CMST 301 Project 3

The Serials Librarian, 69:77–86, 2015 Published with license by Taylor & Francis ISSN: 0361-526X print/1541-1095 online DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036195

The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States

MADALYN COHRON School of Library & Information Studies, The University of Alabama,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Mapping the digital divide in America is a multifaceted issue; how- ever, the influence of underlying socioeconomic causes, the shift in the conversation to new divides including broadband accessibility and digital literacy, and the importance of the library in narrowing the divide are all prominent points of focus in the literature today. As conversations surrounding the digital divide begin to shift from a divide in access to a divide in skills and/or literacy, attention must be drawn to meeting those needs in equal measure to main- taining access as the primary means of closing the digital divide in America.

KEYWORDS digital divide, Internet access, broadband connectiv- ity, digital literacy, public libraries

At a time when it feels like everyone has a Twitter and/or Facebook account, the Internet (with its wealth of resources and utilities) seems like it is just a quick click away, and phones, tablets, and laptops have become so preva- lent in our lives, it is hard to believe that there is still such a great digital divide in America—and the world—today. From the very beginnings of the rise of Internet usage in the mid-nineties, references to the digital divide have been prolific in research across numerous fields and professions that have strong ties to technology and information—including library and information studies. While definitions of the digital divide vary to some extent, Jessamyn C. West offers a very neat and concise definition of the digital divide in her book Without a Net: Librarians Bridging the Digital Divide stating that, “The

© Madalyn Cohron Address correspondence to Madalyn Cohron, School of Library & Information Studies,

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. E-mail: madalync@bham.lib.al.us or mbayer1@crimson.ua.edu

77

78 M. Cohron

digital divide is a simplistic phrase used to explain the gap between people who can easily use and access technology, and those who cannot. The term digital divide has been in common use to refer to this sense of technolog- ical haves and have-nots for over a decade.”1 Although a simple definition, it addresses many of the problems inherent to the digital divide debate— namely, some individuals are more privileged in regards to the access and use of technology while others are not. To make matters worse, the defini- tion alone demonstrates the existence of a controversial power dynamic and suggests shortcomings or deficiencies in those who do not obtain informa- tion via the Internet—this “lack” has most often been attributed to minority groups within America. The digital divide is a multifaceted issue and a very broad topic to approach, but there are many prevalent issues that have sur- faced in the research over the years that remain in the current literature today. So, it is perhaps most important to view the digital divide over time to see the influence of the underlying socioeconomic causes, the shift in the conversation to new divides including broadband accessibility and digital literacy, and the importance of the library in narrowing the divide.

At the time of the earliest references to it in telecommunications research, a multitude of socioeconomic factors were addressed as the under- lying causes of the digital divide. “The first high-profile survey by the federal government to address the have and have-not issue was initiated in 1994 by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce.”2 This survey series, entitled Falling Through the Net, outlined the disparity between the haves and have-nots in society. In the research findings, income, geographical location, age, and education were proven to be some of the top predictors for telephone and computer ownership.3 Thus, the NTIA discovered that across America, the elderly and those with lower education and income tended to have less accessibility to telephones and computers in their households. These socioe- conomic factors were also compared and even highlighted in regards to racial minorities across the United States. As a sort of solution to the prob- lem at hand, the NTIA report of 1995 suggests that, “there is a pivotal role to be assumed in the new electronic age by the traditional providers of infor- mation access for the general public—the public schools and libraries.”4 This pseudoformal request directed toward public schools and libraries estab- lishes these institutions as flagship centers for computer access. This is quite a heavy burden for libraries and schools to bear considering the high cost of purchasing and maintaining computers, but it also demonstrates the great importance and need for these institutions to provide information to their communities.

By 1999, when the NTIA conducted their second survey of the disper- sion of personal computer ownership and Internet access across America, the statistics were much better, but there were still gaps across different segments

