The sources used for this study were a combination of books, electronic journals, departmental reports and the World Wide Web pages. The original search strategy returned more than a thousand results, but it was significantly reduced by adjusting the search strategy to search for specific documents related to the definition, origin, reality, type, measurement, and resolution.
- Links were chosen based on authority, scope, currency, purpose, and objectivity.
- Only electronic journals available through recommended university databases were used.
- Only web pages from departmental websites were used.
- All links had clearly defined areas.
- All links have been published in the last ten years.
- Links were mainly focused on UK data backed up by secondary data from the United States and the world.
The words “digital divide” have become harsh words in the world of information management. This document discusses the literature related to its definition, and when and where it originated. He asks questions if he is quantifiable, and if so, how can each type be measured. Programs and methods for bridging the digital divide are evaluated at the local, national, and global levels.
While world leaders plan to bridge the gap, some commentators argue if there is a separation, while others hold opposing views on what it really is. A study by Hunladar (2003) states that some commentators believe that the phrase should not be used at all and should be replaced by more positive social inclusion.
This phrase was first coined by the US government in 1995, when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report called "Falling Through the Network." (Servon, 2002, p. 2). The report stresses the existence of the digital divide in America, which separates those who have access to information technology and those who are absent.
Cullen (2003) describes the digital divide as a gap in most countries between those who have access to tools, information and communication technologies (ICT) and those who do not have such access or skills. In contrast, Servon (2002, p. 2) explains that the technological gap is only one link in the causal chain that has repeatedly associated certain groups with flaws. Thus, the digital divide is a symptom of a much larger and more complex problem — persistent poverty and inequality.
Similarly, Lax (2001, p. 194) refers to such social and economic factors in his study. He confirms that the cost of building a system capable of accessing the Internet is low on the list of priorities in many low-income families in both the US and the UK. In addition, over the past two decades, economic and tax policies have widened the gap between rich and poor, so that the digital divide is associated with an economic gap. He reports that family spending data in the UK in 2000 showed that Internet access is only three percent in the poorest households, and forty-eight percent in the wealthiest.
In addition, Wyatt et al. (2000, p. 28) emphasize the constant digital divide. in studies conducted by the US Census Bureau on behalf of the NTIA in 1994, 1997, and 1998. Despite the fact that there have been significant increases in the number of personal computers and modem tools, the growth has occurred more within certain income levels, demographic groups and geographic areas than in other countries. This is confirmed by an even greater disparity in penetration levels among some groups. The report concluded that in most cases the digital divide widened.
However, Fink and Kenny (2003) challenge these definitions in their research and question the validity of digital separation. They discuss four interpretations frequently used by commentators and their possible measurements:
- The gap in access to ICT use is roughly measured by the number and distribution of phones or computers with web access.
- The gap in ICT use is measured by the base of skills and the presence of numerous additional assets.
- The gap in actual usage is the message protocol for various purposes, the number and time of online users, the number of Internet hosts and the level of electronic commerce.
- The gap in the impact of use is measured by financial and economic returns.
They argue that, considering the various measures of the digital divide, there is a gap in access to ICT per capita, but developing countries show higher growth rates of network development than developed countries. Moreover, with the use of the income-access indicator, developing countries are already “digitally flipping” the developed world.
There is no consensus on the extent of the gap, or it is becoming more or less. There is no data supporting all four dimensions, and further research is needed to establish the evidence to fully illustrate the status of the unit and its growth or decline. However, researchers mostly agree that there is a section. Norris (2000) describes separation as having more than one dimension: a social gap (the gap between rich information and poor information in a country); democratic gap (distribution of power and influence between those who do and do not use ICT to participate in politics); and global division (existing between highly developed and developing countries).
The global division was discussed in July 2000 by the leaders of eight major industrial democracies at the 26th G8 summit in Okinawa. The communiqué (Communiqué G8 Okinawa, 2000) confirms that their goal was to maximize the benefits of IT and ensure that they are distributed to those who currently have limited access. In addition, the Okinawa Charter of the Global Information Society ([http://www.dotforce.org/reports/it1.html], 2000) states that everyone should be able to participate, and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the global information society.
Giri's research (2002) reports how the United Nations has developed a number of projects aimed at helping developing countries. Mr. Kofi Annan emphasized that information technology could give developing countries a chance to skip some of the long and painful stages of development that other countries had to go through. In addition to the United Nations, other international organizations, such as the World Bank, IMF and WHO, are undertaking a number of initiatives to reduce the digital divide by sending volunteers, providing training, as well as loans and grants for Internet and ICT projects.
