"building the capacity of public media and technology organizations"
It seems I'm about four field reports behind, so I’m providing four links that will help explain what I’ve been working on. The first two relate to my organization’s citizen journalism project and the last two to the youth video journalism club I work with.
Did anyone get to watch 60 minutes last night? They had a report on Nicholas Negroponte and his involvement with One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization that is trying to bring affordable $100 laptops for all the underserved children in developing nations.
The report was very eye-opening for me. I had heard of the project but didn't give it much thought. However, after the interview I came away disappointed with Negroponte and his organization. I believe his intentions are good, but his lack of business skills and toxic relationship with the tech industry will inevitably doom his efforts to bring laptops to children.
The digital divide issue is currently characterized by two distinct trains of thought: the digital binary group who choose to characterize the issue as there being a rift between the technological haves and have nots, and the digital inequity group who choose to characterize the issue as an uneven diffusion of participation, use, and skill in computers and the internet. The digital binary group believes that the gap between the ICT haves and have nots exists or has existed in the past, and bridging the gap is necessary to minimize the disadvantages of the unconnected. The digital inequity group acknowledges that not having adequate access to technology can harm your ultimate life chances, however they believe that merely owning technological gadgets alone will not address the greater problem of social inequity.
Comment from cheryl jerozal on May 8, 2007 - 8:41am
interesting post.
it is easy for warren buffett not to use a computer because he already made his name in a time when not using a computer was normal. i would imagine that for people starting out today, those that don't use computers will have a harder time of things simply because so many others do use computers and that is what is expected. i'm not saying this is how it should be but how i think it is. do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) to refute or confirm this perception?
Comment from Kevin Bulger on May 8, 2007 - 7:05pm
Making money in business or running a successful non-profit is determined by the organization's capacity for innovation (see Drucker, Peter). Right now, there has been so much innovation in the digital technology world that computers seems to be synonymous with innovation and invention. But there are plenty of other ways to be innovative that doesnt include digital technology.
As for quality of life and digital technology, I believe self-fulfillment is determined by the individual and not their gadgets. I believe the internet can and does empower folks, but the individual has to first want to be empowered. If folks want a better life, its up to them to decide what that better life looks like and if its worth striving for. I dont see how digital technology plays a part in that process other than helping folks achieve their goals once they've been set.
For me, the biggest problem with the under-served or the disadvantaged is that they dont have goals, they have little sense of self-worth, they are fragile, and they are incompetent. Technology isnt going to help them. If anything, its just going to add to the long list of things they arent good at. These folks need training, rehabilitation, and community involvement. All of which can be made better by technology, but its a very very very very very very fine line that everyone everywhere seems to miss. Its not the technology that should be emphasized, but the health and human services and the social programming.
Comment from brittney fosbrook on May 9, 2007 - 5:51pm
I disagree with the idea that technology does little to help folks achieve their goals. And personally, I find some of the statements in your last reply offensive. You say that the "under-served or the disadvantaged...dont have goals...have little sense of self-worth... are fragile, and...are incompetent." If VISTAs are carrying around these outrageous and stereotypical ideas about low-income folks, what are we really achieving as VISTAS anyway? I work with many so called 'incompetent, goal-less' low-income and/or homeless families at the Homeless Prenatal that use technology to find jobs to support their families, look for public housing, research their pregnancies and build and advertise for their own businesses.
Most of these families have many goals and desires and the HPP acts as a tool for many families to achieve these goals. Additionally, our technology center helps people (that have been told so often they were not good enough, smart enough, determined enough) learn how to use these tools as access points for many social services. We try to help our clients realize their enormous capacity through technology education. Our classes aim to not only teach technology, but to use technology as a self-sufficiency builder to help people accomplish their goals.
Comment from Kevin Bulger on May 9, 2007 - 10:25pm
Im sorry if I offended you or anybody, but I still think it is true that the underprivileged suffer from low self-esteem and related problems. Im not going to sugar coat it, and I dont believe Im being stereotypical because I live in a poor neighborhood and I see it. Poor folks dont feel good about themselves.
The CTCs that Ive worked with do a good job. But, Id like to see more types of services integrated with them. Things like substance abuse prevention, parenting classes, and invigorating after-school programs. I dont think a CTC is going to succeed if it assumes its users are all hunky-dory, well-adjusted folks. They have to know their community and be able to objectively address their community issues.
Im not saying that poor folks are bad people, but a lot are troubled and in need of more help than just knowing how to use a computer. Yeah, computer training can make someone feel more confident in themselves, but its not enough to just teach them a skill. They need more support, and I think a more comprehensive service packaging will go a long ways towards achieving a more equitable society.
In the late 1970s and through all of the 1980s, unequal access to computers, the internet, and other forms of communication technology were seen as distant problems of a space-aged 21st century, if they were even thought of at all. In the 1980s and before, home computers were rare, expensive, and an esoteric pastime of enthusiasts. The internet was merely a pay-per-email facilitation device used by scholars and top government officials, and cordless phones were all the rage. The World Wide Web (WWW), multimedia computers, and fiber optic networks were all still under construction by computer technicians, engineers, and Al Gore.
I feel it is important to have a deep, full understanding of a problem before you go about finding solutions to it. Since I will be focusing on Digital Divide issues and suggesting solutions for them, I need to know precisely what the Digital Divide refers to before I do anything.
