Critical Response Essay Module 2

            It is believed that the term “digit divide” was first used in a 1996 speech by former Markle Foundation president Lloyd Morrisett, to describe a separation between those that have skills and access to technology; and those that do not. (Schement p119) “The digital divide refers to that disparity between individuals and/or communities who can use electronic information and communication tools, such as the Internet, to better the quality of their lives and those who cannot.” (Salinas, p132)  In the last few years, the issue of the digital divide has rapidly gained the attention of various individuals and institutions in society.  Some claim that it no longer exists, while others maintain that it is expanding. (Salinas, p131) 

            Although the exact terms and figures used to define the existence of a digit divide are still under debate, as are the suggested ways in which this divide may be closed, there is a strong sentiment that actions are needed, and the situation needs to be addressed. The authors Menou & Taylor state that “beyond the fuzziness of observations, concepts, and representations, a general agreement seems to exist regarding the need for public policies to guide, expand, and/or correct this evolution and broaden the reach of its eventual benefits. (Menou & Taylor p 261)  One thing that is clear is that “the digital divide is about people not about computers.” (Salinas p132) 

            So far there has been great debate about how to try to define the elements that comprise the digital divide, as many believe that is the first step towards trying to develop solutions. To a greater extent the public’s concern about the digital divide has focused on the gap between those who have the “boxes and wires” they need for Internet access and those who do not. Often the disagreement arises from the lack of consensus on how the digital divide is defined. (Salinas, p133) 

            There are a number of researchers that have said that current approaches to categorizing and estimating the level of application of information technology are either inaccurate or incomplete, and they do not permit one to gauge the degree of appropriateness of particular types of technology, or that of the hospitality with which information technology will be received. (Menou & Taylor p 262)  Basically, the digital divide has changed core elements, and new metrics such as those that measure acceptance of technology need to be monitored and addressed. 

In a study by the Department of Commerce, they suggested that “during description, research should focus on individuals rather than data on households, because focusing on individuals permits the study of such factors such as age, gender, education, and employment status.  Also, internet access is occurring more frequently outside of the home, at such locations as work, schools, and libraries.  Finally, a small but growing number of Internet connections are increasingly occurring over personal devices, such as wireless phones and digital assistants, in addition to the computer.  (U.S. Department of Commerce p 2) 

            Others have suggested using models in which interactions among six sets of factors are used to depict the digital divide: social and governmental constraints / support, affordability, use, accessibility, infrastructure / access, and sociodemographic factors are applied.  (Menou & Taylor p 262)  In any effect, it is clear that “what we define today as the digit divide will almost certainly be different in the future as the impact of technology in society is revealed over the course of time.” (Salinas, p132) 

            After the investigative elements used to determine if the digital divide still exists, and to what extent it exists are determined, the next step is to define and measure the affecting elements.   As previously stated in this paper, in the past elements such as access to hardware, access to the internet, and internet connection speed have been the primary elements measured in digital divide research.  Now, many are suggesting that this information is not enough to attempt to gain understanding into the divide but also  access to the technology, skills to use the technology, availability of relevant content, and the ability of the user to become fluent in using the technology to access the content (Salinas, p132) are what need to be examined also.  

             The authors Menou & Taylor also support this idea by stating that “most studies relied on an individual and consumerist model of society that is manifested in figures like the number of persons who used the Internet over a given period of time.  Information measurements tend to have excluded whatever was not “informational” per se, or at least not directly related to information resources and activities.  They overlooked the constant interaction between the real and the cyber world, in uses of technology other than computer terminal access.” (Menou & Taylor p264) 

            Though the debate still continues relating to existence and level of a digital divide the information that is being uncovered has direct application to a library environment. Since libraries have traditionally functioned as community resources for information, they have become critical agents in addressing this debated divide. (Salinas, p131) 

            In the Schement article, the author reiterated this importance by stating that “for Americans without access, public libraries function as access intensifiers.  At present, 95% of public libraries maintain an internet connection, and because of this, functional access extends to nearly every American without household Internet connectivity.  Clearly, without public libraries, a large segment of the American population would find themselves increasingly isolated from information. (Schement p 118)

            Now that most libraries do have internet connections and computers that are accessible to the patrons, the focus has shifted towards technology instruction and even into collection development with relation to electronic and digital items.  According to Salinas “collection development or selection decisions in the past have generally been based on a set of evaluative criteria, such as reviews, publisher credibility, relationship to collection strengths and gaps, and funding resources and to a lesser extent focused on the library’s ability to make the acquired resource accessible.” (Salinas, p132)

            With the efforts to better understand the digital divide in a library setting, it is now clear that merely supplying computers is not enough to close the digital divide.  Merely placing a book on a shelf does not constitute access.  Therefore, an active and current study of the accessibility needs of your population will continue to be an ongoing and changing, activity within the library setting and that of society itself.  Describing our national as a nation online, may not be fully accurate, but we are getting closer.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Luyt, B. (2006) Defining the Digital Divide. Vol 58, 4. ASLIB Proceedings p254-266

Menou, M. & Taylor, R. (2006) A “Grand Challenge”: Measuring Information Societies. 22, The Information Society p 261-267 

Salinas, R. (2003) Addressing the digital divide through collection development. Vol 22, 3. Collection Building. P131-136 

Schement, J. (2003) Measuring what Jefferson knew and De Tocqueville saw: libraries as bridges across the digital divide. Vol 1, 4. IT & Society. P118-125

U.S. Department of Commerce (2001) A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age.  Retrieved February 15, 2007 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html