Digital Division

Digital Division

Consider the socio-psychological causes and consequences of the digital divide. What do you think the consequences of experiments such as the hole in the wall and one laptop per child will be?

In the late 1990s, the internet rapidly became popular as a medium for communication and socialisation. It was seen by some as the silver bullet that would allow us to “transcend national boundaries,” make “space and distance irrelevant” and more or less destroy old economic and business power structures (Dyson, 1998, as cited in Khiabany, 2003). Regardless of whether it really did all those things, people noticed that despite the universally accepted usefulness of the computer and internet, not all were keeping up with it; some were falling behind, and people wanted to know why.

The resulting explanation was that there exists a “Digital Divide” in modern society, an inequality of access to computers and the internet within and between large socio-economic groups (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner 2006; Valadez & Duran 2007). However, what exactly causes this division is still a topic of debate; some suggest it is as a result of purely economic discrepancies between class and cultures, while others stress the importance of psychological hindrances to accessing new technologies.

One view of the Digital Divide is that because resources are unevenly divided among countries, and between classes within a society, many people are without the means to purchase computers and hence access the internet (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner 2006; Liu & San, 2006). This would seem to be supported by a wealth of statistical data that shows the most economically prosperous nations have a much higher level of internet usage than those in poverty (Liu & San), and data that shows the same imbalance between ethnic groups (Enoch & Soker, 2006).

But while this is an important contributor to the Digital Divide, it is not the whole story, it does not explain why even in first world countries where the price of computers is coming down and most everyone has the opportunity to buy one, a division still exists between those with and those without access to the internet.

Stanley (2003) studied the social psychological factors that contributed to the Digital Divide. Her study was an investigation into low or no computer use individuals, which involved surveying, interviewing and observing individuals in relation to computer use, over a period eight months. Stanley’s qualitative experiment was designed to investigate factors that may undermine a new computer user’s motivation to continue accessing computers and the internet.

She studied 100 mainly low socio-economic class individuals as they attempted to learn computer skills at a number of community technology centres in San Diego USA. A large portion of her sample size was of Hispanic ethnicity, or had immigrated to America in recent years. Individuals were mainly aged between 25 and 65.

At the end of her experiments, Stanley found that the cost of a computer was not always the greatest disincentive to buy and use a computer. She found that “many non-computer users are also deterred by its high social costs: difficulty of use, presumed lack of technical competence, and computer-related anxiety”, (Stanley). She also found “Three out of four respondents asserted that regardless of cost or ease of access, fear of irreparably damaging or “blowing up” the computer kept them from acting on any desires they might have to learn this technology” (Stanley).

Many of the individuals she studied did not consider computers and the internet to be important at all to their lives, or were an unnecessary luxury, prior to seeking training and skills in computing. Stanley also reported that the largest proportion of participants restricted themselves from learning computer skills as a result of lack of self confidence, many believing they were just not intelligent enough to learn how to use computers.

Another social psychological factor that may contribute to a Digital Divide is gender.

Cooper (2006) studied what he believed is a Digital Divide between the genders, caused by a disadvantage to women in the learning and socialisation process attached to computers. He posits that a stereotype exists in society that boys are better at using and more fluent with information technologies, and because of this girls are likely to consider themselves as being inadequate or not good at using computers or the internet. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which girls, especially in an education environment, expect to perform worse than boys, and as such, do perform worse.

He argues that the application of a negative stereotype, favouring men as superior at computer skills, is also partially responsible for the high percentage of male Information Technology graduates from university in comparison to women, and the relative dominance of men in the IT industry.

However Joiner, Littleton, Chou & Morahan-Martin (2006) suggest that Cooper and other researchers who believe that there is a Digital Divide between genders, may be over simplifying things, and not paying enough attention to the larger context in which computer use takes place. They also indicate research that suggests the Digital Divide between men and women has been diminishing in recent years or has already disappeared (Losh, 2004; Stanford Internet Study 2000; UCLA Internet Project 2000, 2001, 2003, as cited in Joiner, Littleton, Chou & Morahan-Martin).

