nur syahrina bt akhil - ethical gaps in studies of the digital divide

8/14/2019 Nur Syahrina Bt Akhil - Ethical Gaps in Studies of the Digital Divide

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nur-syahrina-bt-akhil-ethical-gaps-in-studies-of-the-digital-divide 1/18

Ethics and Information Technology 5: 99–115, 2003.

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Ethical gaps in studies of the digital divide

Kenneth L. Hacker and Shana M. Mason

Department of Communication Studies, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 USA

Abstract. There are many reports about the digital divide and many discrepant interpretations of what the reportsindicate. This pattern of competing analyses, often in relation to identical data sets, has endured for a good partof the last decade. It is argued here that a major problem with much of the digital divide research is a failure toinclude ethical concerns as an explicit part of analyzing and interpreting digital divide gaps. If researchers includemore recognition of ethics with their findings about divide gaps, it is likely that they will produce better researchand findings as well as more defensible linkages between study reports and policy deliberations.

Key words: CMC, digital divide, ethics, ICT, Internet

All animals are created equal, but some are moreequal than others.

– Animal Farm, George Orwell (1951: 114)

Introduction

Since approximately 1995, scholars and analysts haveobserved significant demographic gaps in computerand Internet access and usage. These gaps are known

in the aggregate as the digital divide. Since 1995,the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued digitaldivide reports through the National Telecommuni-cation and Information Administration (NTIA). Inaddition, many reports on digital divide gaps havebeen provided by university research centers, publicopinion polling organizations, political think tanks,and marketing research companies.

Despite claims to the contrary, the digital dividestatistics do not speak for themselves. Instead, theyare used as fodder for various political and ideolog-ical groups that seek to influence government policiesin either a proactive or laissez-faire direction. While

there is nothing wrong with political advocacy in ademocratic political system, there is something argu-ably wrong with presenting ideological data analysisas scientific or objective analysis. Conclusions in manyof these reports range from arguments that the divide isclosing on its own over time to arguments that say thatthe divide is getting worse over time. Depending on

Kenneth L. Hacker is Associate Professor of Communica-

tion Studies at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New

Mexico, USA. Shana M. Mason is a graduate student in the Department

of Communication Studies at New Mexico State University, Las

Cruces, New Mexico, USA.

how researchers select, analyze, narrate, and interpretdata on the digital divide, conclusions will vary alongthis range of positions.

Balanced studies which note both positive andnegative patterns of digital divide gaps appears tobe less publicized than reports which ground theirinterpretations of data in various ideological biases.While some reports are released by organizationswith easily discernible political agendas, others appearmore dispassionate and objective. Obviously, the lattercannot avoid the political nature of their research.

Sandra Braman (2002) notes that research about topicsthat might invoke public policy decisions cannotsidestep politics. Braman observes that after theFrench revolution in the 18th century, scholars foundthat the goal of governing for the good of the publicrequired systematic analysis, but they also found outthat such analysis is subjected to the reactions of thosewith governmental power. Later, fascist governmentswould be quick to terminate social data gathering andeven the work of sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld would beburned in 1933 (Braman 2002). Today researchers aremost likely to gain grants from organizations that sharetheir orientations to their topics of research.

The thesis of this article is that the central problem,not the secondary problem, of digital divide researchis a problem of ethical indifference concerning theresearch and analysis of data. In this situation, politicalagendas often guide data collection and/or statisticalinferences. A consequence of this situation is thatpolicy makers lack the valid and empirical groundsthey need for making policy decisions about govern-ment support for new and necessary communicationtechnology infrastructures. This is not an argumentfor purely objective digital divide research because



100 KENNETH L. HACKER AND SHANA M. MASON

such may not be possible.1 As with the study of racism, digital divide researchers are obviously likelyto begin with political and ethical positions regardingthe subject matter. However, when the researcher

exposes his or her political perspective and talks aboutthe ethical values that informs the research project,readers of that research can gain a more complete anduseful assessment of the study findings.

As empirical reports are ‘contaminated’ withideological filtering or even distortion, policy makersmay be stifled in acting on serious issues. Our claimwould be that most analytical works on the digitaldivide, whether scientific or ideological, tend toneglect ethical discussions. Instead, they tend to focuson the “correct” diagnoses of the nature of the dividegaps and how they are either closing or remainingproblematic. Even this level of analysis suffers from

an absence of ethical concern, for example it oftentreats the measurement of fairly mundane, even trivial,access to ICT and the Internet as ‘usage’.2

The most visible ideological views of the digitaldivide may be related to left and right-wing viewsalong the traditional political spectrum. For thoseon the left, it may be desirable to associate digitalinequities with all other social inequities and to seelittle possibility for progress short of revolutionarypolitical changes in the entire economic and politicalsystem. For those on the right, it may also be desir-able to see digital inequities as part of other inequities,

but with a different ethical bent – the assumptionthat the inequities are simply natural and inevitableconsequences of human competition and unequal abili-ties and therefore undeserving of intensive concern.

One could argue that an alternative to the ideolog-ical approaches to the digital divide can begin withmore objective and scientific analysis. However, astempting as science sounds as an antidote to theideological reports, such a remedy is inadequatebecause of (a) the political nature of the research, (b)potentially political reasons for doing the research, and(c) political ramifications of reporting the research.Thus, in addition to more scientific analysis that recog-nizes the political nature of issues like the digitaldivide, there must also be an ethically informedperspective of the key issues involved in digital dividedebates. For example, more attention is needed on

1 Even those reports which appear to simply chart the details

of ICT penetration rates, such as the NTIA reports in the United

States, contain narratives which offer interpretive frameworks

for determining if the Digital divide gaps are closing or if they

are still problematic.2 Some studies have categorized survey respondents as

Internet users if they simply use the Internet at all. Pew Research

surveys, at one time, for example, counted someone saying they

used the Internet in the past 30 days as an Internet user.

how important communication technology user gapsare in a democratic society and what the duties of government are concerning the closing of such gaps.Without adding an explicit ethical assessment to good

data analysis, it is likely that unavoidable or deliberatepolitical agendas will continue to shape many, if notmost, of the reports that are released about the digitaldivide.3 Such ethical gaps in digital divide studies maycontinue to perpetuate a paralysis in linking policydeliberations to scientific consensus on fundamentalproblems with the divide.

Even when researchers try to study the digitaldivide gaps removed from the political influencesframing the data, the dynamic nature of technologychanges and their relations to socio-economic factorsmakes this difficult. Hacker and van Dijk (2000)indicate that the static nature of many available divide

reports and data sets do not fully illustrate or explainthe problems of the digital divide. Van Dijk (2000)views new technology as serving to reinforce socialequalities and inequalities already present in societybecause of the cumulative nature of digital skills.Although some gaps, such as gaps in ownership, mayclose in the future, the rapid advancement of tech-nology may result in informacy gaps (digital equip-ment use and information-seeking skills) as those whoare now acquiring the skills necessary to use tech-nology in a basic fashion, such as checking e-mail, willlag far behind those who possess sophisticated digital

skills. The dynamic nature of the divide forces policymakers to consider not only access gaps, but informacygaps as well. If researchers ignore the possibility of structural inequalities in ICT adoption, the decisionto ignore is not simply a practical choice; it is also achoice involving politics and ethics.

The importance of the digital divide

If there were no tangible benefits that come fromcomputer and Internet usage, there would be little needfor digital divide research. It could easily be assumedthat differences in access, skills, and usage are inter-esting but unimportant since the natural pattern of penetration for any communication technology is thata few people adopt at first and then many more adoptlater at accelerated rates (Rogers 1986). However,research shows conclusively that there are tangiblecomputer and Internet usage benefits. Studies haveshown that when the Internet usage hurdles of accessopportunities, skills, and comfort are met, frequency

3 None of this suggests that researchers should try to sanitize

their research from political perspectives. Instead, the point is

that better research will illuminate what political views ride

along with empirical data analysis.



ETHICAL GAPS IN STUDIES OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE 101

of Internet usage increases and so do the benefitsresulting from using the Internet (Hacker and Steiner2001; van Dijk 1999).

Gaps in ICT usage (computers, Internet) can lead to

stratification in information gaining (Bikson and Panis1995). Several years ago, RAND analysts noted thatparticipation in communication networks creates andfortifies useful strong and weak relational ties (Biksonand Panis 1995). It also appeared that ICT users exper-ience certain economic advantages (Bikson and Panis1995). Communication scientists and others studyingthe new social networks and capabilities made possibleby Internet and ICT usage continue to argue thatthere are tangible benefits to participation in newlyemerging forms of communication and organization(Castells 2001; Hacker 2002; Anderson 2003; vanDijk 1999). Australian researchers Willis and Tranter

(2002) suggest that Internet diffusion is associatedwith the formation of, and changes in, existing patternsof social advantage. For example, in a study of currentInternet users, young Australians are 6 1/2 times morelikely to use the Internet than those over 50, yetthey are traditionally the least politically active of any group. The high usage rate suggests a potentialfor altering the demographics of those influencing thepolitical spectrum in that country (Willis and Trantner2002). Similarly, while education is usually associ-ated with increased Internet usage, these researchersdiscovered that this may be strongly influenced by

gender.In the 1960s Michael Harrington noted that 1/3 of

Americanslived in povertyand made up what he calledthe “other America” (Wilhelm 2003). Harringtonpredicted that the gaps between rich and poor inthe U.S. would get worse as technologies becamemore important to society (Wilhelm 2003). We mustwonder if there is one America involving those whoare becoming increasing ICT literate and skilledwhile their disadvantaged counterparts remain static inuseful ICT resources and abilities. When we think of the digital divide in larger terms than simply havinga computer and wired linkage to the Internet, we canrecognize the fact that there are three important issuesrelated to concerns with the digital divide. The first iswhat will happen to the digitally excluded people (thepoorly connected, the unconnected, and the discon-nected). Second, there is the question concerningwhat dysfunctional system effects may result fromnon-inclusive emergent systems. Finally, there is theissue of how a democratic political system can main-tain non-democratic communication systems. As didHarrington with his notation about poverty, these ques-tions bring forth matters of both politics and ethics thatare not visible in most statistical reports concerning the

digital divide.

At the most basic level, the digitally excluded lack the advancing means for participating in and bene-fiting from electronic network services, information,and networking structures. Rather than there being

those online or those offline as key distinctions, itis more important to consider how much network presence a person has on a continuum running fromlow connectivity to high connectivity. Those who havethe most to gain from increasing their ICT involve-ment are those who are often the most unconnected.These people, such as the disabled and unemployed,are sometimes dismissed as “want nots.” This signifi-cation raises ethical issues regarding the morality of categorizing people as uninterested in ICT when theymay not understand or cannot afford the intricacies of ICT. For those who are most connected to the ICTsystems that make up network society, users benefit

from high-speed and high-capacity network accessand technologies. Those who are less connected havelesser communication capabilities and those who arenot connected or poorly connected are simply left outof the new forms of communication.

Many of those unconnected to ICT or the Internetare poor or working class people who are eitherunfamiliar with the Internet or cannot afford it(Wilhelm 2003). Those who are connected are likelyto be more in touch with communication that is relatedto the production of content and wealth and wherethe space of flows is most managed (Wilhelm 2003).

The 2000 NTIA report (“Falling Through the Net:Toward digital Inclusion”) reported that 11% of Amer-ican households with Internet access had broadbandaccess (fast connections through high-speed phonelines, satellite, or cable). This means that about 4%of U.S. households had fast-speed Internet access. By2002, this number increased to 20% of householdswith internet access (“A Nation Online” 2002). Theutility and power that are obtained by those people whohave the highest levels of ICT and Internet usage todayare expanding so quickly that ethical issues concerninginclusion and exclusion can no longer logically berelegated to sideline debates.

Within-nation digital divides

The digital divide usually refers to differences ingroup (ethnicity, age, income, education, gender, andother demographic factors) access or usage of newcommunication technologies within single nations. Inthe United States, for example, there are ethnic groupdifferences in ICT access and usage. Internet adoptionis generally very rapid but the digital divide for certaingroups persists. For example, the NTIA data indicated

that at higher levels of income, people had the resource




capabilities that made online activities more probablefor them.

The NTIA documented, in 1995, 1997, 1999,and 2000, that most minority group members in the

United States lag behind Anglo American (majority)group members in both computer ownership andonline activity, even when controlling for educationand income. Despite the overall aggregate expansionof Internet access and use, African Americans andHispanic Americans lagged far behind Anglo Amer-icans in levels of computer ownership and onlineaccess (“Falling Through the Net II” 1998). The 1998NTIA study reported that Anglo American house-holds were more than twice as likely (41%) to owncomputers as African American (19%) and HispanicAmerican households (20%). Moreover, this gap waspresent and increased at all levels of income, even for

those people with incomes as high as $75,000 (“FallingThrough the Net II” 1998). Some argue that many of the digital divide gaps in Internet usage have becomeworse in recent years (van Dijk 2000). This concernsmany scholars since ICT users can obtain benefits fromtheir usage that nonusers may not obtain (Hacker andSteiner 2001).

The RAND analysis of U.S. Census data foundsome interesting digital divide patterns going back to 1989.4 ICT/CMC access and use gaps betweenhigh and low income groups in the United Statesincreased from 1989 to 1993 (Bikson and Panis 1995).

There were also gaps for levels of education, althoughthese gaps were less severe than income-related gaps(Bikson and Panis 1995). They also found gaps amongethnic groups which could not be explained by incomeand education levels (Bikson and Panis 1995). Whenincome and education were held constant, AfricanAmericans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Amer-icans still lagged far behind Anglo and Asian Amer-icans in home access to CMC (Bikson and Panis1995). Additionally, the RAND researchers concludedthat such gaps also existed in 1989 but that between1989 and 1993, the gaps did not widen, but remainedconstant (Bikson and Panis 1995).

An NTIA study of ICT usage in 1994 indicatedthat many of the people who are enthusiastic aboutInternet use have practical reasons for using it. Thesereasons include seeking employment, extending theireducation, and locating government documents. How-ever, many of these people have poor Internet access(“Falling Through the Net” 1995). This crucial obser-vation highlights the need for ethical perspectives tobe part of digital divide research and analysis. Thosepeople that are behind in computer and Internet usage

4 RAND (an acronym for research and development) is a

think tank for the United States Department of Defense.

are not facing a trivial problem but rather one that mayaffect them more than those people who already haveaccess and high rates of usage.

In 1999, the NTIA found that disparities in access

to telephones, computers and the Internet significantlywidened rather than diminished (“Falling Through theNet” 1999). It was noted that the gaps for computersand Internet access grew larger for the categoriesof education, income, and ethnic group membership(“Falling Through the Net” 1999). The report madeit evident that home Internet access was an importantarea of the digital divide. While 30% of Anglo Amer-ican households had Internet access, only 11% of African American and 13% of Hispanic Americanhouseholds had such access (“Falling Through theNet” 1999).5 In 2000, an NTIA report noted that thepercentage of American homes with Internet access

increased from 26% in December 1998 to 42% inAugust, 2000. African American households withInternet access increased from 11% in 1998 to 24%in 2000. Hispanic American households with Internetaccess increased from 13% in 1998 to 24% in 2000.By August 2000, the gender gap for basic usage wasclosing with men at 45% and women at 44%. Peoplewith disabilities were about half as likely (22%) to usethe Internet as those without disabilities (42%).6

The same report indicated that African Americanswere 18 percentage points behind the national averagefor Internet home access in 2000 and had been only

15 point behind in 1998. Hispanic Americans were 14points behind the national average for net home accessin 1998 and increased to 18 points behind in the year2000.

