Digital Arts Service Corps - Digital Divide

The latest from Cambridge, Mass.

Julie Adler — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:40:22 +0000

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.

1. NeighborMedia citizen journalism site
The third quarter of my VISTA term has been focused on outreach for NeighborMedia. I have been working with our citizen journalists, one neighborhood at a time, to identify outreach opportunities in their zip codes. We are promoting the project as a source of news and information, while trying to stress the participatory nature of the media in the hopes that people will get involved. Due to the civic-mindedness of the people in the program, engaging community members in issues they’re covering has been successful. The only problem is that many of our cit-jos simply do not have the time to be the sole correspondent – or one of two – in their area. It is a full time job, they say, which is why our model is not working as well as others have, and we are looking to re-examine the direction of the project. Some of the stories covered so far: holiday festivals, neighborhood development issues, traffic calming and snow emergency regulations.

2. NeighborMedia episodes
Each month, we try to put together the best of the content that was produced the previous month. Since much of the video content comes from BeLives (30 minutes on the hot set), we are trying to get creative so the show is not just talking heads. I have been rounding up staff members (including myself) to voice over blog entries, and I have an intern who helps me lay the voice track over photographs the cit-jos have taken. We have been assigning production mentors to work 1-on-1 with participants who seem to have the time but just not the know-how to produce video yet. Many of the cit-jos come from backgrounds in print journalism, so the transition to multimedia has been a real challenge for them.

3. Youth View Cambridge
This is the online archive of our new student newscast at Cambridge Educational Access, a media arts organization affiliated with Cambridge Rindge and Latin H.S. In terms of progress, I feel that we have come a long way. (By we, I mean myself and the CEA staff members I am working with.) Since this is an after-school program and that doesn't leave much room for a training program, we have started to really focus attention on certain students based on their strengths, interests and availability. Instead of reaching out for fresh talent, we are trying to make the most of the students we have, because by investing time in them it's more likely they'll stay involved throughout their high school years. (None are seniors.) There is a group of work-study students at the Media Arts Studio where are based, and we consider them part of our Video Journalism club because they often serve as the crew who goes out and shoots stories for the reporters who don't get paid. These students have some degree of technical expertise. What we realized was that one of them was weaker in the production sense, so we recruited him to instead be a key player on the news team (Associate Producer). He gets paid twice as much to do this, and he's a sophomore, so the hope is that he will really soak up a lot of knowledge and be able to pass it on in the coming years.

In other news, we recently tried to do a live-to-tape studio shoot, but it was unsuccessful, so we are trying to figure out how to get organized and make that happen. We found that it keeps students on their feet, so it has the potential to make shoots go more smoothly.

4. YVC blog
We set up this blog as a forum for story ideas and students’ thoughts, but instead it became a good way for us to document recent developments with the video journalism club. As you’ll see in the blog, we took a field trip to channel 5 in Boston where one of our other club leaders works part-time. He gave us a great tour and students had the opportunity to view the live newscast from the studio and control room. Also since the new year, a new program began that was supposed to be part of my VISTA work-plan but had to be cut out due to time constraints. Instead, the idea – to create a news program for 6th-graders – was tweaked and is now being run by one of the media teachers. She is teaching a few 11-year olds basic video news production skills so they can produce segments for YVC.

Another youth media milestone for me was a cyber-discovery that I made: hsbj.org, an offshoot of highschooljournalism.org, which led me to the RTNDF broadcast journalism teacher listserv. The messages that come through are often very helpful, making the listserv an extremely valuable resource for the high school broadcast journalism community.
------
(In news unrelated to my VISTA work, CCTV is hosting a Digital Divide pilot project in collaboration with the city and an educational nonprofit. Participating residents in a low-income housing development are receiving free wireless, refurbished computers and computer training. It's been a really interesting project to watch unfold, especially because it's so in line with the CTC VISTA mission!)

The time has come to say goodbye...

