1 Reading: Neil Selwyn, Reconsidering political and popular understandings on digital divide A meaningful definition for e readiness and

digital development are dependent on the definition of digital divide. For decades Political and popular conceptualizations of the digital divide have tended to be strictly dichotomous; the haves and have nots. According to Ismael Pena-Lopez what lacks in all these concepts is functiona empowerment of ICTs. Adding to mark Warschauers seminal articles on digital development, here comes the interesting reference of Selwyn, N (2004). developing a new framework to redefine digital divide. He starts with four questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is meant by ICT; What is meant by access; What is relation between access to ICT and use of ICT; and How can we best consider the consequences of engagement with ICT;

and answers back proposing four categories of digital development which he calls as four stages in digital divide. 1. 2. 3. 4. Formal/theoretical access to ICTs and content Effective access to ICTs and content Engagement with ICTs and content Consequences of ICT usage

Many scholars argued that ICTs can help in social and economic progression of nation states. Scholars like Castells and Reich argued that new computer and telecommunication technologies will transform countries into knowledge economies and network societies. But this techno enthusiasm has been tampered by emerging new problems of the time like digital exclusion. Initially the questions pertaining to digital divide were limited to who is connected to ICTS. The haves and have-nots theory and was confined to the gap between March 6, 2012 Rajesh Cheemalakonda

2 developed and developing or less developed countries. However there is change in scholars approach due to surfacing issues of technological inequalities with in individual countries. Selwyns article starts with theoretical origin of term digital divide from center-left social inclusion policy agenda, and moves on to four theoretical limitations to consider four theoretical and conceptual limitations to conventional notions of the digital divide in terms of individuals with and without access to ICT. First theoretical limitation he points out is in defining ICTs. He says the existing frameworks defined ICTs as access to computer hardware and internet. These definitions were not inclusive in respect to rapid technological revolution that occurred in recent decades the new proposed framework tries to make it more inclusive by adding telecommunications, electronic gadget IT interfaces etc for a broader definition of ICTs. The use of term digital to refer to the content that is provided via such technologies the soft-ware rather than the hard-ware. Second theoretical limitation he discussed in the paper is in defining access to ICTs. Here he stressed more on the mediating factors that intertwine with the access to ICTs beyond the concept of have and have not. Here he clearly distinguishes the difference in having individual, personal access to community based access of ICTs. And focuses on the mediating factors such as ease of use, social, cultural, gender, caste, based exclusions, individual privacy etc. The third theoretical limitation he proposed is the relation between access to ICTs and the use of ICTs. By adopting the innovations diffusions theory he points out the inequalities in access to ICTs between early adopters to laggards of the technologies and also tries to establish the difference between use of ICTs to meaningful use of ICTs. Lack of meaningful use is not due to technological factors like physical access, operational skills but individuals engagement with ICTs is based on a variety of other factors like social, psychological, economic and pragmatic reasons. Thus engagement with ICTs March 6, 2012 Rajesh Cheemalakonda

3 is least concerned with ownership or access to ICTs but more about how people develop relations with ICTs. The fourth limitation he discussed in the article is pertaining to consequences of ICT usage. Quoting Lyon he argues that the ICTs are not automatic for all. By its very nature, some information is specialist and restricted to a few with the requisite intellectual and managerial skills to manipulate and use it thus creating inequalities. He points towards understanding the situational relevance of access to technology and information from the individuals point of view, and, in particular, the relevance of the consequences or potential consequences of engagement with ICT. He suggests that the most useful framework to utilize here is the various dimensions of participation in society that can be seen as constituting inclusion of various activities in peoples engagement with ICTs like production, political, consumption and saving activity. Thus he attempts to develop a new framework to understand digital divide. Using Selwyns framework we can identify the forms of various affects that influence the individual ability to access, and utilize the information through ICTs. At this juncture I believe this framework can help us to get rid of conventional approaches in understanding digital exclusion. I personal feel Selwyns article seems to have less focused on various other mediating factors like technological drop-outs of IT, pragmatic time warp that is created due to technical delay in provision of access to ICTs by governments or BGO projects, cultural and power related interventions by those who own power in controlling the information access. However the framework developed here is not a rigid and these issues can still be included in further developments.

March 6, 2012 Rajesh Cheemalakonda