A report by the United States Census Bureau in2001 indicated that use of the Internet at home foradults (over 18 years of age) for the nation was37.3%, while it was 43% for Anglo Americans, 21%for African Americans, 44% for Asian Americansand 18% for Hispanic Americans (Newberger 2001).When accounting for education and income, ethnicgaps continued to exist. This report revealed that somegaps do not always get better over time and that somehad actually worsened as seen in the list of observa-tions above. This latter fact reflects what van Dijk andHacker (in press) call the dynamic nature of the digital

5 During all this time of NTIA reports documenting the

digital divide, ideological reports from think tanks and

marketing research groups were disseminating reports that

claimed that there either was no Divide or that it was closing

on its own and would soon no longer be an issue.6 The disabilities gap is one of the most dramatic cases illus-

trating the failure to consider the ethics dimensions of the digital

divide since many people with disabilities have trouble with

transportation and can take advantage of services offered online.




divide gaps; they increase and decrease at differentpoints in time.

The 2000 NTIA report, written by the Clintonadministration, argued that connections to the Internet

are more important than ever to economic, educational,and community advantages and that “people who lack access to these tools are at a growing disadvantage.”With a new American presidential administration in2002, the NTIA report did a political turnabout. The2002 NTIA report (“A Nation Online”) made thefollowing observations. Over half of the United Statespopulation uses the Internet, even if only minimally.About 66% of the United States population usescomputers. A higher percentage of children and teen-agers use the Internet than any other age group. Peoplewith disabilities are still less likely than people withoutdisabilities to use the Internet. Forty-five percent of

Americans use email. Eighty-eight percent of UnitedStates households with computers also have Internetconnections. While 54% of Americans use the Internetin general, 44% are using it from home. Sweden,Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, and Austria havehigher online population percentages than America.The report indicates that the Internet is becomingincreasingly integrated into the lives of more and moreAmericans.

The 2002 NTIA report notes that usage is increas-ing for all demographic groups. Anglo and Asiangroups have about 60% Internet usage while African-

Americans have about 40% usage and Hispanic Amer-icans have 32%. It also notes that the groups behind areincreasing more than those who are ahead. The latestreport argues that Internet usage growth for Africanand Hispanic Americans was increasing at an annualrate of 33% and 30% while the rates for Anglo andAsian Americans are only increasing at about 20%(“A Nation Online” 2002). While this report acknow-ledges that “not all Americans are using computers orthe Internet at high rates,” it concludes that “inequalityamong various groups is decreasing.”

Along with these observations in the 2002 NTIAreport, the dubious conclusion is made that “we aretruly a nation online.” It might be more accurate tosay that we are using more online communication asthe years progress. People in high-income homes arestill more likely to use computers and the Internet thanthose in low-income homes. This is also true for levelsof education. Within this report, one can find statis-tics showing that certain gaps have become worse forInternet usage. For example, the gaps between Angloand Hispanic Americans for the years 1997, 1998,2000, and 2001 were in succession 14%, 21%, 27%,and 28% (“A Nation Online” 2002).

The “A Nation Online” 2002 NTIA report argues

that the growth for the lagging groups has been higher

in percentage points between 1997 and 2001 and this istrue, but only for Internet access from any location; itis not true for home Internet access. Even if we look at using the Internet from any location, we still see

ethnic gaps in the new NTIA data. These are shown inFigure 1.The top lines represent the Anglo and Asian Amer-

icans and the bottom lines show rates for Hispanic andAfrican Americans. The figure shows Internet accessfrom any location as percentage of four ethnic groups.One can see that the gaps between Anglo and HispanicAmericans have widened, as have the gaps betweenAnglo and African Americans. If the ethnic gaps inbasic Internet access were closing, as is so oftenalleged, the lines at 2001 in the figure above wouldbe closer together than they are at 1997. At about thesame point in time, communication researchers Jung,

Qiu and Kim (2001) found that in a large southernCalifornia metropolitan area, 63% of Anglo Americanhomes had Internet access in contrast to less than 20%of Hispanic American homes.

Any old access is not home access

While it is implied that African-Americans have accessreadily available in public places if they don’t havehome access, a Pew Research survey shows that42% of African Americans say that their community

does not have publicly available Internet terminals.Only 29% of Anglo Americans make the same claim(Spooner and Rainie 2000). The current NTIA report(“A Nation Online”) makes this striking statement:

Home Internet access may be thought of as ahigher quality type of access because it is available(theoretically) 24 hours a day, seven days a week,while school or library access periods are limited tospecific hours and often with time limits per session.

This statement is rather surprising in light of the factthat the NTIA and the Bush administration presently

appear to assume that Internet usage from any loca-tion is more worthy of focus than home Internetaccess. This is important because the 2002 NTIAreport, along with other data sources who belittle theconcept of a digital divide, argue that the main gapsare closing, as measured by changes in Internet accessfrom anywhere. The data in the report’s tables revealthat home access gaps are worse than the gaps foraccess from anywhere, but this observation is mutedin the narrative framework.

A Pew survey research reports states that “Thegap in access between African Americans and whitesis closing but African Americans still do not have

the same level of access to the Internet as whites”




Figure 1. One: Any Internet access for four American ethnic groups.

(Spooner and Rainie 2000). This observation impliesthat simple access, regardless of the quality of theaccess, is diminishing as a gap for ethnic groups butalso suggests that levels of access continue to be verydifferent for these groups.

Residential use of broadband Internet access hasincreased to 20% of Internet users (“A Nation Online”2002) According to a 2002 Pew research survey, 85%of home broadband users are Anglo Americans, whileonly 4% of African Americans and 5% of Hispanic

Americans have this type of access (Horrigan andRainie 2002). This same survey found that homebroadband users create and manage more onlinecontent (81% create information for the Internet,versus 22% of dial-up users), use the Internet moreto find information, and are online more often and domore activities while online than dial-up users. Theyalso report using the Internet more to improve theirsocial connections.

Telecommuters with broadband report the bene-fits of spending more time at home, getting involvedwith groups in their community, and becoming morecivically involved. Interestingly, the Pew researchers

discovered that having high speed access was thesingle most significant factor determining intensity of Internet usage. This raises the strong ethical issue of access quality and how important inequitable qualitiesof access are to ICT usage.

The digital divide for children

A recent U.S. Census Bureau report indicates that of children 3–17 years old in America, 38% of Anglochildren use the Internet at home while only 13%

of Hispanic children, of the same age group, do

Table 1. Home Internet access in households with children

ages 3–17

Home com- Home com- Change

puter net puter net from

Social group access – 1998 access – 2001 1998–2001

Anglo Americans 30% 50% +20%

Asian Americans 36% 52% +16%

African Americans 11% 25% +14%

Hispanic Americans 13% 20% +7%

so (Newburger 2001). While the 2002 NTIA reportdoes not discuss home Internet access in detail, thereare interesting facts in its tables concerning childrenand home access. For children 3–17 years old, 50%of Anglo, 25% of African American, and 20% of Hispanic American children have access to homecomputers and the Internet. For young adults between18 and 24 years of age, the percentages are 74%for Anglo, 47% for African, and 50% for HispanicAmericans (“A Nation Online” 2002).

The 2002 NTIA report (“A Nation Online” 2002)

shows that 54% of Americans are using the Internettoday, but we have to ask how “using” is defined. Wealso have to ask what it means precisely to be “online.”Is this daily use, monthly use, what? Ninety percent of American children are using computers. Again, howoften? For what? Which children are using computersthe most? Which children have computers at home?The Department of Commerce Report indicates that aschildren use the Internet, they are playing, working,communicating and forming relationships that mayhelp them learn skills that will be useful for them asthey participate in their communities and workplaces

in the future. Is it ethically acceptable to allow the




possibility that some children will be far ahead of others in acquiring important skills? Is this the ethicalequivalent of saying that some groups of childrenwill receive only half as much access to education

as others? While this 2002 report has data sets thatcontradict each other in terms of gap directions, thenarratives of the report close the gaps with generaliza-tions that do not account for all of the data. The biasingof the conclusions is based on selective highlighting of various sections of the report.