Naomi Jimenez — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:52:55 +0000

Hi everyone! This is my last blog entry as a CTC VISTA. It has been a very fun and rewarding year for me. It all started when I moved to California from Philly. I still can't believe I up and left Philly and all my family and friends to move to a place where I had no permanent place to live, everything was totally unfamiliar, and where everyone (except for 1 person) was a stranger. I remember feeling so scared yet excited at the same time. I didn't know what to expect. My transition was rough not only for me but for my cat that I dragged along (sorry Meechie). I was fortunate to be temporarily housed by my co-worker and his wife for a month and then again for a few more months after my first roommate situation went bad. But then I ended up with a really cool and compatible roommate in June and both Meechie and I have felt at home ever since. :)

But where did the time go? It feels like I've only been here a few months. I guess time really does fly when you're having fun. I still feel so new to the Bay Area and have many more things to do, places to see, and cool people to meet. I have accomplished a lot in the last year though. I worked really hard creating and enhancing curriculum for the computer classes that we provide, I taught digital storytelling workshops to the Oakland youth, created a databases, refurbished computers, installed computer labs in schools and other organizations, and helped develop the website. We distributed over 2000 computers and installed about 1500 to schools in the year I served. I've gained so much knowledge and experience from doing these things and it amazes me how far I've come in one year.

But now my year as a VISTA has come to an end today. But I had a fitting ending to my year. I participating in an MLK day of service at Sobrante Park Elementary School. My organization, along with Hands on Bay Area and Kaiser Permanente Hospital, installed 50 computers in the school. I had a blast and I scored a really cool MLK day of service shirt (gotta love free stuff).

So tomorrow I will be an official OTX-West employee. I will be doing much of the same and then some. I feel like I did everything I set out to do and I'm really proud of myself for that. I really made a difference in the lives of many Oakland residents, in that my service was a step forward in eliminating the digital divide. But it doesn't stop here. There is still so much to do and so much room to grow. I'm looking forward to what 2008 will bring and hope that it's as good to me as 2007. Good luck to you all and keep up the great work!

Peace out,

Naomi

60 Minutes Last Night?

Kevin Bulger — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:57:03 +0000

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.

Apparently, Intel has developed a cheaper and better laptop, but somehow Negroponte is angry about it because he thinks Intel is getting in the way of his mission. Intel's computer called "the Classmate" is much like the laptop developed by Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child organization as it is specifically engineered to fit the needs of the underserved children of developing nations.

Negroponte is upset with Intel because he thinks the Classmate will put him out of business; and instead of trying to partner with Intel, Negroponte has chosen to react with unwarranted hostility. Clearly, bringing laptops to the BILLIONS of children in developing nations can't be done by any single organization, yet Negroponte seems to think that One Laptop Per Child is the only organization that can do it.

It is this type of this do-it-alone-because-I-am-the-only-one-fit-to-do-so-because-I-care-more-about-people-than-you-do approach that will cause his organization to fail. Negroponte may be a good guy, but he needs to realize that he must cooperate with the tech industry and other non-profits if he wants to be successful. Also, he should realize that a little competition is a good thing, and reacting negatively to competition is harmful.

Finally, Negroponte, One Laptop Per Child, and others need to figure out how these laptops can specifically improve the lives of folks living in developing nations. 60 minutes did say the kids were more likely to go to school, but they didnt say exactly what the kids were doing while at school with their laptops. Playing games, taking pictures, and horsing around is ok so long as it doesnt take away from the curriculum. Perhaps instead of feuding with Intel, Negroponte should work on developing a curriculum that invovles these laptops that is an improvement on what came before. Giving these kids a nice toy is surely generous, but giving them a laptop in tandem with curriculum enhancements would be even better.

Digital Divide 2.0: Rethinking ICT Diffusion

Kevin Bulger — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:20:06 +0000

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.

The digital binary group was the first to respond to the issue. Formed when the internet was just becoming popularized, the digital binary group, armed with census data, aimed to demonstrate the uneven distribution of the information superhighway among Americans. They focus on ownership and access to technology as it relates to different classes in society, and they have demonstrated how some groups in America are under-equipped with computers and internet access. As the numbers of individuals who own computers grows every year, prices of computers fall, and product quality improves, progress towards bridging the digital divide is thought to be made. Some in the digital binary group believe the gap has been closed due to market forces making it much cheaper to own higher quality gadgets and high-speed connections. Others believe the gap persists as minorities, the poor, and the disabled remain unconnected at lower rates than the more advantaged white majority.

