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
9 comments:
On page 54, James states, "...its far too early to be making simple extrapolations about the future course of the digital divide based upon current (favorable) trends." He is aruging against Compaine on the grounds that he (Compaine) is comparing the digital divide to other recent technologies. I think he is trying to say that the Internet is too new of a technology to start thinking it as an S-curve. Compaine's examples: car, telephone, television, have been out for years. Well the Internet is only 15-20 years old. Hes saying you can't draw a conclusion on such a recent and young technology, like Compaine is doing.
James also states, on page 55, "Compaine is led to "propose that (it) is disappearing on its own"". Mainly in the comparison to the automobile. But the automobile only costs money and some what of skill to drive. Today's cars aren't much different from the regular ones (ok, auto transmission and perhaps starting it up), but its still the same basic concept. Push the gas pedal and go.
In Compaine's responses, I think he would argue the Internet is the same way. Looking just at Windows 95 vs Vista. The same basic concept is still there, start menu, windows, taskbar. Nothing has really changed, just the features (like a car with air, radio, dvd players etc..) In this view, he sees the digital divide taking care of its self. But the Internet needs more then just using it. You need the tools to use it, like literacy skills. The technologies listed on page 57 gives a clear example how "complex" the Internet can be. The problem is we are in such an age where technology is constanly changing. Look at TV's a few years ago. First was the 30 inch, then the flat screens came out, then plasma and now lcd. Computers have been leveling off lately. I remember every week the speed would increase. Ever since computers hit the 1 ghz mark, it slowed down. Now its about daul-core. That is where I think Compaine would argue against James. Let this play out. America never got worried when cars came out and were for the rich. Or color televisions. My mom had a black and white tv all the way up to the mid-70's. She said there weren't any major articles written about those lacking in color tv. Compaine is saying, let history repeat itself and not get bent out of shape (like James is).
One could almost take the car metaphor or simile or whatever even farther to say that there is a kind of tiered sales model for the internet. The "gear-head" web users who want to stream high definition video over their web browsers are likely to pay for the fastest connection possible, like a rich Ferrari enthusiast, while others, who simply need a set of internet-wheels to get around on would pay for the bare minimum they need to get by.
I think one flaw in the reasoning James uses to argue against the closing digital divide was the reference he made to South African internet penetration on page 58 saying, "' Household Internet penetration is concerningly low at 3.5% of respondents, with most Internet users acquiring access at work or school.'" If I were Compaine I would ask how much access is available in these public spaces (ooh... 3rd space discussion!!?!) and argue that household access is unnecessary or illogical with such low household ownership in the first place, and argue that individuals aren't in need of an internet bailout of sorts, but perhaps instead that the government intervention (that for the most part may not be needed at all due to the relatively short period of time that the Internet has been available at all) should be focused more on creating CTCs and bolstering public access.
In fact James uses the statistic of 12% household ownership in South Africa in a bit of an odd way, since 3.5% of people have internet access, wouldn't that mean that more that 25% of people who COULD have home access DO? (Isn't it easy to take statistics and twist them however you want?)
Compaine's argument rests on the assumption that the internet can be analyzed in comparison with other recent technologies (microwaves, TVs, Radios, telephones, etc...). So to actually prove his position he would have to somehow show that the differences between the internet and these other technologies can be neglected. Although James does not necessarily invalidate Compaine's position, James points out a key area of the digital divide debate that Compaine does not address.
What evidence is there that literacy and other distinct skills needed to use the internet are less important? Is there a measurable way to demonstrate this?
I think all to often, those who are the most voacal when arguing the woes of the digital devide often fail to step back and recogize the "big picture" as I feel Compaine does. Similar shortfalls can be found in many a debate over the the economic future of the world or global warming. The problem with so many approaches is that all to often, short term trends of issues such as the digital devide, the economy, global warming, crime etc are taken in the short term as constants and applied to forcast trends over a long period of time, which I feel is the approach James takes. Yes, there exsists a digital divide in present day, though as compaign points out, the "digital age" is still very young and progress is being made at a very rapid rate. As compign points out, the costs associated with getting online are dropping drastically, while access and ease of use of hardware and both growing at a rapid rate. If we look back just five years or so, the idea of having cell phones or hand-held video games with online access were unheard of. Nowadays, these methods to access are commonplace in our society. There is an interesting amounts of cities, particularly on the west cost that offer free Wifi coverage for most our all of the city. For people in the cities, access is free, and obtaining hardware in this day is becoming rather inexpensive. For example, my brother recently purched a used laptop that was about three years old, and had wifi ability for $50.00 + about $8.00 for shipping. I agree with James that a digital Ddevide exsists, though side with Compaine in that the divide will esentially fade to nothing in the coming to the extent that it's realistic... Obviously there are large portions of the world that are still working to cross the divides of fresh water, electricity and modern medicine.. places where internet access is probably of a bit lesser of a priority on the "to do list".