The expanding nature of the digital divide

If policy makers are convinced that ICT usage differ-entials are not significant, they will not be motivatedto diminish digital inequities. More and more services

are becoming available on the Internet. This suggeststhat leaving segments of the overall population withoutnet access and skills, or with lagging access and skills,may lock them out of or diminish their participationin the digital communication processes that comprisea growing part of the Internet communication system.

Van Dijk and Hacker (2000) note that digital dividegaps involve much more than physical access to theInternet. There are also important gaps in digital skillslike informacy (van Dijk and Hacker 2000). With eachtype of access, skills, or usage opportunity considera-tion, there are multiple levels of quality. For example,

of two people who have Internet access, one canhave low-speed poor-quality access and the secondmay have high-speed and high-grade access. Recall,for example, the differences previously described inInternet usage among those with broadband accessand those with simple dial-up access. Similarly, asvan Dijk and Hacker (2000) argue, ICT skills arecumulative. Those who possess only basic computeruse skills cannot engage in the same types of activi-ties as those who possess more sophisticated skills,creating what van Dijk terms usage gaps. These scien-tists argue that, as technology advances, the computersand software of yesterday become obsolete, requiringconstant upgrading of skills, something difficult forthose playing catch-up. As our society increasinglybecomes an information society, the ability to selectand process information becomes a form of capital,subject to the forces of competition. Society is alsobecoming increasingly networked, with ICT serving asone of the primary forces shaping the organization andstructures of society. Thus, one’s economic opportu-nities and social power are increasingly related to theabilities to use expanding forms of ICT.

Van Dijk (2000) argues that those who are notconnected to the increasing networks of education,

commerce, news, and activism are missing important

opportunities for participation in what is callednetwork society. He cites a 1996 Dutch study whichindicates that 62% of the respondents indicated thatthey believed that a lack of computer skills can result

in social marginalization. van Dijk (2000) notes thatcomputer skills and ICT access are not enough fornetwork society participation. After ICT access, usersalso need competence in digital skills, opportunitiesfor usage, and abilities to form networks that arepolitically useful. We know that ICT can improvean individual’s position in a political network andprovide tangible political benefits because ICT usersare presently experiencing this (van Dijk 2000). Itremains to be explained, however, how the discon-nected or unconnected citizens are to become partici-pants in digital democracy and network society. vanDijk (2001) argues that there is an ideological struggle

in the digital divide research and that the popularone now is that the poor and minorities are rapidlyadvancing and therefore there is no problem, butthis viewpoint neglects the argument that the largestgaps following basic machine access to the Internetwill be strategic skills in using the Internet and ICTproductively.

As ICT technologies are adopted, all social groupsmove higher up on the S-curves of technology adop-tion (Rogers 1986). However, new gaps emerge inwhat we can see as a succession of dependent S-curves for information technologies (Rogers 1986).

Successive S-curves for network society communica-tion technologies (computer-mediated communicationsystems) are related to each other because the techno-logies are not as independent as TV was from radio.Instead, they are additive and cumulative. Beforeusing the Internet, you may have had a PC, but lateryou needed your PC skills to navigate the Internetand process what you found on various Web sites.There are also new digital skills that are related toadvanced Internet usage. These include searching,retrieving, and making retrieved content useful forpurposes of communication. The singular nature of older communication technologies versus the cumu-lative nature of ICT devices can be easily seen incontrasting your use of a ten-year old phone asopposed to a ten-year old computer. The former is stillfunctional while the latter is nearly useless.

The global digital divide

As social organizations move toward network societystructures, fixed-location geography is being supple-mented by the variable geometry and “socialgeography” of ICT networks in ways that create and

alter the flows of capital, social communication, and




politics (Castells 2001). Those who design, maintain,or participate heavily in these networks can obtainmonetary, communication, and political payoffs thatare not realized by those with low access and usage

(van Dijk 1999). As there are large divide gaps withinnations, there are large digital divide gaps betweennations.

According to a recent United Nations report, theusage of the Internet constitutes a “global enclave”with 79% of the world’s Internet users living in OECDnations which have only 14% of the world population(“Making technologies work for human development”2001). In addition, one third of the world’s populationstill does not have electricity (“Making technologieswork for human development” 2001). Approximatelytwo billion people in the world (one third of the worldpopulation) have never made a telephone call (Floridi

2001). While the Internet has grown at dramaticallyexponential rates, from 16 million global users in 1995to 400 million in 2000, most of the world’s 200 nationsare not part of the global network society (“Makingtechnologies work for human development” 2001).

Manuel Castells makes numerous arguments aboutnetwork society and also about what he calls the“fourth world” or those who are disconnected orunconnected from the emerging ICT networks consti-tuting network society. Those who are highly con-nected to these networks have high social inclusionwhile those with minor connections may experience

social exclusion. Social exclusion refers to the system-atic process by which certain people are left out of access to network positions that would enhance theirlives (Castells 1997). Castells (1997) shows that whilemany nations have aggregate increases in wealth, theseincreases may be accompanied by increases in inequal-ities, poverty rates, and social exclusion.

Castells (1996) argues that those who become partof the Fourth World will lose influence on marketsand other forms of social transactions. Those marketsand transactions are increasingly networked and thosewho are highly connected can gain capital, informa-tion and political influence through the networks with afreedom from traditional limits of time and space. Thefate of the digitally excluded within nations (digitaldivide) and those across nations (Fourth World) is amatter of strong ethical concern, but there are hugegaps in how these concerns are handled.

The ethics divide

There are at least three main areas of ethical neglectin research and analysis concerning the digital divide.First, there is a set of strong methodological ethical

problems as in the cases of organizations that release

data summaries without providing details about theirmethodology, analysts who assail other reports withoutproving that there is something wrong in those reports,and generalizations about ICT and Internet usage that

are insufficiently grounded in valid data. Second, thereis an ethical issue in arguing that the digital divideresults from the fact that those who are less connectedto ICT than others are simply less motivated and thatthose who lag behind in obtaining and using network technologies are more “want nots” than have nots. Thistype of ridicule neglects that fact that people vary inexperiences, skills, and motivation to use computer-mediated communication (CMC).7 These variationsaffect what they want and a person cannot want a tech-nology that they do not understand. A third ethicalproblem is the fact that it may be unethical to arguethat certain groups lag behind other groups in ways

that reinforce stereotypes of those lagging groups.This can occur by trying to help these groups whileunknowingly contributing to a reinforcement of ethnicstereotypes.

What is missing in the debates today (and in mostof the past) about the digital divide is moral reasoning.Indeed, moral reasoning has been blocked stronglyby reports that purport on a continual basis that thedigital divide is healing itself and therefore no majorconcern or ethical issue. It is difficult to raise issuesof ethics when the factual basis for ethical concerns isconstantly questioned.

The ethics of framing the digital divide

The political nature of the digital divide has threedimensions: (a) how much the digitally includedand excluded differ in participation and benefits; (b)whether or not there are structural inequalities corre-spondent to various gaps; and (c) what the role of government should be in relation to facilitating moredigital inclusion.

Political problems are dealt with on the basis of how they are framed. Policies are related to valuesand facts and the debates about the digital divide aremired in questions of fact and disagreements aboutvalues. We should agree on facts and values beforewe debate policies since policies rest on such agree-ment. Thus far, there are two main ways of framing thedigital divide that are competing with each other. Onesays that the situation is dire and that government andpolicy-makers must move in to solve the problems. Onthe other hand, we have a frame that says there really

7 CMC and ICT are essentially the same thing. CMC is more

widely used in the United States and ICT in Europe to signify

communication with computer networks.




is no problem with Internet access or usage and thateverything works out over time. Both arguments cancite facts, statistics, and charts.