The digital inequity group is the new comer to the issue. Although still concerned about ownership and access to the internet and computers, the digital inequity group sees beyond mere ownership of gadgets. They feel that technology is embedded in pre-existing social structures and systems, and that failing to participate in technology is akin to removing yourself from the benefits these social constructs provide. The digital equity group places a high value on social inclusion as they believe ICT allows citizens to completely participate in society, have adequate levels of control over their own lives, and maximizes the economic, health, educational, and cultural benefits available to them through the internet. Finally, the digital inequity group believes that the digital binary group oversimplifies the issue as they fail to take into account differences in levels of participation, computer skills, and purpose of use in their analysis of ICT distribution, and that they, either intentionally or unintentionally, demean those unconnected to ICT by claiming they are doomed to a life of labor-intensive, low-pay work if they do not pay into the almighty church of technology consumption.

With these two groups in mind, the digital divide issue becomes complex, contentious, and debatable. Both camps have had their redeeming factors and usefulness for their respective eras in internet history; however, as more and more people in the United States log on to the World Wide Web, the digital binary group loses some of its connection to reality and helpfulness to the disadvantaged.

To begin with, computer ownership and access to the web are only superficial indicators of social benefits. Owning a computer with internet access does not mean that person will use it to empower themselves, participate in the community, or improve their lives. Access, whether it is access to a computer, the web, or computer literacy, can not ensure that individuals, especially disadvantaged individuals, will derive any benefit from ICT. Computer ownership may mean that those owners have more and better internet experiences from the privacy of their own home; however, it is not an absolute indication of computer skills and purpose of use.

Secondly, assuming that the technological have nots are destined for doom without an internet connection and computer at home is inaccurate and demeaning. Plenty of people choose to not connect to the internet and have rich, fulfilling lives. Warren Buffett, perhaps the world’s greatest investor and philanthropist, does not have a computer in his home nor does he carry a cell phone. Technology may carry significant social, economic, and political advantages, but it does not determine success, happiness, or fulfillment. By applying pressure to have the disadvantaged sign up for the internet and purchase computers, the digital binary group imposes a set of values on a plural, differentiated group, thereby proselytizing and coercing them to comply with a hegemonic dictum of information and communication privileging. Technology improves lives, but only when people are given the option. The digital inequity group asks that everyone should have a fair chance to access ICT without demeaning those who choose not to access it.

Third, the digital binary group suffers from a lack of information. Indeed, the only reason the digital binary group characterized the digital divide as a divide between the digital haves and have nots in the first place is due to a lack of data. Census data during the 1990s, especially the early 1990s, did not offer information on how much individuals used their computers, what they used them for, how they had bettered themselves through technology, etc. Recent studies have demonstrated that mere ownership of technology is inadequate when addressing ICT diffusion. Therefore, it has become clear that increasing computer and internet penetration rates should not be the only action taken to solve the problem, and that a mixed bag of solutions should take the fore when focusing on improving technological diffusion.

The digital inequity group believes that social inclusion, computer skills, and purpose of use take precedence over mere ownership of technological gadgets. They believe that greater social inclusion leads to empowerment and belonging; better computer skills lead to greater employability and social involvement; and well-directed purpose of use leads to life-improvements and quality of life gains. They believe that full technological diffusion will be achieved when all members of society master the general maneuverability of ICT, not when all members of society own a device. When turning on a computer, searching for content on the web, and fully utilizing software programs become skills that everyone can perform is when we can speak of a truly closed digital divide.

A Brief History of the Digital Divide

Kevin Bulger — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:57:14 +0000

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.

It was not until the High Performance Computing Act passed on December 9, 1991 that mass internet access in the United States became a possibility. Aimed at bolstering the economy of the coming millennia, this bill proposed the creation of a high speed fiber optic network or what was called the National Information Infrastructure (NII). The bill’s effect on internet access was enormous. In the Fall of 1990 there were approximately 313,000 computers online throughout the United States, and by 1996 that number exploded to 10 million (Campbell-Kelly and Aspray 1996). Coupled with the introduction of the Mosaic web browser and the user-friendly Windows Operating System, fascination and wonder in the internet began to take off in American culture.

In the latter half of the 1990s the internet phenomena captured the imagination of many. The internet was what the railroad, the automobile, and the telephone were in their respective eras. The internet was a revolution, and it was going to change the economy, communication, society, and create an ever-shrinking planet. The internet was thought to be so full of possibilities that anyone who was left out of the revolution was doomed to a life of unconnected alienation, missed opportunity, and information poverty, while those basking in the glow of a Yahoo! flashing computer screen were thought to be sophisticated, chic, and informed individuals making a prudent choice by getting connected. Nobody, it was thought, should be deprived of the internet, its alternative plane of existence (cyberspace), and the endless possibilities of its infinite human network.

As the internet’s mystique grew, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) disseminated a report in July 1995 called Falling Through the Net: a Survey of the “Have Nots” in Rural and Urban America. Although not mentioning the exact phrase “digital divide”, this report found that poor people in general have the lowest penetration rates of NII, while those who were poor and actually had access to the internet in their homes were more likely to engage in “on-line services that facilitate economic uplift and empowerment” (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/fallingthru.html). Assumed in the report was that the internet was a driver of empowerment and marker of equity. The hype behind the usefulness of internet was picking up steam.

Months after the NTIA’s initial report, the exact phrase “digital divide” began to surface along the American Psyche. According to chat room legend, Amy Harmon, a journalist at the Los Angeles Times, wrote a story in 1996 about a split between a husband and wife regarding the husband’s preoccupation with the internet. The wife, feeling ignored and unloved by her husband’s seemingly perpetual computer use, was threatening to leave him if he did not comply with her wishes. She described the rift between the husband and wife as a “digital divide”. Hence, the digital divide phrase became coined.

A short time later, Allen Hammond, a law professor at New York Law School, and Larry Irving, a political appointee at the Department of Commerce, began using the phrase “digital divide” much differently. Hammond and Irving used the phrase often in public speeches to describe a binary divide between the computer and internet haves and have nots. Much in the spirit of the NTIA’s initial Falling Through the Net report, Hammond and Irving pointed out that many classes of Americans such as women, African Americans, American Indians, low-income Americans, and the disabled all had disproportionately low computer and internet penetration rates compared to those who had computers and internet access in their homes. This marked the beginning of the current meaning of the phrase today.

By 1999 the phrase “digital divide” became a common slogan for policy makers, non-profit organizations, and others involved in the high-tech sector. Its simplistic and alliterative tone gave decision makers something to rally behind as the public still began to adapt to the lightning fast progress of information communication technology (ICT). During this time, while the internet became exceedingly ubiquitous and prevalent within American society, households with internet access were becoming the norm. Gaps in access to the internet remained along racial, income, and geographic lines; however the NTIA and others suffered from a serious lack of data and inadequately demonstrated their argument.

The NTIA’s first three Falling Through the Net reports of the 1990s really represented the government’s awakening to the ICT gap. Relying solely on Census data, the NTIA was only able to gather data on computer, telephone, and modem ownership, and did not account for other forms of internet access. Additionally, monitoring and demonstrating how the internet was actually used by the privileged and under-privileged was a near impossible task for the NTIA at the time. Focusing solely on ownership of ICT and ignoring how the technology was actually used prevented the NTIA and others from an in depth analysis of inequitable technology access (http://www7.nationalacademies. org/cstb/wp_digitaldivide.pdf).

As more information became available, experts began to rethink the digital divide and expand it beyond the binary haves and have not concept. As early as 2000, right before the dot.com bubble burst, author Steve Cisler began questioning the preciseness of the digital divide slogan and reframed the issue of internet access. He and others felt the term was over-simplistic, demeaning, and took “on a very different caste in an international context where problems are so much greater than in the United States” (Cisler 2000).

He felt that the internet connection existed on a spectrum rather than a binary relationship. It was apparent to them that the line of thinking: “You are online or offline; you have a computer or you are without one; you are trained for the digital future, or you are in dead-end low paying work” was inconsistent with reality and condescending at the same time. He felt that people fall on a spectrum of connectivity where some benefit from high-speed access in their personal homes, others have slower cable-modem access, others have access in schools, libraries, or other public places, while others still choose not to be connected in the first place. Cisler reasoned that many people choose to be offline for many different reasons and to assume that someone remains offline is doomed to a life of hardship and disgrace is arrogant and techno-centric.

