Recent statistics on internet and broadband use in America show the gap between whites and people of colour is closing. While African-American people are still less likely to own a PC or go online, the racial composition of online America is more closely resembling that of the population as a whole. Language proficiency is a more relevant predictor of internet use than race.
Racial minorities are more likely than whites to own a mobile phone, to access the internet by mobile phone, and to use social networking sites, particularly to stay informed about government and local issues. The ever-increasing range of devices that can utilise the internet is helping to narrow the digital divide, and ensuring online content stays relevant and accessible by these devices will help address inequities in cyberspace, at least in terms of race.
2. Australian Social Trends, 2008 - Internet Access at Home
The most recent report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of factors associated with lack of internet access is for 2006-07. These factors include remoteness from major cities, increased age, being a young single parent, low income, low educational attainment, and being an indigenous Australian. Many of these factors are also associated with each other, compounding the effect of the digital divide, as it is likely a disadvantaged individual must overcome numerous obstacles to internet participation, and often the resources likely to aid the overcoming of disadvantageous circumstances can be accessed most easily from the internet.
The main reasons given for not having internet access were no use for, or not interested in, the internet. Lack of access is not included as a reason for not connecting, although it is admitted that broadband penetration into remote rural areas lags behind that of cities, so presumably access is a barrier for some.
Considering the numerous advantages being online is purported to offer people, a more in-depth study of “not interested/not useful” would be advantageous in forming social inclusion policies in Australia, as initiatives like the NBN and subsidised costs will not address this issue. Higher access than usage across several age groups indicates simply having the internet does not bridge the digital divide.
3. Unpacking “I don’t want it” — Why novices and non–users don’t use the Internet
This study from 2006 uses Pew data (2005) to suggest saturation point for internet adoption in America has been reached. In light of the new data from 2010, the comparatively low uptake of broadband overall compared to that of people of colour shows the likelihood that internet non-users will be black has decreased, but that they will be older and less educated still holds true.
An interview of 21 adults, half of whom are “technology embracers” and the other half “technology resisters” shows differences across four areas: learning habits, attitudes about technology, attitudes about technology users, and social networks. Analysis of the “I don’t want it” response suggests resisters are distancing themselves based on fear and misperception. While there is an obvious danger in using the opinions of 10 individuals to draw conclusions about 65 million other people, studies of this nature are valuable in forming policies intended to encourage not just access, but a desire to seek inclusion.
4. Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”
The digital divide has traditionally been analysed in terms of access or non-access to the internet, or more recently the quality of access, e.g. broadband versus dial-up. This study explores the divide between those with “internet know-how” and those without.
The belief that exposure to internet technology equates to “net savvy” carries the assumption that connected youth have already crossed the “digital divide” and the inequities associated with it are no longer their problem. However, different uses of the internet are related to social factors, and “differentiated usage patterns among the connected have the potential to contribute to social inequality”.
Controlling for age and education, the study finds low web skill associated with low socioeconomic status, women, Hispanics, and African Americans. Greater diversity of internet use is associated with laptop ownership, more access points, more hours spent online, and men. The findings reinforce some of the well-known issues surrounding the digital divide of connectivity, particularly socioeconomic status, but also expose the inequities commonly assumed to have vanished with equal access, such as gender.
This study shows merely providing internet access does not confer all the internet’s advantages upon the user; the digital divide is also defined by computer and internet literacy. The inequities of cyberspace are not addressed by presence, but by how active that presence is.
5. “Blacks Deserve Bodies Too!” Design and Discussion about Diversity and Race in a Teen Virtual World
Discussion of the internet as postrace might be an interesting intellectual exercise but it does not address the concerns of people like Kerri_87, who desire that the “1/3 of the population” of Whyville with self-chosen black avatar faces, have access to matching black bodies. This article highlights the online representation issues surrounding the digital divide.
Availability of a diverse range of physical representations ought not be an issue in a world of user-generated content, where presumably any perceived lack of adequate representation can be addressed by the perceiver. However, lower numbers of people online that are affected by that lack (as evidenced by the Pew statistics), means less people are likely to correct it, a longer time where the lack goes uncorrected, and in the intervening time the lack is normalised and perpetuated.
An imbalance between availability of non-white heads and non-white bodies, the assertion by various members of the online community that racism doesn’t exist in Whyville because they haven’t seen it, and the initial assignment of a white-skinned generic head when signing up, all reflect the offline world of white privilege. The moderator’s response of making newbie heads blue is an important example of the ability of online environments to address the concerns of minorities.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), Australian Social Trends, cat. no. 4102.0, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/8070dd7b8f223b04ca25748e00124112> (viewed 18 September 2010)
Green, R. Michelle (2006), Unpacking “I don’t want it” — Why novices and non–users don’t use the Internet, First Monday, volume 11 (9) <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1395/1313> (viewed 18 September 2010)
Hargittai, Eszter (2010), ‘Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”’, Sociological Inquiry, Volume 80 (1) p. 92–113 <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x/full>(viewed 19 September 2010)
Kafai, Yasmin B.; Melissa Cook, & Deborah A. Fields (2010), ‘“Blacks Deserve Bodies Too!” Design and Discussion about Diversity and Race in a Teen Virtual World’, Games and Culture, Volume 5 (1) p. 43-63 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.862&rep=rep1&type=pdf> (viewed 19 September 2010)
Smith, Aaron (Sep 17, 2010), Technology Trends Among People of Color, <http://pewinternet.org/commentary/2010/september/technology-trends-among-people-of-color.aspx> (viewed 18 September 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment