In his paper, author Martin Hilbert presents a conceptual framework to classify the different definitions of the digital divide by using the theory on diffusion of innovation. The author equates the diffusion of ICT to the diffusion of Innovation which is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the members of a social network. Figure 1 is an illustration of the diffusion of innovation. The growth in adoption starts slowly at first and then accelerates toward the middle of the process and gradually tapers off as the number of non-adopters shrink. The exact curve depends the characteristics of the nodes of the social network.
Source: Hilbert, M. (2011)
Figure 1 – Prototypical S-shaped diffusion curve
Based on the theory the author identifies four broad classes of variables that can be used to define the digital divide. Figure 2 differentiates between these four perspectives of the digital divide.
Source: Hilbert M (2011)
Figure 2- Social Network Schematization of different perspectives of the digital divide
According to the author the main differences in definition arise because the scholars distinguish between the four variables below.
1) the kinds of Information and Communication Technology (phones, Internet, broadband, computers etc.);
2) the choice of subject (country, organization, individual) which is represented by the nodes in figure 2;
3) diverse attributes of the chosen subjects (income, education, gender) these are represented by circles and triangles in figure 2. It can be seen that nodes on the ‘haves’ side tend to contain both attributes circle and triangle, while the nodes on the ‘have nots’ side tend to only have one attribute; and
4) levels of adoption going from plain access to effective use with real impact (access, usage, effective adoption).
He continues to give examples and show how looking at the Digital Divide according to each of these definitions can give very different perspectives on whether the digital divide is diverging or narrowing and influence ICT policies.
In conclusion he says that the different definitions of the digital divide influence who is in charge in bridging the gap. Considering the many different authorities with diverse perspectives involved in bridging the digital divide, he says that a flexible definition that considers the expected impact should be used. So the challenge does not consist in reducing the heterogeneity in outlooks, but in better understanding and keeping track of the commonalities and differences among the priorities of diverse actors and definitions of digital divide.
Comments are closed.