Blog Week 12; The Digital Divide

“There have been, and will continue to be many gaps; between those who knew how to farm and those who did not in the Agriculture Age; those who could fix an engine and those who could not in the Industrial Age; and those who could use a computing appliance and those who could not in the Information Age” (Compaine 2001, pp. 7).

The digital divide is defined by McQuail (2010, p. 555) as ‘the various inequalities opened up by the development of computer-based digital means of communication.’ These inequalities exist on account of ‘large costs of equipment, dependence on advanced infrastructure and the higher skills needed to communicate.’  

Image via: http://images.google.com/imgresq=digital+divide

To put it simply, the term ‘digital divide’ refers to the gap between those who have the means and ability to readily access and utilize communication technology, and those who do not. While the concept of a ‘digital divide’ arose referring to the gap within American society, the term, and it’s surrounding discourse, quickly expanded to consider the concept of a ‘digital divide’ on a global scale.

More specifically, North America, Western Europe, Australiasia, South Korea and Japan lead the digital age of technological consumption and innovation, leaving much of South America, South East Asia, and Africa far behind (Bowne Global, 2011). Thus forming the gap, or the digital divide.

Mossberger et al. (2003) suggests the concept of access is no longer so relevant in the digital divide debate; it is the associated skills needed to take advantage of technology that is lacking in developing countries. Indeed Flew (2008, p. 26) and his statement of ‘more than half the world’s population lives more than two hours away from a telephone’ is no longer valid, with worldwide mobile phone penetration currently at a tremendous 86.7% (Brand, 2011).

It is my belief that a greater divide exists in regards to Internet access as opposed to technological devices themselves. There is a chasm between developed countries, which have access to the Internet’s information society, and developing countries that do not; consequently the concept of access should not be so easily discarded.

At the same time the skills Mossberg et al. (2003) mention are heavily associated with the Internet. The possible leveraging of technology to produce change has maximum potential when related to the Internet. Those who have Internet access are continuously and innovatively refining their skills to contribute to and develop the collective intelligence, while those without access have not yet had the chance to discover such skills.

This proposal is furthered by the conception that telecommunications and internet access make more impact, and induce greater change, in developing countries compared to the introduction of stand alone computers or televisions (Brand, 2011). In fact the influence of the Internet, or it’s absence, is so profound that Chen and Wellman (2004, p. 44) state ‘the diffusion of the Internet is not merely a matter of computer technology, but has profound impacts on the continuation of social inequality. People, social groups and nations on the wrong side of the digital divide may be increasingly excluded from knowledge-based societies and economies’.

This ‘continuation of social inequality’ through the digital divide can be elaborated upon: within nations it is the elderly, the lesser educated, and the lower income demographic that are falling behind the average. And internationally it is the under-privileged countries, with dire concerns of survival, health and hygiene that are also, digitally, far behind the rest of the world.

Unfortunately this reality opens a whole new can of worms; presenting the paradox that because the educated have greater access and utilization of technology, this ‘double whammy’ of advantage will further increase the digital divide. As Husing and Selhofer (2002, pp. 1274) state "info-exclusion" in the digital age is not so much an exclusion from information but rather by information’.

Though a complete discussion about this complex paradox and phenomenon is probably best left to another day.

In an effort to bridge the international ‘digital divide’ gap, the project ‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC) worked with sponsors to donate laptops to children in developing countries. The laptops allowed the users to learn interactively, connect to the Internet and network with other laptop users in the vicinity.

This project copped a hefty amount of criticism, with the major concern questioning the ethic: should money be spent on distributing laptops, when the same money could be used to provide clean water or issue vaccinations?

Although this is a worthy point, before you jump on the bandwagon too eagerly, I think OLPC is on to something. I also dare propose, the most worthwhile aspect of the Internet in this respect is not it’s knowledge base - leading to a potential paradox - but it’s network effect and capacity for ‘user generated content’ (UGC)…

Isn’t there evidence that the Internet, and its network effect, can bring about change to the real life struggles facing developing nations? Thus reversing the continuation of social inequality?

For example the Arab Spring uprising ended a history of real life oppression and violation of human rights to bring about an age of democracy. This movement was enabled through leveraging the Internet, and although the knowledge economy was called upon, the true change was seen through networking and content generation that provided people with the courage and means to speak up and make a difference.

The point of the Arab Spring example is to show the paradox of a ‘knowledge digital divide, although present, is not so important in generating crucial changes for humanity; instead the networking and UGC properties of the Internet should be held in higher esteem. Furthermore through bridging the digital divide gap with widespread availability of the Internet, the world can go lengths in solving ‘real life’ problems or injustices facing social minorities or disadvantaged groups. Bridging the digital divide should be considered in terms of Internet access and the network effect; OLPC were on the right track in providing these things.

Conversely, if the Internet was available world wide, and the digital divide was completely bridged, unforeseen problems may arise. Such globalization could see individual nations losing their cultural identity. People could take advantage of technology to bring about detrimental or sinister change. Or, most terrifying of all, my mother, currently safely in the ‘older and therefore ‘not-connected’ box’ could get Facebook!

References:

Flew, T. (2008). New Media, An Introduction. (3^rd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University Press.

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. (6^th ed.). California: Sage Publications

Husing, T., & Selhofer, H. (2002). The Digital Divide – A Measure of Social Inequalities in the Adoption of ICT. Gdansk, Poland: ECIS

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual Inequality; Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington DC, USA: Georgetown Press

Chen, W., & Wellmam, B. (2004). The Global and Digital Divide, Within and Between Countries. IT and Society, 1 (7), pp; 39 – 45. Retrieved from: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/digidiv/chen_wellman_digidiv_it_society04.pdf

Compaine, B. M. (2001). Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Cambridge, USA: MIT press.