Domestically, social divisions were reviewed by the UK government when it was announced in March 2000 that all government services would be available electronically by 2005 (Electronic Service Delivery, 2002), and in their 2002 annual report (UK Online, 2002 ) states that their goal was to ensure that everyone who wants to have access to the Internet by 2005.
The UK Government seeks to:
- raise awareness on the Internet by: informing citizens about the services available to them and the places where they can do it.
- promote affordable access to the Internet at home, at work, on the move, and in the community: supporting a range of channels, including personal computer, DTV, and public Internet access points.
- improve ICT skills through: providing citizens with the opportunity to acquire relevant skills and confidence in using the Internet.
- build trust in the Internet: by advising citizens on how best to use the Internet safely and by creating a coherent regulatory framework to increase consumer confidence.
The objectives are aimed at addressing four key issues that do not depend solely on the socio-economic status identified by Cullen (Kullen, 2001) from the Gartner Group Report, “The Digital Divide in American Society”: physical access to ICT; ICT skills and support; relations; and content.
These key questions require further research and measurement to test the suitability and effectiveness of the UK government strategy: do we close the digital divide by providing community access to ICT, or should ICT be available at home? Should ICT have a computer equipped with a modem, or can it consist of digital television or a mobile phone? In any case, it should be noted that studies conducted by Whaley (2004) show that, although any result of increased computer ownership and use of the Internet will offer optimism that the digital divide is narrowing, targeted intervention, such as public and private programs, focus groups and bouts of community activism will still require fixing any access inconsistencies.
An independent study for British Telecom (http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/PDF/Digitaldivide2025.pdf, 2004) suggests that the profile of the population excluded from digital information in the UK underscores the complexity of the problems in the debate related to digital inclusion and digital divide. It concludes that non-digital adults are often older and have no educational qualifications. Of the 9.5 million adults living with low incomes of more than seven million, they are numerically excluded. These statistics are useful in developing a baseline for investigating the progress of a unit. The report also attempts to predict the state of the digital divide in 2025. This serves as a useful indicator of where we can be like Bridgers; digital divide in the future, but can not explain the change or pace of change in technology.
In conclusion, the digital divide is well documented, despite the fact that many commentators interpret it differently. It is recognized by most as real, including governments and international organizations, and resources have been provided to counter the growing gaps between rich information and poor information. However, in the world of complete standards, an obvious question arises related to the lack of a structured measurement and control over such an important dilemma as the digital divide. There are many opportunities for further research in this area.
Recommendations
Cullen, R. (2001) “Resolving the Digital Divide,” Online Information Review, 25 (5), p. 311-320.
Cullen, R. (2003). Digital divide: global and national call to action. Electronic Library, 21 (3), p. 247-257.
Electronic Delivery Services (2002)
Available on: [http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/esd_menu.htm]
(Access: 13/09/05)
Fink, C. & Kenny, CJ (2003), W (h) ither the digital divide? Info, 5 (6), pp. 15-24.
G8 Communique Okinawa (2000) Available by: [http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate?ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097587800852]
(Access: 09/17/05)
Giri, J. (2002). "The digital difference: exploring national and international approaches to bridging the digital divide and formulating a strategic model that can be implemented in developing countries."
Hunladar, S. (2003) “A Study of the Philosophical Basis of the Digital Divide”, “Computers and Philosophy”, 37, p. 85-89.
http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/PDF/Digitaldivide2025.pdf (2004)
(Access: 09/16/05)
[http://www.dotforce.org/reports/it1.html] (2000)
(Access: 15/09/05)
Lax, S. (2001) Access is denied in the information age. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Norris P. (2000). The virtuous circle: political communication in post-industrial democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Servon, LJ (2002) Bridging the digital divide: technology, community, and public policy. Bodmin: MPG books department.
UK Online (2002) Available at: [http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/reports-annrep-2002/]$ File / IndexPage.htm
(Access: 15/09/05)
Whaley, KC (2004). America's Digital Difference: 2000–2003 Trends, Journal of Medical Systems, 28 (2), p. 183-195.
Wyatt, S. et al. (2000) Technology and Inequality: Interviewing the Information Society. New York: Rutledge.
