Interpretations of the digital divide

Inter-related qualitative and quantitative efforts to understand or measure the digital divide have helped many scholars and institutions to categorise it (Corrocher & Raineri 2010:60). It is however important to note that the seemingly different categories are mainly because of the varied interpretations of the divide. As Yu (2006: 231) notes, the seemingly emerging typologies of the digital divide are but one concept with different interpretations that are consciously or unconsciously driven by the assessor‟s theoretical stance.

The following discussion looks at these varied interpretations of the divide so as to heighten its understanding and to buttress the fact that it has to be understood as multidimensional. The different interpretations also serve as building blocks that strategically usher in the present researcher‟s adopted theoretical stance.

2.4.1 Vertical and horizontal divide

The contemporary shift from the “strict techno-concerns” to include the people as users or non-users has pointed towards two broad views of the divide: the gap between the ICT users and non users and the gap among users. Cho (2004) refers to the former as a vertical divide or a first level divide that primarily relates to issues of equal opportunity. This refers to the simple distinction of those who have access to the technologies and those who do not have such access; or the users and the non users.

Even among users there are differences. The gap within users, which emanates from issues of social integration, is then seen as the second level, the horizontal divide. The ITU (2009:45) acknowledges interpretation from this perspective and adds that the horizontal divide manifests itself in different demographic characteristics of the population. It is therefore imperative that this context of the divide is well understood.

37

Sitawa-Ogututo & Rege‟s (2010: 137) observe that the debates on horizontal divide tend to be in the context of “socioeconomic (rich/poor); racial (majority / minority); generational (young/old) or geographical (urban /rural). Etta & Parvyn-Wamahiu (2003) further add in their executive summary that the information rich countries have the heaviest and most sophisticated ICT use.

Analysis of the first and second level digital divide shows that access and utilisation of the ICTs is influenced by technological concentration, socio-economic development, concentration in telecommunications industry and trade openness. These elements, broadly grouped as factors of digitisation, emerge as key in all efforts to interpret, categorise and address the digital divide. The factors are also helpful in mapping out the technology leaders and slow movers as they reflect variations between society‟s adoption, access and use of the technologies (Norris 2001:12; Corrocher & Raineri 2010: 68). Such mapping may be considered from either a global perspective or a country specific level. The mapping may be assessed qualitatively or quantitatively.

Although Cho (2004) regards the horizontal divide as a modern day hot issue, one may argue that for most of developing countries, where most factors of digitisation are still lagging behind, the struggle is still to close the first level horizontal divide. The Economist Intelligent Unit (2013: 4) also notes that the current debates on the digital divide focus on access to “higher broad band; society‟s up take or what is referred to as “useful usage”. This however does not mean that the horizontal divide is not relevant in discussions of the digital divide in the African context. It is more of an extension of the vertical divide because the continent still grapples with not just access but also the ability and application of the technologies.

Selwyn (2003: 99) acknowledges the significance of the horizontal divide and further condemns the general misconception that non-users of the technologies are purely the “have-nots”. The author asserts that in some cases, technologies may be available and accessible, but people may not use them due to a lack of “cognitive and intellectual ability” or ideological refusal (opposing the technology use); or technophobia. Selwyn

38

further highlights the fact that some people with access may not necessarily be drawn into the “effective user” category because of lack of awareness of the potential benefits. It is seemingly in line with this argument that the Economist Intelligence Unit (2013:6) points out that defining the digital divide has to be broadened to include “underpinning divides such as quality of access; the speed, and the ability to use the technologies”. Such a broadened interpretation would enable development of more appropriate strategies to bridge the existing gap.

The vertical divide on the other hand is reflected in most quantitative interpretations of the divide. For example, the IDI, the compatible 100 point information society index and the synthetic index show that countries that are advanced in the development of digitisation factors are on the upper or favorable side of the divide. In such mature information societies, ICT access and use becomes flattened out thus creating mostly vertical variations (ITU 2009:72).

2.4.2 Global, social and democratic divide

The distinction between the vertical and horizontal divide further translate into what Norris (2001) refers to as the global divide; the social divide and the democratic divide. The global divide is more of a horizontal distinction between information rich and information poor nations or countries while the social divide relates to the vertical variations in the users or online community. The democratic divide emerges as variations of the horizontal divide because, according to Norris (2001: 4), it is the “differences between those who use and those who do not use the digital resources to engage, mobilize and participate in public life online”. It is the variations between the users. Discussions of the digital divide from the vertical -horizontal perspective or as the global, social and democratic divide bring up issues of access, availability and actual participation.

This interpretation of the digital divide also relate to the sequential stages referred to earlier in the discussion of the IDI three stages model (ITU 2009:12). For example, a community without the technologies may be globally divided or excluded. As the

39

technology diffuses or spreads among users, variations among users may be seen as the horizontal divide. The online community in the mature information societies exhibit elements of both the social and the democratic divides. Members of such communities have access to the technologies and are characterized by advanced developments in technological indicators and structural socio-economic variables (Barzilai-Nahon 2006; Corrocher & Raineri 2010: 62). The main concern in the mature communities is the variations in how the people use the technologies which in most cases is aligned to the democratic and socio-economic power struggles that characterise these communities (Corrocher & Raineri 2010:59; Norris 2001:12). The discussions on bridging the divide then tend to be discussed with reference to addressing the already existing distribution of power in the political and economic system. For example, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (2013:6) Denmark, which ranks amongst the highest in the ICT Development Index, has made online government services delivery mandatory by 2015. The publication further reports that in the UK, government services are “electronically by default”. This means that for most government services, the first efforts are made electronically before one resort to an actual visit to a service provider. Such an e-service is possible because of the e-maturity state.