide : A Sociological Assessment of Trends and Causes Social Science Computer Review 21: 144

50 Epstein, D., Nisbet, E.C., and Gillespie, T. (2011). Whos Responsible for the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications The Information Society, 27: 2, 92-104 Fairlie, R.W. (2008). The Global Digital Divide and the Effects of Technology Use on Educational Outcomes Prepared for Adoption of ICT Enabled Information Systems for Agricultural Development Workshop. Tokyo, Japan August 24, 2008 Google (2011). Google Trends. http://www.google.com/trends Gross, G. (2010). FCCs National Broadband Plan: Whats In It? http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/191438/fccs_nati onal_broadband_plan_whats_in_it.html Gui, M. & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital Skills of Internet Natives: Different Forms of Digital Literacy in a Random Sample of Northern Italian High School Students New Media & Society, 13(6). Hao, X. and Chow, S.K. (2004). Factors Affecting Internet Development: An Asian Survey, First Monday 9(2). http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_2/hao/index.html Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in Peoples Online Skills First Monday 7(4). Hillbert, M. (2011). The End Justifies the Definition: The Manifold Outlooks on the Digital Divide and Their Practical Usefulness for Policymaking. Telecommuncations Policy, 35(8). Infocomm Development Authority (2009). Annual e-Government Customer Perception Surveys Conducted in 2008 and 2009 http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20090717150535.aspx International Telecommunication Union (2009). Measuring the Information Society: The ICT Development Index pp. 108. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics (2011). Miniwatts Marketing Group. http://www.internetworldstats.com/ Jansen, J. (2010). Use of the Internet in Higher-Income Households. Pew Internet & American Life Project. JSTOR (2011). http://www.jstor.org/

51 Kravets, D. (2011). U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right in Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-humanright/ Livingston, G. (2010). Latinos and Digital Technology Pew Hispanic Center. National Telecommunications and Information Administration & Economics and Statistics Administration (2011). Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home. Nielsen Company (2008). An Overview of Home Internet Access in the U.S. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/overview-of-home-internet-access-inthe-us-jan-6.pdf Obama, Barack (2011). Remarks made during speech on Fiscal Policy in Washington D.C. on April 23, 2011. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2011,a). Demographics of Internet Users http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/TrendData/Whos-Online.aspx Pew Internet & American Life Project (2011,b). Demographics of Teen Internet Users http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/TrendData-for-Teens/Whos-Online.aspx Phalnikar, Sonya (2011).Report Reveals Internet Divide Across EU in Deutsche Welle. http://www.dwworld.de/dw/article/0,,15607128,00.html Pierce, J. (2010). World Internet Project Report Finds Large Percentages of NonUsers, and Significant Gender Disparities in Going Online. USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants From On the Horizon. MCB University Press, 9(5). Qiang, C. Z.-W. & Rosotto, C. with Kimura, K. (2009). Economic Impacts of Broadband Information and Communications for Development. Extending Reach and Increasing Impact. Washington, DC: World Bank.

52 Robison, K. K. and Crenshaw, E. M. (2010). Reevaluating the Global Digital Divide: Socio-Demographic and Conflict Barriers to the Internet Revolution Sociological Inquiry, 80: 3462. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00315.x Sellitto, C. (2004). "Internet Adoption by Australian Wineries: Perceived Benefits and Direct Marketing Practices" International Journal of Wine Marketing, 16 (3) Smith, A. (2010). Home Broadband 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project. Smith, S.E. (2011). Notes From the Urban/Rural Divide: Internet http://meloukhia.net/2011/02/notes_from_the_urbanrural_divide_i nternet.html#fnref-12694-2 Taylor, H. (2000). "How the Internet is Improving the Lives of Americans with Disabilities." The Harris Poll #30. Los Angeles: Creators Syndicate, Inc. Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. and Olien, C.N. (1970). Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge Public Opinion Quarterly 34: Colombia University Press. Tiene, D. (2002). Addressing the Global Digital Divide and its Impact on Educational Opportunity Educational Media International 39 (3/4) 211-222. Unwin, T. (2005). Towards a Framework for the Use of ICT in Teacher Training in Africa Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning. 20 (2). van Dijk, J (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in The Information Society Sage Publications: London. Walsham, G. (2010). ICTs For The Broader Development of India: An Analysis of the LIiterature. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 41 (4), 1-20. Wikipedia (2011). Generation Y Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. The Wikimedia Foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y World Bank Institute (2010). Cell Phones and Radio Counter Corruption in Burundi http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/stories/cell-phones-and-radiocounter-corruption-burundi

53

World Summit on the Information Society (2003). Geneva. Yee, A. (2008). Rebooting the Indian Farming Revolution. Financial Times, May 2. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c1a49bae-17e5-11dd-b98a0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1hQi3uvDu Yu, L. (2006). Understanding Information Inequality: Making Sense of the Literature of the Information and Digital Divides Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38 (4).