The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States 79

of society. In their report, the NTIA states that, “Americans of every demo- graphic group and geographic area have experienced a significant increase in computer ownership and Internet access. Nationwide, PC ownership is now at 42.1%; up from 24.1% in 1994 and 36.6 in 1997. . . . Internet access has also grown significantly in the last year: 26.2% of U.S. households now have Internet access, up from 18.6% in 1997.”5 Despite the increase in access to personal computers and the Internet, in the same 1999 report, the NITA also discovered “that certain groups are growing far more rapidly, particularly with respect to Internet connectivity. This pattern means that the haves have only become more information-rich in 1998, while the have-nots are lagging even further behind. . . . Education and income appear to be among the leading elements in driving the digital divide today.”6 Thus, similar socioeco- nomic factors persisted across the two surveys despite the overall growth in computer ownership and Internet usage. Coupled with these socioeconomic factors, the NTIA also points out that many citizens decide not to use the Internet based on cost and simply not wanting the service.7 So, throughout both surveys, there is still a lot of pressure on public institutions to provide access to computers and Internet services for their patrons and communities since such a large number of citizens are unable to obtain access. In the late nineties, these two pivotal studies shed light on the digital divide and called attention to the ways in which the government needed to address the situation at hand. Out of these surveys came very important governmental programs and help from organizations to improve America’s connectivity and access to computers and the Internet.

Between the two NTIA surveys, stakeholder groups began to step for- ward in an attempt to help close the digital divide. As for governmental initiatives, “The Telecommunications Act of 1996 [or Telecom Act] directed the [FCC] to implement a funding mechanism to bring advanced technology to our nation’s schools and libraries, a project known as the E-rate. After one year, this initiative . . . invested over $1.7 billion to bring technology to over 80,000 schools and libraries across the country.”8 Thus, when the E-rate program came into effect in 1997, it provided access to thousands of Americans who previously could not afford personal computers or access to the Internet. As for the means of financially backing such a program and the quality of aid provided, “the E-rate is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company . . . [and] is funded by money from the Universal Service Fund . . . [which provides] Internet access, videoconferenc- ing services, high-speed data connections, phone service, and certain types of internal wiring and network equipment. Computer hardware, electrical upgrades, and many other services are not covered by the program.”9 So, it is important to note that while many people were granted access in ways they were never afforded it before, the E-rate still did not cover personal comput- ers under the guidelines of the program. As previously mentioned, the high cost of computers and Internet access is cited over and over throughout

80 M. Cohron

the literature regarding the digital divide and why citizens do not opt-in for the service. To help in this area, many independent and private groups also acted as stakeholders in extending computer and Internet access across America—the most notable being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; “the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation committed more than $250 million in equipment, and the foundation also [trained] library staff in the latest technol- ogy.”10 These efforts have been extremely beneficial to public libraries across America and continue to provide many citizens with the essential access they needed. Along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, companies and organizations such as Annie E. Casey, Kellogg, AT&T, The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and the National Urban League have all provided fund- ing to help narrow the divide and provide access to computers and Internet service.11

Today, as research shows that the access divide is narrowing for all American citizens, new research focuses on the importance of broadband connectivity. As for new research into the access digital divide, Lee Rainie, of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, addressed the current landscape during the Washington Post’s Bridging the Digital Divide forum in 2013, stating that, “Right now, 85% of Americans use the Internet” and “70% of Americans have broadband connections at home.”12 Thus, we can see the great shift in Internet usage over the past two decades. Still, he also asserts that “age is the number one factor . . .” for determining Internet non-use in America today, but “income and educational attainment . . . are also big drivers . . .” as well.13 This shows that despite widespread access to the Internet, some discrepancies still remain. So as the access divide begins to close, topics concerning the digital divide have shifted to encompass broadband connectivity, rather than the use of dial-up or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), across the United States. Access to broadband is seen as the next necessity to have an engaging and beneficial online presence in society. For the digital divide today, it can be argued that as more and more individuals are required to go online to fill out job applications, obtain important gov- ernment information or educational resources and maintain professional and personal relationships, quality becomes an issue as the access divide closes. Thus, “slow” Internet service can potentially stifle online use and negatively affect the way in which citizens use and contribute to the online community.

Several federal government programs and plans such as “the broadband and telecommunications programs at the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Universal Service Fund (USF) pro- grams under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)” have been established to help bolster broadband infrastructure and connectivity.14 There is also the National Broadband Plan, proposed by the FCC, which seeks to “[create] incentives to promote digital inclusion, which . . . [is viewed] as the combination of sufficient broadband service, affordable broadband service,

The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States 81

and the availability of opportunities to develop the digital literacy needed to use broadband.”15 However, the FCC and federal telecommunications poli- cies have been a source of heated debate in the media over the past year. President Barack Obama offered his own view on broadband connectivity in a video from November 10, 2014, as reported in TIME:

“I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act,” . . . a move that would be necessary for the federal government to enforce Obama’s proposed Internet content rule fulfilling four principles: preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking access to legal content, keeping them from “throttling” some types of Internet traffic, apply net neutrality rules between ISPs and the rest of the Internet, and banning paid-prioritization, the practice by which some content would be stuck in a “slow lane” unless a higher fee is paid. Those rules, Obama said, should also be applied to mobile broadband networks.16

If these new policies envisioned by President Obama come into effect, they could radically change the way in which the Internet is viewed by the government and used by citizens. Viewing broadband access as a util- ity would greatly bolster the importance of the Internet in peoples’ lives. As stated, more information is made available online every day—information that is key not only in regards to education and entertainment, but also to American citizens’ livelihood. Rendering broadband connectivity a utility would allow people to access the information they need and also help the online community achieve goals that have not fully been actualized yet.

The Pew Research Center has begun research in the field of broadband connectivity, and in 2013 they discovered that, “70% of Americans have broadband connections at home. . . . High-speed access to the Internet at home has risen steadily in recent years, and the ‘always on’ connection typ- ically increases the frequency with which people use the Internet. In June 2000, when about half of adults were online, only 3% of American house- holds had broadband access.”17 Rainie also addresses the rise in broadband connectivity and the positive implications that follow: “As people move from the dialup universe at home to the broadband universe at home . . . they became very different kinds of Internet users . . . most important of all, they became content creators themselves.”18 Thus, not only do issues with access affect a person’s online presence, but also the method by which they con- nect has a huge influence on Internet use. As more people establish an online presence, the potential for Internet access continues to grow—access that when uninhibited leads to creation and a richer online experience for everyone. While only 30% of Americans still do not have broadband access at home (although that gap might close still further in the future, it is still an important problem today), new policies, governmental cooperation, and

82 M. Cohron

aid continue to be needed to help close that divide. Coupled with pol- icy issues regarding broadband connectivity, user surveys suggest that there is more to non-use than simply access and dispersion alone. Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy posit that the “three main reasons cited for not having broadband at home are that it is perceived as not needed, too expen- sive, and lack of a home computer. The Department of Commerce report, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan, and a survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project also found disparities in broadband adop- tion among demographic groups. Populations continuing to lag behind in broadband adoption include people with low incomes, seniors, minorities, the less-educated, non-family households, and the nonemployed.”19 Here again, we can see the influence of socioeconomic factors on the new divides that have emerged. So, while it is clear that there is still much work to be done in helping minority groups with regard to digital inclusion, the gaps are definitely shifting and the growth of mobile Internet use has played some part in this—as we will discuss in more detail later.

As research into the digital divide progresses, the element of digital lit- eracy has increasingly come into focus. Real, Bertot, and Jaeger believe that, “[digital] literacy encompasses the skills and abilities necessary for access once the technology is available, including understanding the language and component hardware and software required to successfully navigate the technology.”20 Although the Pew Research Center demonstrates the narrow- ing (if not closing) of the access divide, the digital literacy divide is still gaping. While those who have access to computers and the Internet progress along with the technology, those who begin to enter into the information “haves” tend to display a reluctance to use the technology simply because they do not know how. Thus, it is not necessarily a lack of access that dictates a person’s interaction with computers and the Internet, but rather it is digital or information illiteracy that shapes those interactions today. According to Kathryn Zickhur of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, “32% [of non-Internet users mention] usability-related issues, such as finding it to difficult or frustrating to go online, or saying that they don’t know how or are physically unable.”21 This number is much higher than reasons cited based on access issues or price. Although digital literacy is one of the main points of conversation in the digital divide today, it is important to note how new technologies are changing the dynamic of the conversation where literacy is concerned.

While digital literacy is prevalent in digital divide research today, it is also interesting to view the impact of mobile technologies in closing both the access and literacy divides. Internet access via cell phones has risen in the past few years as now “63% of cell owners use their phone to go online, so the ‘cell-mostly Internet user’ group represents 21% of the entire cell phone owner population.”22 Thus, we are closing the access divide and quite

The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States 83

possibly the literacy divide as well with the rise of mobile use. It is impor- tant to note that the groups most likely to be in the “‘cell-mostly Internet user’” group are “young adults, non-whites, the less educated, and the less affluent.”23 Here, we see the same underlying socioeconomic factors as men- tioned in previous research; therefore, many minority groups are able to access some—not all—of the content they were previously excluded from based on having access to a cheaper, and perhaps more user-friendly mobile device as a valued means to Internet access. It remains to be seen whether the rise in mobile use will be beneficial in the long run. Less expensive, easier access might eventually lead the way to a new divide between those who are able to retrieve useful information and those only accessing useless information. If citizens have easier access, but lack the proper literacy educa- tion and training, then is the information they are receiving truly beneficial? Again, this is a literacy issue that can only be assuaged by proper training and education.