The NTIA reports on the digital divide began with

the Clinton administration, which framed the digitaldivide as a matter of needed national informationinfrastructure, universal service extended from tele-phones to computer systems, and even civil rightssince most ethnic minority groups were discovered aslagging behind Anglo Americans in their computerand Internet access and usage. The Clinton NTIAreports had a political perspective in addition to aclear presentation of data about computer and Internetusage. While the earlier Clinton reports cast the divideas thorny and in need of remedy, the latter reports talk about “digital inclusion” and ostensibly document howthe administration’s work contributed to the closing or

diminishment of many gaps.The Bush administration today reverses the Clinton

political perspective of the digital divide view andframes it as closing and therefore becoming a mattermore of inclusion and continuing to encourage people,on their own, to get involved with ICT. The Bush NTIAreport of 2002 reveals a political framing process thatdulls perceptions of a need to use government toclose digital divide gaps. The report also provided theadministration with a statistic tool that could justifythe ensuing slashing of funds for existing programsdesigned to help those lagging in ICT access and

usage.At one time in the early 1990s, the United States

federal government had plans for what were known asa National Information Infrastructure (NII) and GlobalInformation Infrastructure (GII). The Clinton admin-istration developed plans for the NII as it argued forthe necessity of universal service (Wilhelm 2003).The present Bush administration ironically notes theimportance of schools and libraries being importantgateways to digital communication while not arguingfor increased support for these institutions. Whilethe Clinton administration had framed the digitaldivide as a civil rights issue, the Bush administra-tion dropped this view and framed the divide as anon-issue as exemplified in the characterization givenby Federal Communications Commission chairmanMichael Powell when he called the divide a “MercedesBenz divide.”

In addition to the Clinton and Bush frames,there are many others including those of progressiveactivists on the left who advocate universal access,government-funded community technology trainingcenters, and activists on the right who attack the digitaldivide body of research as a contrivance designed tokeep people dependent on government. There are also

marketing research companies which have as clients

who invest in Internet technologies. It is in the interestsof these marketing companies to continually releasereports stating that the Internet continues to expand ata dramatic pace, that all gaps in access and usage are

exaggerated, and that everything is fine.Whether one claims that the digital divide isproblematic or not problematic is clearly related tohow one states empirical conclusions about longitu-dinal and present states of the divide gaps. If onebegins with an ideology of hands-off governmentpolicy, it is easy to find some diminishing gaps to citeover time. The narrowing gender gaps are a classicexample. If one sets out to make a case for sustained orenlarged government involvement with closing gaps,it is easy to find gaps that persist such as those withcertain ethnic groups. This is analogous to empir-ical studies of liberal and conservative news media

bias.8

Soon after the 2002 NTIA reports, the Bush admin-istration moved to eliminate two programs designedto alleviate the divide from the 2003 federal budget(Massey 2002). This action eliminated the TechnologyOpportunities Program (TOP) and the CommunityTechnology Center (CTC) program. The CTC programhelped create and improve technology access centersin low-income or rural areas (Dickard 2002). TheTOP program provided grants for programs related tounder-served areas. The Bush administration logic forscrubbing these programs came from the 2002 NTIA

report and its theme that Americans are already online(Dickard 2002). In analyzing this report, the BentonFoundation found some facts that are glossed over bythe administration such as: (a) 25% of the pooresthouseholds have Internet access while 80% of affluenthouseholds have access; and (b) there are still ethnicgaps in home Internet access (Dickard 2002).

Despite the presence of valid data in the NTIAreports, there are still some problems in the NTIAanalysis since a) net access is defined too loosely, andb) there is only a focus on machine or wire access. TheNTIA reports do not stand isolated from social policymaking. Instead, they provide the factual conclusionsthat provide justification and interpretive frameworksfor various policy formulations.

Based upon survey data and data summaries likethe NTIA reports, political and economic leaders aremaking recommendations about what should or shouldnot be done about the digital divide. Four major argu-ments regarding the digital divide have emerged andserve to frame the debates about the divide gaps:

1. The divide has existed since the Internet began andsome gaps among particular groups are widening.

8 Predictably, conservative researchers find liberal bias and

liberal researchers find conservative bias.




2. The divide is real but, as with gender gaps, thegaps among income groups, ethnic groups, andeducational levels are closing.

3. Income and education as well as cheaper access to

ICT devices and services make the digital dividenearly insignificant.4. The digital divide exists at numerous levels which

appear beyond access, including opportunities forusage and non-trivial skills levels.

There are many questions that can be found scatteredaround in the digital divide literature. Answers tothese questions are often left to ideological ratherthen scientific research and generalizations. There arethree levels to the digital divide debates that tendto get muddled together – statistical analysis, valuesarguments, and political policies.

Ideological framing

Ideological framing of digital divide gap is transparentwhen one finds that patterns in usage are based onselective facts and concluded by the old technique of persuasion known as half-truth. Ideological framing of the digital divide begins with policy preferences andworks back to data and research to provide evidence tosupport political claims. Rather than statistical closureof divide gaps, one finds ideological closure of thegaps (van Dijk 2001).

Benjamin Compaine (2001), well known for

challenging claims by other scholars in the pastregarding problems with media consolidation, arguestoday that the costs of computers, Internet accessand related technologies continues to decline. Heargues that all technologies begin with haves and havenots and that “market-driven self-interest” assures thatlate adopters are subsidized by the early adopters(Compaine 2001: 325). He also argues that it is alwaystrue, whether with computers or automobiles, thatsome people have more than others. His conclusionis both political and revealing of an ethical posi-tion: “There is little short-term damage to be had

by allowing the self-evident forces of declining cost,natural acculturation, and growing availability to taketheir course” (Compaine 2001: 334).

Similarly, Jorge Schement (2001) makes the polit-ical argument that the divide gaps cannot be brushedaside when history tells us that Americans value socialprogress for all, not just some, citizens. Schement alsoargues that new ICT is fundamental to participatingin contemporary economic, political, and social activ-ities. An ethical position follows which says it is wrongnot to pursue policies to accelerate rates of adoption forall citizens.

In both positions just described, one can see that

ethical views are driven by political views. This shows

how important it is to make both political and ethicalorientations visible.

Scientific and theoretical framing

Scientific and theoretical framing of the divide, incontrast to ideological framing, goes beyond reportinggaps percentages (journalism) and does not simplyattribute generalizations to “experts,” “analysts,” or“senior research fellows” as do many of the ideology/ think tanks and marketing research groups. This doesnot mean that scientific analysis is free from politics,but it does imply that scientific analysis should informpolitics.

According to Rogers (1986), methods of statis-tical analysis are best suited to studying cause andeffect, not the patterns of effects that occur across time,

or the processes that create these patterns, in socialsystems. The focus of social science research shouldlie more on what causes the processes to happen,not simply whether a pattern exists or not. Rogersasserts that one of the most important tasks facingresearchers is to understand the process and impacts of communication technology, which will require majorchanges in research methods. Statistics without theorycannot explain the order in which patterns occur orhow each pattern influences the next. Thus, knowl-edge of an existing pattern, such as a current lack of digital skills among a particular group, does not go

far enough; scientists must also seek to understandhow that pattern may result in future inequities for thatgroup.

Theoretical work in scientific study of the dividegaps can include theories such as political theory,communication theory, sociological theory, theories of ethics, and theories of ICT. These theories can helpscientific researchers to organize their findings and toguide research in ways that produce knowledge aboutgaps, importance of those gaps, and the relative impor-tance of the gaps in relation to factors of emergentcommunication systems.

With a paucity of theory and science, many

reports on the digital divide are entangled in uselessdebates about the existence or non-existence of thedivide, closing or persistence of gaps, and other falsedichotomies. This is very much akin to the logicalfallacy of false dilemma. This situation obscures thefact that there are continua of access, skills, computercomfort, social support systems, self-efficacy, andmore variables making up a host of factors thatmoderate the relationship between exposure to theInternet and significant Internet usage benefits.

Disparities in Internet access statistics are relatedto numerous demographic variables like ethnicity, age,

income, and education. If some people have higher




motivation to use Internet communication than others,we need to know more about why motivation varies byindividuals and groups. The importance of divide gapscan only be clearly explained when we know what

proven or likely effects result from them. Indeed, if such effects are not shown to be proven or likely, itmay be true that they are inconsequential. Activistswho argue that there are dire consequences to thegaps need strong empirical arguments showing thoseconsequences, and those conservatives who arguethere is no significant divide need to prove their case.Ethical arguments in both cases entail complete setsof data rather than selective sets of data supportingpreferred conclusions.