What does the Digital Divide mean? Why does it matter? To whom or what does it refer to? How does the divide close? How would you know when its closed? What does the solution(s) look like? How can you tell if a solution is appropriate for a specific geographical area? How do you measure the successes or failures of a solution? Does the Digital Divide only apply to people or to organizations as well? What kind of people does the Digital Divide target? What kind of organizations?
Comment from danielle martin on February 7, 2007 - 12:52pm
Hey Kevin,
Great musings for a new CTC VISTA! The whole "digital divide" movement is rich with all these questions and conflicts. I'd suggest you check out the writing of Henry Jenkins at MIT (http://www.henryjenkins.org/) - he's been talking about how there's no longer a digital divide (which I disagree with myself) but now it's a "participation gap", which sounds close to what you're getting at. I'd agree that the work needs to be less about just getting people access to technology, but giving them the skills and value to using it.
Anyway, I'm definitely thinking this would be a great part of the next Digest.
-Danielle
Comment from Peter Miller on February 7, 2007 - 4:17pm
Hey, Kevin, Danielle's given me a heads up about your post and since I'm in the middle of writing some funding inquiries for the project and how we contribute to "bridging the digital divide," looks like it'd be useful for me to check out your post to see what new highways and by-ways it points to.
…and a good post it is. The way you begin your penultimate paragraph is right on, and your final conclusion is a great reward. Lots of really good questions. Let me offer just a couple of contributions to the topic and check back in down the line to see how it's going.
The founder of all of this, Antonia Stone, who began the Playing to Win computer literacy and training program for prisoners and ex-offenders back in 1981, the Playing to Win community computing center in a public housing basement in east Harlem in 1983, the Playing to Win Network, PTWNet, which grew into CTCNet--she saw way back when that computers would become a basic social tool and that those without access to them and the education and training to use them effectively would become further alienated and disenfranchised from our basic culture and resources and that have-have not divisions would deepen into even greater social antagonisms with major social and political repercussions. A lot of that is reflected quite explicitly in the original PTW creed as it was developed in the 80's and carried into the 90's and 21st century. See, for instance, www.comtechreview.org/winter-spring-1998/r981miss.htm:
"Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet) envisions a society in which all people are equitably empowered by technology skills and usage. CTCNet is committed to achieving this end.
"CTCNet shares with Playing To Win, its founding organization, a recognition that, in an increasingly technologically dominated society, people who are socially and/or economically disadvantaged will become further disadvantaged if they lack access to computers and computer-related technologies.
"CTCNet brings together agencies and programs that provide opportunities whereby people of all ages who typically lack access to computers and related technologies can learn to use these technologies in an environment that encourages exploration and discovery and, through this experience, develop personal skills and self-confidence.
"CTCNet offers resources to enhance each affiliated agency/program's capacity to provide technology access and education to its constituency and to help and nurture other like-minded programs in its area. CTCNet will facilitate telecommunications, print, and in-person linkages enabling members to benefit from shared experience and expertise.
"CTCNet will be a leading advocate of equitable access to computers and related technologies; it will invite, initiate, and actively encourage partnerships and collaborations with other individuals and organizations that offer resources in support of its mission; and it will strive, in every arena, to bring about universal technological enfranchisement."
Toni and CTCNet people did not invent the phrase "digital divide," but that's what the organization and the movement spoke to through the 90's as the phrase picked up currency during the latter years of the Clinton-Gore administration. It was a "Digital Divide" Request for Proposal (RFP) that the Corporation for National and Community Service issued in the spring of 2000 that led to the establishment of the CTC VISTA Project, the anti-poverty missions of VISTA and CTCNet coming together in the effort we are all involved with now.
Even then the phrase "digital divide" was starting to lose its currency and popularity, not only among those who tried to minimize the problem and say it no longer existed, but also among many of the strongest proponents of CTC programs and efforts that sought to provide greater technology resources and capacities for the entire nonprofit sector. The argument, so it goes, is that the phrase originated from the side of the "haves" and reflects neither the experience nor the understanding of the "have-nots" but rather a characteristic problematic we-have-the-knowledge-and-tools upper, upper-middle class patronizing attitude. In many quarters the phrase "digital opportunities" program has come to be used in its place. I personally value the phrase "digital divide" as it is one of the few expressions in public discourse that carries with it the sense that there are deep social divisions we need to address.
There's much more to be said in response to your set of questions--this seems like a good amount for now. -----peter
= = = = = =
Peter Miller -- CTC VISTA Project -- www.ctcvista.org
Comment from Kevin Bulger on February 7, 2007 - 5:54pm
Hi Peter,
I think it is important that the issues regarding the technologically under-served and under-educated be revisited, renamed, and reconceptualized every so often just to make the issue fresh and exciting to would-be funders. Otherwise this to happens.
The term "digital divide" carries weight because its simple, self-explanatory, and familiar. However, it is limited by its staleness; it evokes oversimplified solutions; and the term has become associated with superfluous luxury. Eveything has its pluses and minuses, I guess.
Comment from Morgan Sully on January 25, 2008 - 9:55pm
Naomi!
That's awesome news that you got hired at OTX - looked like an inevitably awesome choice for both you and OTX.
Go VISTA!