With the socioeconomic factors and ever-changing landscape of the dig- ital divide in view, it is easy to see why this is such an important topic of discussion in the library and information studies community. As active partic- ipants in providing open access to information, libraries must remain aware of the technological needs of our communities. We must also be able to see the value in the several different points of contention within the conversation itself so that we may aid in—not detract from—closing the divides. When the technology changes, it is our responsibility to stay abreast of the advances and to not fall behind—to do so would be a great injustice to the citizens who rely on us the most. As the current conversation focuses more on digital literacy and broadband connectivity, it is important that we remain not only vigilant in regards to training for both citizens and Library and Information Science (LIS) professionals alike, but also how we provide information con- gruent with rising technologies and innovative points of access. According to Bo Kinney, “by 2008, only 26.6% of libraries reported not offering informa- tion [technology] training services, and libraries reported that the impacts of public training included providing information literacy skills, offering tech- nology training opportunities to those who would otherwise not have any, helping students with their school assignments and school work, provid- ing general technology skills, helping patrons complete job applications, and helping users access and use e-government services and resources.”24

This percentage has undoubtedly decreased over the past several years as more and more libraries realize the importance of training their staff and the communities they encompass. This also shows just how important public libraries have remained in their communities today. In another survey con- ducted by the Pew Research Center in 2013, Kathryn Zickhur, Lee Rainie, and Kristen Purcell discovered that, “Some 77% of [a selection of library users] ages 16 and older say it [is] ‘very important’ for libraries to offer free access to computers and the Internet to the community and another 18% say it [is]

84 M. Cohron

‘somewhat important.’ Just 2% say it [is] not too important and another 2% say it [is] not important at all.”25 Although these surveys cannot completely capture the total population of library users, they nevertheless provide the LIS community with information regarding how important open access is to patrons.

Despite the importance of receiving Internet access via public libraries, it is worth mentioning that libraries themselves are not immune to the effects of the digital divide. Although governments and communities have placed libraries as the figurehead for providing open access, Real, Bertot, and Jaeger argue that “public library funding structures that place local governments at the forefront of budgeting plans put rural libraries at a serious disadvantage and promote a digital divide between rural and nonrural areas.”26 This is perhaps one of the largest issues for the LIS community when attempting to bridge the divide. With limited resources comes limited ability to help. More governmental research in regard to library funding should be undertaken in order for libraries to provide much-needed access for their communities through the ever-changing landscape as technological innovations continue apace.

At its core, the digital divide is more than just an issue about providing citizens with access to computers and the Internet—it is about leveling the playing field in regards to information diffusion. The Internet is such a promi- nent utility in peoples’ lives that we, as a society, cannot afford for citizens to go without. From education to economics and politics—I posit that there is no realm that the Internet will not influence—if it does not already do so. Therefore, American citizens, if they are to be active participants in society, must have equal access to the Internet. And even beyond access, everyone should have the opportunity to interface with the Internet effectively— by means of universal broadband access and by means of digital literacy training where needed. Pamela Rutledge comments on the “concerns over seeking and finding knowledge in and among the expansive amounts of it avail- able online,” and gives perhaps the most eloquently worded call-to-arms in fighting to close the digital divide.27 And this is, in my opinion, what every library—public or academic—should take on as their mantra because she so accurately describes the role of the library in this fight for inclusion: “As the physical digital divide shrinks due to expanding access and mobile devices, the functional digital divide grows. The skills of media literacy and digital cit- izenship will be increasingly essential to realize the potential of the Internet and participate in the social, educational, economic, and political benefits of society. We have great potential and freedom because of the Internet, but only if we also accept the responsibility of teaching people the skills they need to use it well.”28 This is the crossroads we all stand at as librarians and information specialists—if we do not become trailblazers in closing this gap of accessibility and illiteracy, who will? It is so important for libraries and

The Continuing Digital Divide in the United States 85

training centers to take charge in narrowing these divides so that our com- munities (and nation) can access and use the Internet properly; and so that each citizen can function in the civil realm as full participants and establish a healthy and personally beneficial presence online. There really is no other alternative, even though I believe that the divide will always be with us in one way or another. As members of the LIS community we should always provide aid to our users in any way that we can, of course. However, the real question is—will we accept this challenge?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article was originally written as a paper for the course LIS501: Introduction to Library and Information Studies, taught by Dr. Miriam Sweeney at the University of Alabama, where the author is a student.