A nagging issue is the comparison or contrast of Internet communication with previous communicationtechnologies. Those who see persistent gaps tend to

perceive and describe the Internet as unique and farmore complex than TV, radio, and telephone, requiringhigher degrees of interactivity and skill than any of these previous technologies. From this perspective,new gaps will open up as old ones are resolved. Thosewho perceive closure of the digital divide discuss thegaps as analogues to previous TV, radio, and telephonepenetration gaps, and argue that the natural progress of the market will serve to close them.

The latter argument contrasts strongly with that of Everett Rogers, whose Diffusion of Innovations theoryprovides the foundation for many of these arguments.

Rogers (1986) cites claims that new communicationtechnologies enhance the amount of information forboth the information rich and the information poor, butespecially the information rich, causing an increase inexisting information gaps. He goes on to argue thatunderstanding the consequences of new communica-tion technologies on information gaps is “of centralimportance to policymakers” (Rogers 1986: 170).According to Rogers, a policy that allows marketforces to operate without interference will result inunequal access for those already information poor, andby the time market conditions close the gaps, if theydo, the dynamic nature of technology will have alreadyopened up another gap. Thus, the rapid rate at whichtechnology is evolving may mean that, “informationinequality in American society may be increasing”(Rogers 1986: 172). This reflects an ethical positionthat says allowing the market to eventually close thegaps, without the influence of policy, will result insocietal inequities.

Bourdieu and others have noted that symbols andpolitical language are used to structure the socialworld and to encourage those at the low end of socialhierarchies to believe that the hierarchies are naturaland inevitable (Kvasny and Truex 2001). Extended

into the age of network society, this means that groups

Figure 2. The necessary role for values debating.

with disadvantaged gaps should accept a parallel withhow they have always been behind, whether it is inSAT scores, other technologies, income, and so on.Recognition of this fact can bring one to witness anexus of politics and ethics.

The politics-ethics nexus

As the digitally excluded and those who speak on theirbehalf are belittled or marginalized by those who saydigital exclusion is unproblematic, a political positionalso serves as an ethical position. In other words, socialinequities now in the form of network participationinequities are legitimized and rationalized with an ICTframe that says that equality is not mandatory whileprogress for all is essential. Within this frame is anessential ideological and logical force which says thatit is morally good to allow digital exclusion becausethe excluded do not need to exceed their actual needsfor ICT systems. As with political ideologies opposedto affirmative action programs, one could also arguethat it is unethical to assume that certain groups areso low in self-reliance that they require governmentassistance.

Even those programs that advocate the expansionof digital inclusion may need to address ethicalissues that follow political decisions about access.For example, once granting more citizens accessto e-government, one might ask whether or note-government changes existing social structures inprogressive directions. Once one realizes that thepolitics of digital divide research informs the ethicalassumptions of digital divide conclusions and recom-mendations, more substantial debate can occurregarding what kind of directions we should anticipateand desire for network societies.

As with social science in general, reports on thedigital divide are conducted to address social prob-lems. Those who make policies about social problemslook for empirical generalizations coming from bothacademia and government in order to reach decisionsabout what to do about documented problems. Factualdebates affect policies but assumptions about valuestend to mediate how policies are formulated on thebasis of facts. In other words, values are filters for factsand this can be a problem if ethical considerations arenot part of the values debates.

An ethical component of objective digital dividestudy can assume that values debates are clearly neces-

sary but that they are not packed into the facts debates




and hidden. With objective factual reports, free fromideological biasing, values debates can examine whatshould be done (policies) about the objective andtotal picture of the digital divide. This may provide

the invaluable contribution of ending the incessantrecycling of digital divide denials and digital divideexistence claims.

An ethical perspective for the digital divide

A perspective on ethics and the digital divide sharesin common the fact that ethical perspectives in generalforce decision-makers to consider how their politicaldecisions are related to collectively shared values andassumptions about moral directions (Day 1991).

Floridi (2001) argues that an information ethics can

help us to understand the digital divide. The digitaldivide, he argues, is a source of many ethical prob-lems that are related to the nature of what we know asinformation society. The new ICT environment, some-times referred to as the infosphere, offers new domainsof cognitive activities such as learning, trading, andcultural expression (Floridi 2001). Floridi (2001)argues that digital divide gaps are critical not only inthemselves but also in their contributions to existingproblems of health care, education , and human rights.This “information ethics” has a direct application tothe digital divide as it argues that there should be no

unjustifiable closure of the infosphere (Floridi 2001:3). From the information ethics perspective, there is amoral duty to assure that the infosphere is not reducedin quantity, quality, or value (Floridi 2001).

Floridi and Sanders (2002) argue that a computerethics may be necessary specifically for the socialaspects of ICT. Part of their reasoning says that ICThas brought about new and sometimes unpredictedsocial problems. This is a useful argument to considerin light of the need for more ethical awareness instudying the digital divide. It may be the case thatdigital divide controversies have been overly reducedto sets of competing facts that are debated in an ethicalvacuum.

Fulk, Flanigan, Kalman, Monge and Ryan (1996)present an argument about CMC and public goodstheory which may also be useful in attempting to bringmore ethics into a prominent position in digital divideresearch and discussions. Public goods theory attemptsto explain how collective action can be induced amongself-interested individuals, groups, and organizations.One interesting aspect of a public good is that no onecan be excluded from it. Public parks are a classicexample of this principle of impossible exclusion.

Communication public goods have both physical

and social connectivity (Fulk et al. 1996). Phys-

ical connectivity entails technical infrastructure whilesocial connectivity entails active participation of usersin the physical communication infrastructure (Fulk etal. 1996). Fulk et al. (1996: 69), make the important

point that “Physical connectivity is a necessary but notsufficient condition for connectivity in a social sense.”For the digital divide, this observation may help usrecognize that gaps in physical access block progressin the social aspects of ICT. However, we shouldnote that problems in social connectivity can occurafter problems with physical connectivity have beensolved.

Moral reasoning can be seen as a method foranalyzing the meaning and importance of a glass thatcan be interpreted as either hall empty or half full.A glass is half full or half empty not only in relationto one’s attitude but also to how severe or serious the

absence or presence of something is, as with half sick,half crazy, half hungry, or half drunk! The nature of thephenomenon determines how serious the empty frameis and phrases like “Mercedes divide,” thrown outby those who can afford multiple Mercedes vehicles,reveals how they do not consider disadvantages incommunication technology access and usage to be aserious social problem. The use of moral reasoningcan provide an approach to ICT and Internet usagethat is based on concepts of public good and not juston concepts such as individual initiative. It can link individual and group progress to social and cultural

progress and not just to individual or group objectives.If there is a lack of indication that everyone is

fairly caught up in various societies or most societiesin the world, what is the best humane alternative tosocial exclusion as the norm? Is it feasible to assumethat we should be doing everything possible to makewidespread adoption of network technologies occur asquickly as possible so that digital divide gaps closeat faster rates? Public policies are related to what isknown as political will or the motivation and commit-ment to use resources to serve the public good. Peopletoday, more than people at any point in the past, needaccess, training, affordable pricing, computer literacy,numeracy, and digital skills. Antecedent conditionsfor becoming a working member of network societyinclude access and support for extended learning andskill development after gaining access.

It is possible to diverge on the severity of thedigital divide as well as what to do about the gapsthat exist after a moral framework is agreed upon fordebating how ICT and the public good can best belinked as the digital divide is best diminished. One wayto employ ethics as part of digital divide research andreporting is to consider how important political will isto accomplishing policy formulations for an informa-

tion society or network society that are equitable and




most beneficial for the entire society. This can beginby considering and deliberating how beneficial ICTis for the quality of life for all of the citizens of thesociety. It can account for the morality of diminishing

digital exclusion and marginality as well as promotingcultural diversity, lifelong learning for all ages andgroups, and treating ICT access and skills as rightsrather than privileges.