Arguably more research needs to be done to clarify the existence and status of a Digital Divide between genders.

In terms of initiatives designed to bridge the Digital Divide, nothing is more emblematic of this than the One Laptop per Child project. It aims to supply cheap, manually powered laptops to third world children hopefully allowing them to bridge the growing gap in knowledge and technology with the first world (T H E Journal, 2006). The laptop, 2B1, was designed to be durable, and run in areas without conventional electricity, it even connects to the internet using a complicated wireless “mesh” network (Steven, 2006). However questions arise over the suggested effectiveness of the One Laptop per Child project. With laptops and internet connections, information and knowledge may pass quite easily between the first and third world, but what is knowledge without wisdom and understanding? It is doubtful that the One Laptop per Child project will make a lasting effect upon the glaring Digital Divide, but it is a step in the right direction.

One indication that it is a step in the right direction is that it targets children in the third world. Children, as Mitra and Rana proved in a series of experiments known as the ‘Hole in the Wall’ experiments, are capable of learning how to use computers and the internet with absolutely no interference or outside tutorials (Mitra, 2003). In the initial experiment, a computer with access to the internet was installed in a wall close to a slum in New Delhi. Within days “most of the slum children were able to use the computer to browse, play games, create documents and paint pictures” (Mitra). Subsequent experiments led them to conclude that children in the third world, without prior experience with computers, can easily develop the skills needed to access computers and the internet without assistance from adult tutors, and that there is no bias between girls and boys, both eventually using the computers with equal prominence (Mitra).

 

With this information it is fair to conclude that projects such as the One Laptop per Child initiative, while being largely superficial and almost naive in ignoring far more basic problems than computer illiteracy, does hold some merit in that it hits the most impressionable and easiest to train target population, ensuring that as third world children grow they might have a bit more social mobility than they otherwise would have.

As for the causes of the Digital Divide, I would conclude that in the first world, division between gender and class is more caused by socio-psychological factors such as low self esteem, stereotyping and self fulfilling prophecies as indicated by researchers Stanley (2003) and Cooper (2006). However on a broader scale, it is impossible to ignore the economic inequalities between the first and third world as the major cause for the Digital Divide. Despite efforts such as the One Laptop per Child initiative, and studies like those done by Mitra and Rana, this is really just a drop in the ocean of poverty and corruption known to us as the third world. Real efforts to bridge the Digital Divide would have to be much larger scale.

 

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B. S. (2006). The penguin dictionary of sociology: Fifth edition. Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Books.

Bridging the ‘knowledge divide’ with a $100 laptop. (2006, February), T H E Journal, 33, 12.

Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 320-334.

Enoch, Y. & Soker, Z. (2006). Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learning, 21, 99-110.

Joiner, R., Littleton, K., Chou, C. & Morahan-Martin, J. (2006). Gender and information communication technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 317-319.

Khiabany, G. (2003). Globalisation and the internet: Myths and realities, Trends in Communication, 11, 137-153.

Liu, M. & San, G. (2006). Social learning and digital divides: A case study of internet technology diffusion. Kyklos, 59, 307-321.

Mitra, S. (2003). Minimally invasive education: A progress report on the “hole-in-the-wall” experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 367-371.

Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. The Information Society, 19, 407-416.

Steven, P. (2006). Let them eat laptops. Alternatives Journal, 32, 6.

Valadez, J. R., & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and the internet, High School Journal, 90, 31-44.

 

Self Assessment

Theory

This blog post touches on a few important Social Psychological theories, but does not go into great depth or analysis. It does not display the ability to take theory and learning from the course and apply it to a greater field or individual research. It could be improved.

Research

The ‘Digital Divide’ is a fairly new area of research but already there is an abundant supply of opinions, data and experimentation relating to it, of which this blog barely scratches the surface. I was however satisfied with the depth and attention payed to specific experiments, that was an improvement on last time.
Written Expression

Written expression was at times jumbled, tinted with bias, completely unscientific and probably riddled with unnoticed errors. It was lacking in coffee.

