Hi all,
We didn't get to talk about the James article as much as I would have liked. To make up for it, I'm hoping to move our class discussion to our blog. The question comes from the list I sent out last week.
What are some examples of James’s evidence that he uses to argue against Compaine? How might Compaine reply?
James's article is replying directly to Compaine's--as well as a few others. You can see the number of times he cites him in his article. I'm asking us to give Compaine a chance to rebut. How might Compaine use James's evidence to argue for his point of view?
Please reply in the comment section of this post.
Video Reflection
14 years ago
On page 56 James cites Compaine as he argues that, like automobiles, "[A]doption of technologies such as television, radios, and telephones" will eventually lead to a closing of the natural gap. He finds further evidence of this in The Economist as they too insist on a lax government policy on regulations of technologies. He refutes this idea on the following page in explaining the misconception of the S-Curve. He finds the evidence misleading as he explains that the developed countries are well past the initial growth of the S-Curve compared to the developing countries who are currently experiencing the initial S-Curve growth (growth that the developed countries have surpassed). He claims that it is obvious then to assume from this construed data that the developing countries are experiencing inflated growth, when in reality they are just experiencing the initial growth that the developed countries have been through.
ReplyDeleteWhile this is a valid argument and a solid way to refute Compaine, Compaine might be able to find more specific evidence in how the developing countries S-Curve is or is going to mirror the initial S-Curve of more developed countries. By taking a look at these technologies individually on a closer level, Compaine may be able to find evidence to support a stronger prediction about the developing countries adoption of these technologies. Despite the discrepancies James recognizes, Compaine has the potential for a more valid point if he could uncover the specifics (such as the rates of tv, radio, etc.) of the initial developed countries S-Curve to make conclusive claims about the developing countries S-Curve.
On Page 55, James states that Compaine believes that the digital divide will close on its own and therefore there needs to be no intervention from the government or UN to close the digital divide. Compaine argued that this has happened in the past (with cell phones, TVs, radios etc.) and will do so again with the internet. James criticizes this outlook because he believes that the gap is widening and will thus make it harder for the digital divide to close on its own. I believe another thing that Compaine also does not look at the increase in production and invention of new digital devices. The digital divide started to become a problem with the invention of the telegraph. After this, the radio came, and people started to adopt to this new invention. Then the TV came, and people closed that gap as well. But with the invention of the personal computer, and then the invention of the internet and the invention of the Laptop and everything else that is coming with it, people are having a harder and harder time keeping up. Also, the digital devices that are being invented are taking a lot more skill to know how to use. You have to be able to type fast, surf the web and even know how to turn it on just to be able to use a computer and the internet. With a TV, you just press the on/off button and its basically self explanatory. But you need to have computer literacy skills to use a computer, and people need to be taught this. I think that this argument is something that Compaine needed to be more aware of when making his.
ReplyDeleteCompaine is arguing that nothing need be done to close the digtal divide. The issue, to him, is dead. There is a number of staggering evidence to indicate otherwise, as noted by James.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the postsibility that "the unequal availability of ICTs across nations fosters progress..in rich countries and limit the deelopment prospecs of poor countries," is confirmed by James. He argues that the neglect of progresses are overwhelmingly imprtant in determining the influence and effect of the digitial divide (which is not a dead topic.) The problem has not been solved. He also agues that many, like Compaine , overgeneralize the extent to which absolute losses inflicted on poor countries can be offse by these mechanisms.
Leila has it just the opposite. The technology keeps lowering the skill level. Compare the difficulty of learning Morse code to communicate by telegraph (not to mention the rarity of your own key wired to your house) vs. the less complex telephone. The early radios had multiple dials one had to turn to get good reception. The early TVs had continuous turn dials to adjust to get a station. And often one had to manipulate an antenna to get a good signal. TV's did not spring full blown as they are today, with a solid cable connection and couch-potato-like remote. My first Apple II computer and the 1980s IBM PCs required command line instructions--a very high literacy hurdle to use. Today, tell me that many 4 year old can’t figure out today how to point and click round the Web (indeed, see Microsoft's new TV ad). Twenty years ago a cashier needed enough math skills to know what to ring up when the customer wanted to buy one can of peas that were marked 3/$1.00. And then they had to know how to make change for a $10 on a $7.42 purchase. Today-- just scan and the computer figures it all out and tells them how much change. The level of literacy needed for many low level jobs has fallen dramatically, making them open to those who wouldn’t qualify 20 years ago. Lots more examples.
ReplyDeleteSee if the library has my book, "Understanding New Media" from 1984 and see the chapter on “The New Literacy,” written in 1982. We’re there now.
James argues that a digital divide exists between not only developed and developing countries but also within developed countries. With the increasing reliance on the internet required by all, it has raised worries that diffusion of requisite technologies is not occurring in a timely enough fashion for all to reap the necessary benefits. While Compaine seems to argue that the S-curve distribution will suffice, James feels that the developed countries have long-passed the early phase of the S-shaped adoption curve and this is no longer a reliable option. Privileged portions of societies are all saturated and at some point will be limited so far as further growth opportunities as such. Compaine believes that the decreasing costs of related hardware and services combined with the increasing quality of such items will allow for successful diffusion into needy portions of society.
ReplyDeleteOn page 334 of Compaine's article he states "Perhaps it is fair to propose that the digital divide is disappearing on its own." Compaine argues that a gap exists only because of "voluntary non users" not because of disparities in access. He goes on to say that we should only include people who want a computer when computing the divide. James, on the other hand, is certain that the digital divides exists. “It turns out, however, that these and other attempts to foster a sense of complacency about the implications of the global digital divide are based on a series of conceptual and statistical errors, on the one hand, and a serious lack of familiarity with related literature on the other,” (pg. 54). He believes that we CANNOT rely on past inventions to determine what the Internet will do in the future. “They choose to instead to rely on historical analogy,” (pg. 56). He says the digital divide will not close on its own because older forms of communication don’t need literacy skills while the Internet does, and the ability to use technology. (And as Compaine said in the above post, he thinks that literacy for things, especially the internet, is decreasing). James points out that many statistics are formatted to look like the digital divide doesn’t exist, “define away the digital divide,” (pg. 58).Minor increases for some countries or groups will look like phenomenally high rates of growth when they really aren’t.
ReplyDeleteWhile both authors provide viable arguments, I would have to agree with James. Just because Microsoft has commercial with a gifted 8 year old on it showing how to make a movie, does not mean that example works for everyone. First off, that child was lucky enough to have access in the first place, of a computer and camera. Second, I'm sure their parents showed them how to do the few simple sets in making their movie. However, that example does not hold true for everyone and I'm sure if I had never used the internet or a computer before and they were suddenly placed in front of me I would be overwhelmed and have no idea how to operate either.