Who's Responsible for the Digital Divide? The Answer May Surprise You!

Did you know that defining the digital divide in different ways can actually change public perception of who's responsible for addressing the issue? An article I read recently, Who's Responsible for the Digital Divide? suggests just that, which has intriguing implications for how libraries talk about the digital divide and how they advocate for public access technology.

Defining the Digital Divide

First, some definitions. The article says there are two main frameworks used to define the digital divide:

• The access definition: "The gap between those who have access to information and communication technologies, and those who do not."
• The skills definition: "The gap between those who have the skills to use information and communication technologies effectively, and those who do not."

Benchmarking Access vs. Benchmarking Skills

The authors say that the access definition is often attractive and useful in policy debates because it "offers a clean and measurable index of the problem." I can easily imagine using access-related benchmarks: tidy, concrete standards that are easy to measure and easy to talk about would be very useful in library advocacy and policy discussions.

But what would benchmarks look like if you're also focused on skills development? I have trouble envisioning a "clean and measurable index" of efforts to address a technology skills gap. I'm very curious about how the Public Access Technology Benchmarks (PATB) project will address digital literacy and technology skills.

Changing the Terms of Discussion Changes the Solution

The article's main finding was that using different definitions of the digital divide actually produced different visions of appropriate solutions. I think this has interesting implications for how libraries talk about and advocate for public access technology.

In their study, the authors found that the definition of the digital divide "problem" had important consequences for what people thought was an appropriate solution:

• Defining the issue in terms of access to technology makes people more likely to think government organizations and corporations should address the problem
• Defining the issue in terms of having the necessary skills to use technology effectively makes people more likely to think educational institutions and individual learners should address the problem

They conclude that how you frame the digital divide can produce very different ideas about who's responsible for fixing the problem. Further, they suggest that this can create "different attitudes toward particular government initiatives when it comes to gathering support for a policy."

If this is true, maybe talking about either access or about skills is more useful in certain kinds of discussions, or with different groups of stakeholders.

Providing Access or Developing Skills?

In the Public Access Technology Benchmarks (PATB) forum I attended with Sarah, there was a lot of discussion about access as a basic right. This makes sense, of course: "access" is right there in the PATB project's name, and access has long been a rallying cry for the library community. My sense is that when librarians talk about "access," they actually mean both access to technology and having the skills to use technology effectively. But I'm not sure that's always clear.

So do public libraries think of public access technology in terms of access, or in terms of the skills to use technology effectively, or both? And is it the public library's role to address both issues?

Which Message Resonates with Stakeholders?

If we accept the article's premise, that defining the digital divide in terms of access or in terms of skills changes people's perception of who should address the problem, what happens if the public "access" technology message explicitly includes technology skills? Are there any potential problems that arise when you start talking about skills in addition to access?

The article suggests that using a "skills" definition of the digital divide makes people less likely to view government organizations as a logical part of the solution. So how might that effect library advocacy? What does that mean for discussions with city and other government officials? Is it possible libraries could accidentally define themselves right out of the discussion? How can library advocates talk about access and skills in a way that positions libraries as exactly the kind of organization that should be addressing these issues? I wish I knew the answers.

I think public libraries actually fall into a hazy area between government and education (in the public mind at least). Maybe this means libraries are ideally positioned to address both definitions of the digital divide – the access divide and the skills divide. My hope is that the PATB project will provide another set of tools to help them do so.

Technorati Tags: Ariel Gilbert-Knight assess assessment benchmark digital divide measure patbenchmark technology benchmark