(I referenced Jeff’s lecture because the lecture slide he used are not yet updated on ilearn, yet I wanted to use the content)

Brand, J. at Bond University. (2011). Digital Media And Society/ The Digital DIvide [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: http://ilearn.bond.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp

Blog Week 10; 'Gamification'

You build towers in your virtual city using bulldozers and machines but as you do so the carbon stocks, displayed on the screen’s right hand corner, are burning and you watch your virtual world begin to disintegrate around you. Why not turn off some lights or plant some trees and watch your carbon points increase and the world return to its natural state?

Computer games and ‘gamification’ are the new platforms for sending messages and as an aspiring communications specialist/journalist I should start taking these games more seriously.

Gamification is defined by Wikipedia as ‘the integration of game mechanics or game dynamics into a website, service, community, campaign, or application in order to drive participation and engagement’.

The concept of ‘gamification’ and its target market has moved from what was once perceived as a small stereotypical teenage male group to envelop every working profession. The use of video games has grown from a niche sector to ‘engage more leisure time and more users.’ (Flew, 2010, pp. 138)

With this growth comes an opportunity to change the way we communicate and solve problems on a global scale. And with the extent of convergence, immersion and interaction offered in video games this potential has an immensity not seen in other media technology.

 

Image via: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=gamification

The possibility to apply ‘gamification’ across different sectors is slowly becoming realised. Where computer games have been useful in specialized education for years, training pilots or surgeons, they can also be useful for training Journalists.

Because of their interactive capacity computer games ‘cause the player to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies and learn the rules of the in-game world through trial and error’ (Flew, 2010, pp. 127). Media companies could use ‘gamification’ to train newly hired journalists before they reach the news desk; accustoming them with the production rules and style guides employed at that particular media outlet. Indeed a ‘digital newsroom immersion’ is used as an assessment task in a Bond University Journalism subject. The student/player is placed at a news desk and must write about news occurring in the virtual world while also dealing with virtual distractions; phones ringing, people asking questions or the television blaring in the background.

Furthermore, as the information society we live in becomes more intense, with news and information flowing through every device at an endless pace, newsrooms could use gamification to decide what is newsworthy. The Guardian did this when they released thousands of MP documents relating to a funding scandal. The public could access these documents that were ‘gamified’ so user interactivity -comments, ratings, likes and dislikes – naturally revealed the most newsworthy items out of the fray.

Yet while gamification used for such purposes is useful, it hardly embraces the complete potential of video games. The power ‘gamification’ holds is extensive; a study on video game effects by Aldrich (2005, p. 31) found ‘some participants exhibited extreme forms of emotion and carried feelings from a simulation into their relationships for months, even years, later’.

This remarkable influence of video games has been reined in areas such as therapy where studies have found video games help cure ‘driving phobia’ that is caused by experiencing a car accident. (Walshe et. al. 2003)

Although this example does not relate to media it shows the gap between the ‘virtual’ and ‘physical reality’ is almost non-existent and what is experienced or learnt through the simulation can be exercised in real life. In the minds of the user ‘online and offline spaces can be seen as ‘merged’ rather than separate’. (Flew, 2009, pp. 136).

Herein lays the true potential of video games; why not use video games and their influence for the public good and possibly as a public good.  Through video games solutions to real-life problems could be developed and the public become more educated and emotionally invested in areas where words no longer suffice. For example the game ‘World Without Oil’ has simulated a world that has run out of oil supplies (a real problem facing real humans). Participants are forced to realise the true ramifications of running out of oil and attempt to carry out their working and social lives while overcoming the problem of limited resources.

The possibilities here are endless; the introduction to this blog depicts a simulated environment where people immerse themselves, interact with, solve problems and see/feel/experience the effects of Global Warming. The verbal dialogue around Global Warming is tired, bouncing off a public that has heard it all before, but Jaron Lanier’s concept of post-symbolic communication (communication without symbols) in virtual realities could further educate and involve the public in topics, such as Global Warming, obesity, or the environment, that are otherwise widely dismissed with boredom.

Furthermore the interactivity of video games could allow consumers to actively participate in solving these problems, contributing to what would become a virtual knowledge society applicable in real life.

This concept could be implemented by organisations such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or Greenpeace to enhance their campaigns, namely ‘gamifying’ the issue to reach more people with greater effect.

Although this may seem idealistic, it will not be long before such a concept is plausible. In the future ‘simulations will break down the artificial barriers between what we learn and what we do and between understanding our history and controlling our future. (Aldrich 2005, pp. 34). As an aspiring communications specialist I hope to be riding the forefront of the ‘gamification wave’ to create a true difference within both the virtual, and the real, world.

References:

Flew, T. (2008). New Media, An Introduction. (3^rd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Walshe, D., Lewis, E., Kim, S., O’Sullivan, K., Wiederhold, B. (2003). CyberPsychology & Behavior. Exploring the Use of Computer games and Virtual Realty in Exposure Therapy for Fear of Driving Following a Motor Vehicle Accident, 6(3), 329-334. Doi: 10.1089/109493103322011641

Accessed via: http://www.liebertonline.com

Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning By Doing, A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-learning and Other Educational Experiences. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Guardian as cited in Flew, T. (2008). New Media, An Introduction. (3^rd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University Press.

WorldWithoutOil (Producer). (2008, Feburary 20). Welcome to a World Without Oil. [Youtube Video]. Accessed 2011 November 15 via: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-hzUGFD-Gc