Online Engagement

Engagement was an improvement on last time, which isn’t saying much. For lack of my own inspiration and ideas I tried my hand at commenting on other peoples blogs, whether that was successful or not remains to be seen. Probably still room for improvement. At least this time I did the self assessment!

 

My mind is going…… i can feel it.

Freedom, sweet freedom!

Between the press of research reports and oral examinations for other subjects, I’ve finally found time to contribute to my much neglected Social Psychology blog.

 And not a day too soon, as like an Atheist on his death bed eager to convert to Catholicism “just in case”, the end looms all too large in my caffeine hazed vision. Of the unit that is… so far as I know, I’m not going to die just yet.

But enough talk of death, there’s essay to be had!

The topic I have chosen is one of interest to me; The Digital Divide.
For those who don’t know, the Digital Divide refers to the relative prevalence of computer usage and technical competency with software in the first world compared to the third world, which accounts for a dismally small percentage of internet and computer users.

Why is this at all important to Social Psychology?

Because the machines are going to rise up against us and wipe our first world brothers from the earth, enslaving the third world to work in enormous origami farms (because as we know, all robots love origami but lack the neural dexterity to actually do it).

I’m kidding.

The real reason is because computers are changing the way we in the first world socialise, the way we communicate and even the way we think. If we leave the third world behind on this one, what chance do we stand of bridging the social and economic gaps between us that already exist?

Let me explain. In the Digital Divide, first world societies are becoming more and more reliant on comprehension and technical competency with computers, we need it to work, we need it to interface with our friends, we need it to keep up with current trends and world events.

Take someone from the third world and put them into this situation, with no training with computers, no comprehension of how to use Microsoft’s already mystifying software and how will they adapt to a culture where they are already outsiders.

Its entirely plausible that the Digital Divide could discourage immigration into the first world, increase racial tensions and further isolate migrant ethnic groups from the mainstream first world.

And we haven’t even started on what it could do to the class system.

Enough of this groundless conjecture, what do other people think on this topic?

Will the Digital Divide end the days of third to first world migration?

Essay 1 (aka Wall of Text!)

Social Identity and the Social Self

 

Is it possible to truly know one’s self?

No.

Self perception is like walking down a hallway of broken and tarnished mirrors, each wall reflecting the other infinitely. It is ever changing, convoluted and fractured, so that the true self is indistinguishable from the objects and people that surround us. Allow me to explain…

As Nietzsche understood it; “Truths are illusions about which we have forgotten that this is what they are” (Paul de Man, 1979 as cited in Anderson, 2005). By this he meant that the interests weighing upon our minds inevitably bias our perception, and the culture and society in which we exist will change the way we perceive and express ourselves. Complete objectivity is a fantasy, impossible, as even the very thoughts in our head are shaped by the language we use, and the values we aspire to.

This is not to say that the pursuit of intimate knowledge of one’s own self is an unworthy one.

Indeed this is at the heart of Social Psychology, and over the years many theories and experiments have been proposed that seek understanding of who we really are, and how we function in relation to each other. In this essay I will be exploring these theories using my own perceived social identity (regardless of flaw and bias) to exemplify them.

To begin, it should be noted that I do not have one single social identity. As many social psychologists in the past have pointed out; the social identity is fluid, depending on the roles that an individual fulfils and the context in which these roles are performed (Tajfel, 1982; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell 1987, as cited in Reicher, Hopkins & Harrison 2006). For instance, at home I am a son and a brother, while at university I am a student, a friend or a classmate. In addition to this, how I choose to perform these roles adds to the variability of my social identities.

