Digital Inequality (2).Pub (Read-Only)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE 1918 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 2ND FL. BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 T: 510-926-4001 F: 510-926-4010 WWW.GREENLINING.ORG Samuel Kang Aysha Pamukcu T: 510-926-4004 E: [email protected] Digital Inequality Information Poverty in the Information Age September 2009 “[T]he same places that are characterized by economic poverty also tend to suffer from information poverty; a pattern has developed in which inequalities in physical and electronic spaces mutually reinforce one another.” – Lisa Servon, Dean of the New School for Management and Urban Policy and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Work Life Policy THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE | A MULTIETHNIC PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY INSTITUTE | WWW.GREENLINING.ORG Table of Contents Introduction: An Overview of Digital Inequality page 3 Access to ICT is Crucial to Success Why is Digital Inequality Different from the Digital Divide? California as a Case Study page 4 California’s Diversity is the Bellwether of the Nation Dispelling the Myths around Digital Inequality page 4 Myth 1: Solve the Problem by Getting Online Myth 2: Highly Connected Urban Areas versus Disconnected Rural Areas Myth 3: A Generational Divide Myth 4: Some Users Don’t Want to Get Connected Digital Inequality Deepens Social Inequality page 6 Disparities in Use Enhancing Racial and Socioeconomic Inequities Case Study: Social Divisions and Social Networking Next Steps: How to Address Digital Inequality page 8 Educate Disadvantaged Communities in E‐Literacy Create Content that Appeals to Disadvantaged Communities Target Mobile Devices Revamp Outdated Legislation Conclusion page 11 References page 11 DIGITAL INEQUALITY: INFORMATION POVERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE | PAGE 2 Introduction: An Overview of Digital Inequality Access to ICT is Crucial to Success n a globalized economy dominated by knowledge‐ “Digital inequality” is a more nuanced term that driven professions, information is the currency of describes how technology users vary in how gainfully I the marketplace. Information communication they employ the technology in their daily lives. Social technology (“ICT”) helps determine civic, academic, and inequality stems from this variation in use because users’ professional success (Dimaggio), from the ability to degree of tech‐savviness mirrors real‐life racial and complete college applications online to emailing socioeconomic inequities. Digital inequality manifests instantaneously via smartphone. In addition, ICT itself in several ways, including disparities in: improves personal quality of life by making daily • Technical means: Lack of access to bandwidth, necessities, such as banking and healthcare, more computing power, etc. accessible and convenient. • Autonomy: Users’ independence in using technology, While disadvantaged groups without access to i.e. at home or work, during set hours or at leisure, in ICT are further marginalized and have correspondingly monitored or unmonitored settings limited life chances, the reverse is also true (Warshauer). • Skill: Ability to search, download information, or The use of ICT has been demonstrated to be a key factor otherwise locate resources online in the polarization of the U.S. labor market in recent decades (Autor), and in promoting higher incomes Social inequality stems from this variation in among disadvantaged populations. From “e‐patients” to use because users’ degree of tech‐savviness “digital citizens,” a new participatory class of Americans is emerging, characterized by proficiency in ICT (Smith). mirrors real‐life racial and socioeconomic In their shadow, a digital underclass, unskilled in ICT or inequities. completely offline, lags far behind. In short, digital inequality helps fuel economic and social inequality. • Social support: Access to experienced users within The Obama administration has recognized this one’s own community inequity by calling on the new FCC chairman, Julius • Purpose: Users’ ability to leverage technology to Genachowski, to ensure the provision of broadband to improve economic gain, social capital, consumption, unserved parts of the country (Lowry). These efforts are or entertainment (Warshauer) a laudable step in the right direction; however, Americans’ radically different levels of ICT proficiency This paper measures this inequality by users’ must also be addressed. If not, we risk subjecting our access to information and communication technology most vulnerable populations to a dangerous combination and their skill using ICT (“e‐literacy”). The term “digital of economic and informational poverty. inequality” is used instead of “digital divide” because digital inequality mirrors patterns of social inequality How is Digital