Considering the views just noted along with thehistory of digital divide debates, we argue that thefollowing considerations should be incorporated intomoral reasoning about the digital divide. First, weknow that ICT and Internet usage offer nontrivialcognitive, cultural, and political spaces for creative,learning, and building activities. Therefore, theyshould not be considered luxuries but instead crit-ical tools for living a new age of communication and

information technologies. Second, the unanticipatedproblems with ICT and Internet usage should be takenseriously and nonusage or problems in usage shouldneither be neglected nor ridiculed. Third, ICT shouldbe considered a public good and policies that real-istically encourage more inclusion and less exclusionshould be encouraged.

The ethical nature of the digital divide

Whether it is argued that most digital divide gaps

close themselves or whether it is argued that they arepersistent (constant or increasing), there are strongethical issues with regard to what the gaps mean forindividuals and societies. Is it ethical, for example, topromote the closure of the digital divide because newonline participants can become additional consumersin the electronic marketplace?

Policy advocacy which rings noble about universalaccess and service seems unquestionable until onethinks about ethical issues such as the motives gettingmore and more people online. The Clinton adminis-tration sounded wonderfully idealistic about gettingeveryone online but then also committed to privatizingthe Internet and using ICT growth to encourage overalleconomic growth through stimulation of the communi-cation technology industries (Kvasny and Truex 2001).

While it certainly seems important for people tonot be digitally excluded and relegated to the FourthWorld (non-participants in network society), we mustassess how networked organizations (virtual organiza-tions, network enterprises) treat the employees whobecome nodes in their networks. Are they more orless empowered as individuals? Can one become moreempowered as an employee and less empowered asan individual? van Dijk (1999) and others have noted

that network society workers may suffer from setbacks

such as deskilled work, lower wages, and longer work weeks.

More ethical research

Time-based research revealing longitudinal trends ismore useful than snapshot studies. Without multipletime points, it is nearly impossible to show causalitybetween various factors affecting divide gaps. Withtime series analysis, one can see both positive effects(diminishing gaps) and negative effects (persistentor increasing gaps). This is more ethical because itprovides a more valid picture of ICT progress andproblems.

Methodologically, future projections make nosense since they are usually wrong when not done ina way that simply says that things are moving in a

general direction over time. For example, a marketingresearch company projected that African Americanswould be at 43% Internet access penetration for 2000and in 2001, they were only at 24%. ICT is corre-lated with increases in disparities in income levelswithin advanced nations. The divide gaps close moreat the highest income levels, yet income does notexplain all of the variance for other factors such asgender, ethnicity, geography, etc. The fact that incomeis an important factor does not mean that it explainseverything in the digital divide (as some marketinggroups claim).

Criticism of research is another area of ethicalconcern. It is not ethical to assert that other research isflawed if you do not prove that it is flawed and exactlyhow. Dual direction effects must be accounted forin complex research. You can find opposite directioneffects for different variables. For example, AfricanAmericans may be ahead of Anglo American onout-of-home Internet access but behind in within-the-household access. An ethical reporting of AfricanAmerican access should account for both facts, andresearchers should not criticize other reports if theyhave their preferred single fact and you have yoursingle preferred fact.

In Table 2, we show what we consider a morecomplete picture of gaps for ethnic groups in theUnited States. This is accomplished by showing vari-ables across time so that actual patterns can be seen,whether they are good or bad. We call this a MoreComplete Truth (MCT) table. What you see aremultiple dimensions of access type and also multipleyears which allows one to detect where the longitud-inal patterns are for each type of access across the fourethnic groups.

A Pew Research survey found the following aboutAfrican-American usage patterns. While 51% of

African Americans use the net for job information,




T

a b l e 2 .

A m o r e c o m p l e t e t r u t h t a b l e f o r e

t h n i c g a p s i n t h e d i g i t a l d i v i d e – c o m p u t e

r s a n d I n t e r n e t

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

1

9 9 4

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

H o m e

H o m

e

H o m e

H o m e

H o m e

A

n y

A n y

A n y

A n y

A n y

H o m e

H o m e

H o m e

H o m e

H o m e

c o m p u t e r

c o m p

u t e r

c o m p u t e r

c o m p u t e r

c o m p u t e r a I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r

n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t I n t e r n e t

I n t e r n e t a

A s i a n A m e r i c a n s

3 3 %

–

5 5 %

6 5 %

8 1 %

–

2 6 %

3 6 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

–

–

2 6 %

5 6 %

5 2 %

A n g l o A m e r i c a n s

2 7 %

4 1 %

4 7 %

5 6 %

8 3 %

–

2 5 %

3 8 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

–

2 1 %

2 7 %

4 6 %

5 0 %

H i s p a n i c A m e r i c a n s

1 2 %

1 9 %

2 6 %

3 4 %

4 7 %

–

1 1 %

1 7 %

2 4 %

3 2 %

–

9 %

9 %

2 4 %

2 0 %

A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s

1 0 %

1 9 %

2 3 %

3 3 %

4 6 %

–

1 3 %

1 9 %

2 9 %

4 0 %

–

8 %

9 %

2 4 %

2 5 %

N o t e s : – i n d i c a t e s a b s e n c e o f a v a i l a b l e

d a t a .

S o u r c e : D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e N T I

A r e p o r t s .

a 2 0 0 1 N T I A d a t a i n d i c a t e s h o u s e h o l d s

w i t h h o m e c o m p u t e r s a n d h o m e i n t e r n e t

a c c e s s f o r c h i l d r e n 3 – 1 7 y e a r s o f a g e .

D a

t a i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r h o u s e h o l d s w i t h y o

u n g a d u l t s

( 1 8 – 2 4 y e a r s o f a g e ) a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l o

r c o l l e g e ,

b u t n o t f o r a l l h o u s e h o l d s b y c a

t e g o r y o f e t h n i c i t y .




37% of Anglo Americans do this, and for doing schoolresearch, the numbers are 65% for African Americansand 54% for Anglo Americans. Compared to AngloAmericans, African Americans also report seeking

more health care information, job, and housing infor-mation. This type of data, from various sources, isoften used to conclude that the African Americansare doing fine and do not need help with access andusage gaps. The reality, however, is that home accesswould help them with their productive uses that arenoted above and it may be unethical, if not outrightlycruel, to argue that they can have library, school andwork access without needing the kind of home accessthat Anglo and Asian Americans are more likely toenjoy.

The Bush administration’s 2002 report correctlynotes that the ethnic groups that have been behind

(African and Hispanic Americans) are acceleratingtheir adoption of Internet usage at a faster pace thanthose who have been ahead (Anglo and Asian Amer-icans). This is half of the story. The other half entailsthe fact that while certain disparities among groups aredecreasing, Anglo and Asian Americans are far aheadof those ethnic groups lagging. In 1997, Anglos wereat 58% for computer usage from any location whileAfrican Americans were at 44%. This is a gap of 14points. In 2001 (the latest NTIA data we have), Anglosare at 70% and African Americans are at 56%. This isstill a gap of 14 points. For Hispanics, the gap in 1997

was 20 points and in 2001, it was a gap of 21 points, anincrease. For Internet usage from any location, we findthat the gaps between Anglo and Hispanic Americansfor the years 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001 went from14, 21, 27, to 28 points, an increase over time in gapsfavoring the Anglo Americans.

While African Americans have some form of Internet access, in contrast to 50% of Anglo Amer-icans, according to a 2000 Pew Research Report, 36%of those African Americans go online each day while56% of Anglo Americans use the net every day. Thesame data indicated that while 27% of those AfricanAmericans with net access use email each day, 49% of Anglo Americans are doing so.

Most current reports on the digital divide concen-trate only on machine or Internet access and do notaccount for gaps in usage and benefits. If everyonein America had a computer and Internet access,there would still be a digital divide if we think of the divide as more than machine or network accessalone. Computer usage and Internet access are growingacross all groups and this is great news. But while thisis true and good, there are still gaps for income, educa-tion, ethnic, and other groupings of Americans. Thesemust be taken seriously since they have not closed as

predicted in earlier years.

With an ethical perspective attached to an empir-ical one, researchers and policy makers studying thedigital divide can tell which gaps are of most concernin relation to the new communication and infrastruc-

tures which are configuring systems of commerce,education, finances, and politics.While various demographic groups such as ethnic

groups have gaps in Internet access and usage, it isethically necessary to assure that these groups are notshackled with images of always behind since suchimagery only adds to prejudicial attitudes about them.It is possible to reinforce racist attitudes, for example,by citing ethnic groups as continuously lagging behindothers. This could also contribute to a kind of negativeself-fulfilling prophecy for members of the groups thatare cited repeatedly as lagging. This raises the difficultethical issue of reporting what is in the data as opposed

to doing more than that to avoid the negative effects just described. If ethical considerations are part of thereports, this should be feasible.

Some scholars are today arguing that reportswhich keep documenting that certain ethnic groupslag behind others in Internet and ICT access andusage may be harming members of those groups bycreating images of technophobia and not keeping upin general (Young 2001). An ethical approach to thissituation might include increased effort to add obser-vations about how these groups are making progressin content design, technological innovations, and

obtaining specific benefits.

Conclusions

Ethics considerations have been largely absent indigital divide studies, reports, and debates. As withany rational process of problem solving or decisionmaking, criteria should be established before decisionsare made about competing interpretations regardingempirical studies and what should be done aboutthem. By building moral reasoning into the processof conducting digital divide research and linking suchresearch to policy debates, it will be possible to accom-plish more valid research, better and more focuseddebates about the significance of empirical findings,and policies that are less subservient to politicalideologies and are more oriented to serving collectivegoods.

Digital divide research which accounts for politicsand ethics will no longer conceal the interests andagendas which guide the political shaping of theresearch designs and interpretations that are nowso commonly encountered. Situations of structuralpolitics can be openly confronted without compro-

mising the quality of quantitative data analysis.




The ways in which the digital divide is framedare related not only to statistics but also to politicsand ethics. Just as political forces succeed in delimit-ing the issues with linguistic boundaries and selective

figures, debates about divide gaps can be re-openedand debated in more depth by enlarging frames thatfalsely assume that numbers speak for themselves intoframes that allow discussions of politics and ethics inrelation to numbers.9

Kvasny and Truex (2001: 15) argue that scholarswho do not help question the politics of ICT may sharein the responsibility of “reproducing an unfair systemthat ensures disparity under the aegis of universalaccess.” Perhaps we will only contribute substantiallyto the closure of the digital divide gaps when wehave worked to close the ethical gaps in digital divideresearch.

References

D.M. Anderson. Cautious Optimism about Online Politics and

Citizenship. In D. Anderson and M. Cornfield, editors, The

Civic Web, pp. 19–34. Rowman and Littlefield, New York,

2003.

T.K. Bikson and C.W.A. Panis. Computers and Connectivity:

Current Trends. In R. Anderson, T. Bikson, S. Law and

B. Mitchell, editors, Universal Access to e-mail: Feasibility

and Societal Implications. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 1995.

Available: http://www.rand.org.

S. Braman. The Politics of the Empirical. ICA News. Interna-tional Communication Association, Austin, Texas, March,

2002, p. 5.

M. Castells. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet,

Business, and Society. Oxford University Press, New York,

2001.

M. Castells. End of Millennium. Blackwell, Malden, MA, 1998.

M. Castells. The Power of Identity. Blackwell, Malden, MA,

1997.

M. Castells. The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell,

Malden, MA, 1996.B. Compaine. Information Gaps: Myth or Reality? In B.

Compaine, editor, The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or

Creating a Myth? (pp. 105–119). MIT Press, Cumberland,

RI, 2001.

L.A. Day. Ethics in Media Communications. Wadsworth,

Belmont, CA, 1991.

N. Dickard. Federal Retrenchment on the Digital Divide: Poten-

tial National Impact . Benton Foundation, Policy Brief No. 1,

March. Benton Foundation, Washington, DC, 2002.

Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the “Have Nots” in

Rural and Urban America, 1995. Available: http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html.

9 This is not a call for including ethics and politics in all

quantitative research but rather only for research topics that

endemically involve power relationships such as the Digital

divide.

Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide,

1998. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2

Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,

1999. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/

contents.html

Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000.

Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents-

00.html

L. Floridi. Computer Ethics: Mapping the Foundationalist

Debate (with J.W. Sanders). Ethics and Information Tech-

nology 2002 (4.1), 1–9 [pdf], 2002.

J. Fulk, A.J. Flanigan, M.E. Kalman, P.R. Monge and T.

Ryan. Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive

Communication Systems. Communication Theory, 6: 60–87,

1996.

K. Hacker. Network Democracy and the Fourth World.

European Journal of Communication Research, 27: 235–260,

2002.

K. Hacker and R. Steiner. Hurdles of Access and Bene-fits of Usage for Internet Communication. Communication

Research Reports, 18: 399–407, 2001.

K. Hacker and J. van Dijk. Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory

and Practice. Sage, London, 2000.

J. Horrigan and L. Rainie. The Broadband Difference: How

Online Americans’ Behavior Changes with High-Speed

Internet Connections at Home, 2002. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org

J. Jung, J. Qiu and Y. Kim. Internet Connectedness and

Inequality: Beyond the “Divide.” Communication Research,

28(4): 507–535, 2001.

L. Kvasny and D. Truex. Defining Away the Digital Divide:

A Content Analysis of Institutional Influences on Popular

Representations of Technology, pp. 1–16 [pdf], 2001. Avail-able: http://www.cis.gsu.edu/˜dtruex/Presentations/kvasny-

Truex01.pdf

Making Technologies Work for Human Development . Human

Development Report. United Nations, New York, 2001.

Available: http://www.undp.org/hdr2001.

A. Massey. Twisted Logic Fails to Eliminate Sad Fact That

Digital Divide Exists. Houston Business Journal: June 24,

2002.

A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use

of the Internet , 2002. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

ntiahome/dn/nationonline_020502.html

E. Newberger. Home Computers and Internet Use in the United

States: August 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce, Wash-

ington, DC, 2001.

E.M. Rogers. Communication Technology. Free Press, New

York, 1986.

J. Schement. Of Gaps by Which Democracy We Measure. In

B. Compaine, editor, The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis Or

Creating a Myth? pp. 303–310. MIT Press, Cumberland, RI,

2001.

T. Spooner and L. Rainie. African-Americans and the Internet .

Pew Internet and American Life Project. October 22,

2000. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/

PIP_African_Americans_Report.pdf

B. Tranter and S. Willis. Beyond the Digital Divide: Socio-

Economic Dimensions of Internet Diffusion in Australia. 2002




Conference on the Digital Divide: Technology and Politics in

the Information Age, 2002. Available: www.pac-rim.org

J. Van Dijk. The Ideology Behind Closing Digital Divides:

Applying static Analysis to Dynamic Gaps. IAMCR and ICA

Symposium on the Digital Divide, November 15–17, 2001.

Austin, Texas, 2000.

J. Van Dijk. Widening Information Gaps and Policies of Preven-

tion. In K. Hacker and J. van Dijk, editors, Digital Democ-

racy: Issues of Theory and Practice, pp. 166–183. Sage,

London, 2000.

J. Van Dijk. The Network Society. Sage, London, 1999.

J. Van Dijk and K. Hacker. The Digital Divide as a Complex and

Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, in press.

A.G. Wilhelm. Civic Participation and Technology Inequality:

The “Killer Application” is Education. In D. Anderson and

M. Cornfield, editors, The Civic Web, pp. 113–128. Rowman

& Littlefield, New York, 2003.

nur syahrina bt akhil - ethical gaps in studies of the digital divide

Documents