James uses a different interpretation of the s-curve than Compaine. James believes that the penetration of internet will follow the stratification theory, meaning that more rich people will adopt the new technology and that it will never be completely equal. Compaine uses the normalization theory to explain internet penetration. He believes that everyone is at a different point on the s-curve, but that the poorer people will evetually catch up to the higher classes.
Compaine could argue that James's use of the s-curve is incorrect. If we look at the penetration of later technologies, like the microwave and television, most people eventually had access to these technologies even if it took awhile. However, as the prices of these technologies decrease, the poorer people will have access to them. The only reason that penetration is higher among the higher classes is that they can afford them sooner, since they are at first expensive.
The poorer people are adopting technologies at a faster rate than the upper-classes, which according to Compaine, means that they are catching up to the upper class. Compaine's use of the normalization theory is supported by this finding.
James’s criticizes Compaine for using current trends to predict the future. Compaine argues that the digital divide is closing because the growth rate of internet access is highest among the groups (within and outside the U.S.) who are currently considered to be on the “wrong” side of the digital divide. James writes that these rates are “biased toward groups with low initial percentages.” It’s only logical that the groups with the most to gain are able to gain at higher rates, but these higher penetration rates will not necessarily continue. As James puts it, “The real question, however, is whether these differential rates of growth in rich and poor countries will continue in the future, become equal or perhaps even be reversed over time.” James also points out the stratification of internet usage that is arising in poorer countries. Should we be happy that African countries have slight penetration rates if it means a widening the gap between rich and poor in these countries? James states that “recent growth in Internet use has taken place overwhelmingly among the upper-income, educated, and urban segments of developing countries.” Compaine does not address this international problem.
In response, Compaine would probably argue that although he cannot predict the future, the best way to guess what may happen in the future is to look at the trends of today and the trends of technology adoption in the past. Additionally, Compaine makes a good point that it is perhaps best to wait and see how the trends play out before investing resources into solving a problem that may solve itself.
James uses the stratification theory indicating that rich people will gain access to new technology and the poor will never be able to catch up since the rich will be too far ahead. However, Compaine relies on the normalization theory in which he states people on the wrong side of the digital divide will will eperience phenominal growth rates in access to technology since they have much more to gain than the rich people who already possess the technology. Theoretically, overtime then the digital divide will close or be very miniscule.
Compaine uses evidence that shows that adoption of technology is highest amongst poor people to support his theory. James criticizes this because he thinks Compaine should not use current trends to predict the future. I think Compaine has a more valid point in saying that the digital divide will close over time and current and past trends in adoption of technology are a good indicator of this such as with the television and the phone.
Complaine argued that the internet is eventually going to be adopted by everyone and that there really is no need for additional support to be given out to those that are not fortunate enough to actually have internet. He cites all the other technology that has developed that has ultimately lead to high saturation rate in soceities.
James Criticizes his point because he thinks complaine is using statistics to cover up the actual divide, using current trends to predict for the future when the future is incredibly difficult to predict and account for. To an extent, i can see james' argument because extrapolation is a dangerous game in statistics. however, in this case, it i dont feel that relating TV and Internet is much of an extrapolation; infact the two has ALOT in common. Complaine would most likely respond to James' criticisms by basically relating what i just said - what he is doing is not an extrapolation.
For james to argue that we need to help close the digital divide by helping the less fortunate because we cant just assume that they will have internet eventually is kind of arguing against himself. We also cant predict that they WONT have the internet < who says they wont all decide to use the internet?
I think one of the biggest things wrong with leftist ideals is the sense of entitlement. WHY do the less fortunate DESERVE internet? Some people work VERY hard for their social status and their income and the benefits (i.e. Internet) that comes with it. Why should those people shell out money (in form of taxes) to help those that DIDNT work to get the same privledges?
I think Compaine would focus on using the normalization theory against the stratification theory with his facts and perhaps outline the continuing decline of computer prices, hardware/software improvements, and the increase of physical access environments. If I were Compaine I would pick apart James' short term point of view and focus on all the improvements that have been made in such a short period of time.
Post a Comment