REFERENCES

1. Jessamyn C. West, introduction to Without a Net: Librarians Bridging the Digital Divide (Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2011), xxiv.

2. Benjamin M. Compaine, “The Set-Up: Documents of the Digital Divide,” in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, ed. Benjamin M. Compaine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 3.

3. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), “Falling through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have-Nots’ in Rural and Urban America,” in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, ed. Benjamin M. Compaine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 7–15.

4. Ibid., 14. 5. NTIA, “Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,” in The Digital

Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, ed. Benjamin M. Compaine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 19.

6. Ibid., 27. 7. Ibid., 37. 8. William E. Kennard, “Equality in the Information Age,” in The Digital Divide:

Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, ed. Benjamin M. Compaine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 197.

9. Andy Carvin, ed., with Chris Conte and Allen Gilbert, “The E-Rate in America: A Tale of Four Cities,” in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, ed. Benjamin M. Compaine (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), 223.

10. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary Stansbury, Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 129.

11. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury, Virtual Inequality, 129. 12. Lee Rainie, “Pew: 15 Percent of Americans Don’t Use the Internet,” November

5, 2013, Washington Post Post TV video, 7:58, accessed November 30, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/business/technology/pew-15-percent-

86 M. Cohron

of-americans-dont-use-the-internet/2013/11/06/172a067c-4698-11e3-bf0c-cebf37 c6f484_video.html.

13. Ibid. 14. Lennard G. Kruger and Angele A. Gilroy, “Broadband Internet Access and the

Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs,” Journal of Current Issues in Media & Telecommunications 5, no. 4 (November 2013): 313, accessed November 28, 2014, http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=95780763&site=eds-live&scope=site.

15. Paul T. Jaeger, John Carlo Bertot, Kim M. Thompson, Sarah M. Katz, and Elizabeth J. DeCoster, “The Intersection of Public Policy and Public Access: Digital Divides, Digital Literacy, Digital Inclusion, and Public Libraries,” Public Library Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2012): 8, doi:10.1080/01616846.2012.654728.

16. Zeke J. Miller, “Obama Bucks FCC in Calling for Broadband Reclassification,” TIME, November 10, 2014, accessed November 28, 2014, http://time.com/ 3575842/obama-broadband-internet/.

17. “Broadband Technology Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, accessed November 30, 2014, http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/broadband- technology-fact-sheet/.

18. Rainie, “Pew: 15 Percent.” 19. Kruger and Gilroy, “Broadband Internet Access,” 308. 20. Brian Real, John Carlo Bertot, and Paul T. Jaeger, “Rural Public Libraries and

Digital Inclusion: Issues and Challenges,” Information Technology & Libraries 33, no. 1 (March 2014): 8, doi:10.6017/ital.v33i1.5141.

21. Kathryn Zickhur, “Who’s Not Online and Why: Main Report,” Pew Research Center, September 25, 2013, accessed November 30, 2014, http://www. pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/main-report-2/.

22. Maeve Duggan and Aaron Smith, “Cell Internet Use 2013,” Pew Research Center, September 16, 2013, accessed November 30, 2014, http://www.pewinternet. org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_CellInternetUse2013.pdf.

23. Ibid. 24. Bo Kinney, “The Internet, Public Libraries, and the Digital Divide,” Public

Library Quarterly 29, no. 2 (2010): 132–133. doi:10.1080/01616841003779718. 25. Kathryn Zickhur, Lee Rainie, and Kristen Purcell, “Library Services in the Digital

Age,” Pew Research Center, January 22, 2013, accessed November 30, 2014, http://libraries.pewinternet.org/files/legacy-pdf/PIP_Library%20services_Report. pdf.

26. Real, Bertot, and Jaeger, “Rural Public Libraries,” 15. 27. Janna Anderson and Lee Rainie, “Digital Life in 2025: Net Threats,” Pew Research

Center, July 3, 2013, accessed November 30, 2014, http://www.pewinternet.org/ files/2014/07/Future-of-the-Internet_Net-Threats_070314.pdf.

28. Anderson and Rainie, “Digital Life in 2025: Net Threats.”

Copyright of Serials Librarian is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Serials Librarian is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.