The factors that give meaning to these seemingly abstract labels are far more complicated, very much determined by the culture and society you belong to, the class you inherit and various physiological characteristics. Howarth (2002), for example, points out the importance of race in self conceptualisation within the UK town of Brixton. She emphasises the multiculturalism of the region, as well as its perceived economic disadvantage, linking these contexts to the formation of social identity in the youths she studied. She found that while many of the inhabitants of Brixton identified themselves in a positive light, as members of a vibrant multicultural community, this conflicted with an outside interpretation of the region as poor, riddled with crime and dangerous. This conflict often lowered self esteem and created a self concept that was tainted with the malignant perceptions of others (Howarth, 2002).

This suggests two simple things; what you interpret a social identity to mean is closely tied to the group you identify with, but it can also be greatly affected by how another group perceives your group, especially when the out groups perception is in conflict with the in groups. For instance, I identify myself as a University of Canberra student, I work with other students often, and I have friends that are students here. I consider it to be a good university that contains a diverse mix of students and staff catering to a wide range of learning styles. However I also know of students from other universities that insinuate that the bulk of UC’s students are lazy or incompetent, only studying at UC because they were incapable of getting in to a better university. This conflict filters into my social identity as a University of Canberra student, if only a little, and effects the way I fulfil that role wether I like it or not.

However, social identity is sometimes not just about who you identify with, but who you don’t identify with as well. Vignoles, Chryssochoou, and Breakwell (2000) suggest that all humans desire a level of distinctiveness from the people around them, something that separates them from the groups they belong to as a whole. They also point out that this desire for distinctiveness is “portrayed as a core value of Western cultures” (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell 2000, 203 as cited in Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell 2003). I agree with them, in that I would find it very discomforting if all I had to identify with were categories describing group affiliations. In fact, in the vast majority of cases I identify myself in relation to those things that I am not. I am not an American, I am not a woman, I am not poor or Catholic or a Liberal voter etc.

Another factor that contributes to a person’s social identity is their self-consciousness, though it has more impact upon every day social interactions than longer term identity conceptualisation. Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss (1975) believed that self-consciousness consisted of two major components: the private self-consciousness which analysed internal thoughts and feelings, and the public self-consciousness which constituted an individual’s awareness of themselves and the effect they had on other people in a social context. My private self-consciousness tells me that I think of myself as shy and reserved. However, my public self-consciousness is not as perceptive as my private self-consciousness, so I might be completely deluding myself.

Social identity plays a big part in how we interact with other people, how we see ourselves and how we articulate ourselves to others. We don’t simply have one single social identity, but many that shift and change with every social situation imaginable or unimaginable. Many factors influence how these identities are created, such as race, socialisation, inter-group interaction and so forth. Our social identities are also affected by how we see ourselves when we are separate from the groups we belong to, how we distinguish ourselves and even our personal thoughts and feelings. Unsurprising as human beings are such socially motivated animals.

However, we often get mixed up in our social worlds to the point that we lose sight of the bigger picture. We shouldn’t forget that while attempting to better understand who we are and where we fit in to society, it’s also important to look at where we fit in to the universe as well.

 

References

 

Anderson, R. (2005). Nietzsche on truth, illusion, and redemption. European Journal of Philosophy, 13, 185-225.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A.H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.

Howarth, C. (2002). Identity in whose eyes? The role of representation in identity construction. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 145-162.

Reicher, S., Hopkins, N., & Harrison, H. (2006). Social identity and spatial behaviour: The relationship between national category salience, the sense of home, and labour mobility across national boundaries. Political Psychology, 27, 247-263.

Vignoles, V.L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G.M. (2002). Evaluating models of identity motivation: Self-esteem is not the whole story. Self and Identity, 1, 201-218.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept Map

Live from the pink room…

Ask not what your coffee can do for you, but what you can do for your coffee!

Buy Nocciola ++ today and you can be drinking delicious hot hazelnut flavoured coffee in mere nanoseconds. All those years of plain old boring coffee just fade away into the darkest recesses of you memory, along with those troubling childhood incidents and that banana you left in your schoolbag for 3 weeks back in primary school.

Buy now!

(hazelnut_bubblegum accepts no liability for injuries or parking fines resulting from the use of Nocciola ++, hazelnut flavoured coffee beverage extract)