In the year 2001 after the dot.com bubble burst and the initial enthusiasm of the digital age began to wane, computers and the internet started to reach the majority, while their cost became cheaper and their ease of operation improved. As ICT became more commonplace, many observers believed that the digital divide had been exaggerated or would eventually be closed due to a Reaganesque trickle down principle. By 2004, the NTIA’s A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age report highlighted the growth of ICT access and just fell short of declaring the issue of the digital divide closed. Michael Powell, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), mocked the digital divide issue by declaring, “I think there is a Mercedes-Benz divide, I’d like one, but I can’t afford it” (http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/digitaldivide.pdf). The digital divide, for so long perceived as that binary divide between the ICT haves and have nots, was losing its spot on America’s agenda, while the true victims of the digital divide remained unattended to due to the belief that the market would work its magic and fix the problem on its own.

In response to the NTIA’s new stance on the digital divide, many authors took up the challenge to reopen the debate by reframing the issue and picked up where Steve Cisler and others left off. Currently, many authors recognize that ICT does in fact play a critical role in the American economy and society, and that access to ICT plays a part in determining marginalization and inclusion in society. However, with a critical eye on the initial excitement and exuberance over the internet phenomenon, they are quick to point out that technological gadgets are merely a means to social connectedness rather than the solution to all the problems of the under-privileged. Furthermore, these authors place heavier emphasis on social inequality rather than pure technological inequality; emphasis on access to public resources over access to computers; and overall skills and abilities rather than just computer skills.

Some have even considered dropping the term altogether. Bill Callahan, a community organize in Cleveland has argues the term digital divide “is too constructed, too alliterative, too Al Gore; eventually we’re going to need a pithier, more evocative, more specific name for the thing we’re fighting” (Cisler 2000). Accordingly, others do offer alternative catch phrases, such as ‘Technology and Social Inclusion’ and ‘the deepening divide’ (Warschauer 2003 and Van Dijk 2005). Irregardless of what you call it, the problems of under-privileged receiving inadequate computer training, improving social services for the under-privileged through technology, and improving ICT access throughout the nation remain to this day.

What does the Digital Divide mean?

Kevin Bulger — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:15:02 +0000

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?

I dont think it does any good trumpeting statistics that demonstrate low levels of computer literacy among the poor and under-privileged. Bottom line: computers are a luxury item. Theres no getting around that. Its a hard sell, and giving out computers willy-nilly to people who dont know how to use them in the first place just will not work. You just dont need a computer to be successful, happy, or give back to your community.

The Digital Divide does matter, but I feel there needs to be a consensus as to what exactly it refers to and how to best solve it. As I stand right now, the Digital Divide means the difference of communication-technology skillsets between the most adept users and all the rest. The name Digital Divide implies 'haves' and 'have nots', but in reality the Digital Divide is more like a pyramid. There are those at the top who actually engineer and advance communication technology, those in the middle who know how to effectively manuever the technology, those in the bottom who have little to no technological ability, and then those at the absolute bottom who are lost to us. To extend the pyramid metaphor, the point is not to bridge the divide but to square it so that everyone is at the same level.

The Digital Divide is a problem, but it is crucial that the problem of unequal communication-technology skillsets be framed appropriately. The term Digital Divide implies a means-to-an-end and not the end itself because technology is viewed as a way to introduce equality rather than being equality itself. This is a wrongheaded approach. Discussions on the Digital Divide need to be focused on issues of social inequality not technological inequality; access to public resources not access to computers; overall skillsets and abilities not just computer literacy; etc. When framed in this manner the Digital Divide becomes much bigger, much more socially relevant, and given its just importance. Computer literacy is a means to an end (this is a fact!), but it must be sold as an end if Digital Divide solutions are to be successfully initiated.

To solve the Digital Divide (or the Digital Pyramid to rid myself of the misleading alliterative term) means introducing skillsets, giving computers and free internet access to those who would actually benefit from it (preferably after successfully completing a free computer-literacy program), and enhancing non-profit capacity building and effectiveness through communication technology. If I could prioritize these, I would say non-profit capacity building is by far the most important as they touch more lives as a whole and conform to the social equality value more directly. Then followed by introducing computer skillsets through after-school programs because they touch far less lives but still conform to the social equality value. Finally, the giving out of computers and free internet because of the high cost associated with giving out computers to people and the even less amount of lives touched.

Alright, I feel better after that.