Inequality Different from the rather than a divide which one must simply “leap” Digital Divide? across. ICT is computer hardware, software, and telecommunications equipment. E‐literacy is defined as The “Digital Divide” is a term that came into the knowledge of what ICT is capable of, and the ability popularity in the 1990s as the full potential of the to use ICT to achieve one’s purposes. internet became apparent. It captures the “inequality between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have‐nots’” measured by access to and use of technology, namely, the internet (Dimaggio). In other words, the divide was the disparity in life chances between the online and the offline realms. DIGITAL INEQUALITY: INFORMATION POVERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE | PAGE 3 California as a Case Study California vs. US Adults Connectedness California’s Diversity is the Bellwether of the 100 Nation 90 CA Only Despite being home to some of the most sophis‐ 80 US 70 63 ticated ICT users in the country, California’s diversity 62 60 55 55 serves as a trend‐setting microcosm for the nation. Eth‐ 50 nic minorities, who currently make up about a third of 40 the US population, are projected by the US Census Bu‐ 30 reau to become the majority in 2042. As soon as 2023, 20 ethnic minorities will comprise more than half of all chil‐ 10 dren in the US (Bernstein). In this trend, California leads 0 Percentage of Adults Percentage of Adults the way. The majority of California’s children aged 5 with Internet at home with Broadband at and under have been ethnic minorities for several years, home with over half being Latino. In contrast, almost half of the nationʹs children under the age of 5 are ethnic mi‐ have internet access at home (63% vs. 62%, respectively) norities, and the number is rising (Hendricks). and a broadband connection (both 55%) (PPIC, 2008). California’s trends mirror the US: while the over‐ What’s more, Californians among all demo‐ all percentage of Californians who use the internet has graphic groups agree that the internet is a valuable com‐ increased since 2000 (up to 70% from 65%), certain ponent of modern life. Nearly every Californian internet groups continue to lag behind in internet access and use user surveyed claimed that the internet matters in every‐ (Public Policy Institute of California, 2008). day life, and even over half of offline individuals agreed. California’s digital gap breaks down along virtu‐ Mark Baldassare, President and CEO of the Public Policy ally the same demographic lines as the US at large. Three Institute of California, puts it this way: “Californians in‐ in four Californians use a computer at home, school, or creasingly see their computers and the internet as neces‐ work, a figure that has been consistent since 2000. The sities, not luxuries. At a time when most economic indi‐ national figure is virtually identical. Today, Califor‐ cators are going down, these technology indicators are nians and adults across the nation are equally likely to going up.” (Public Policy Institute of California, 2009) Dispelling the Myths around Digital Inequality “[E]qual access to computers and the engagement that it bunking some persistent myths about digital inequality, has made possible are not magic bullets that can turn back and establishing what it is not. the tide of inequity if it is already deeply embedded in soci‐ Myth 1: Solve the Problem by Getting Everyone ety.” – Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, authors of Online the Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Re‐ To suggest that getting everyone online is the single solution oversimplifies the problem by suggesting search that the problem is purely access. It assumes that digital inequality is a pipeline problem with a straightforward The Right Solution for the Right Problem solution: build more pipes. Proposed solutions to the Before tackling solutions, policy‐makers must pipeline problem include increasing broadband penetra‐ address the correct problem. It’s helpful to start by de‐ tion, having local government provide community net‐ working and Wi‐Fi Hot Zones, and subsidizing network DIGITAL INEQUALITY: INFORMATION POVERTY IN THE INFORMATION AGE | PAGE 4 build‐out from the state and federal levels. Falling be‐ connected. Majorities in each region of California report hind in utilizing broadband hurts our nation’s competi‐ to PPIC that they have home computers and internet ac‐ tive edge. The reverse is also true: a fully connected cess, but Los Angeles residents report lower rates of population at broadband speeds can open up new op‐ broadband connection (48%) than residents in the San portunities for economic innovation. Francisco Bay Area (65%), Orange County/San Diego However, inequality persists even after access is (58%), Inland Empire (56%), and Central Valley (53%) obtained. As penetration reaches unprecedented levels, (PPIC).