March 29th class
What I liked: Our march 15th class very briefly touched on disruptive technology and copyright infringement. I'm interested in issues surrounding copyrights so I used that as a basis for last weeks argument. Needless to say, I was excited to see that copyright was the main focus for this weeks class. As an information professional and a consumer of entertainment, I'm interested in how the digital age is affecting copyright and copyright infringement. It's important for those of us in the information profession to understand the somewhat complex, sometimes ambiguous subjects of copyright and fair use, not only for ourselves, but for those that we serve.
What I agree with: I agree that we need copyrights. I've encountered some who argue that we don't need copyright protections, that they only serve corporate interests, and even go so far as to say copyright is evil. That's certainly an extreme position, but it is an indicator of the growing dissatisfaction with current copyright laws. Copyright originated as a way to promote the creation of new works by allowing creators to profit from creating. I believe it still serves this purpose.
What I disagree with: I don't necessarily think copyright law is perfect. It should adjust to meet the needs of society. That happens for the most part. Copyright laws are created and amended on a somewhat regular basis. One trend that I'm cautious of, however, is the extension of the life of copyrights. The original length of copyright was 14 years in 1787, but it been extended several times throughout history to its current length of 70 years after the death of the author. If the trend continues, it's not hard to believe that eventually copyright will be extended indefinitely. I think there is a point in which extending the life of copyright no longer serves the purpose of encouraging the creation of new works.
What I'm still curious about: The future is a mystery to me. We are at the beginning of the digital age, and no doubt there will be sweeping changes in the future. Will we still need copyright in the future? Will it continue to be extended? Can/will copyright be reformed or will we have some other mechanism to encourage creation? I don't know. It seems that so much of the future relies on the technologies that will be available.
Showing posts with label reflection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reflection. Show all posts
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Reflection: Information Economy
March 15th class
What I liked most: I enjoyed starting the class off by exploring the current technological context of rapid change. It's exciting and concerning at the same time. Technology and new media are being used to bring information to people more efficiently and to bring people closer together. However, as an information professional, (or any worker, really) it also signifies the need to keep up with new technology or have an obsolete set of skills.
A lot of economics goes over my head most of the time, but I found it interesting that Google has developed its own price index to measure web transactions. I like the idea that some of the largest and most forward-thinking companies are making efforts to better understand and measure the new information economy.
I also found the discussion of "disruptive technologies" fascinating. I'm interested in the issue of digital piracy and its effects, and I think it is valuable to see how similar issues played out in the past such as the effect of photocopying on the profits of academic journals.
What I agree with: I agree that the new and evolving information based economy will neccessitate changes in business models. Due to the nature of digital information, how its, acquired and emerging consumer expectations businesses will need to adapt or fail. Newspapers are a prime example of this.
What I disagree with: I don't think that all information needs to be priced. I understand that as our economy shifts toward information, people will want to monetize the work that produces information, but I think that at least some information should be free. I may just be scared of the idea of having to pay a blogger because their post inspired me to some economic benefit. At some point monetizing information becomes absurd. I encourage working out how to economically value information, but I don't want that to be put into practice by monetizing ideas or knowledge spillover.
I'm still curious about: A lot, really. However I'm most interested in how we will decide to handle current disruptive technologies, particularly entertainment piracy. Is there a way to stop piracy? Should we? Is piracy ethical? Will it get worse or plateau? Is DRM worth it? Does piracy hurt or help producers? I think these are good question to ask about this issue that could have major effects on the future of the information economy.
What I liked most: I enjoyed starting the class off by exploring the current technological context of rapid change. It's exciting and concerning at the same time. Technology and new media are being used to bring information to people more efficiently and to bring people closer together. However, as an information professional, (or any worker, really) it also signifies the need to keep up with new technology or have an obsolete set of skills.
A lot of economics goes over my head most of the time, but I found it interesting that Google has developed its own price index to measure web transactions. I like the idea that some of the largest and most forward-thinking companies are making efforts to better understand and measure the new information economy.
I also found the discussion of "disruptive technologies" fascinating. I'm interested in the issue of digital piracy and its effects, and I think it is valuable to see how similar issues played out in the past such as the effect of photocopying on the profits of academic journals.
What I agree with: I agree that the new and evolving information based economy will neccessitate changes in business models. Due to the nature of digital information, how its, acquired and emerging consumer expectations businesses will need to adapt or fail. Newspapers are a prime example of this.
What I disagree with: I don't think that all information needs to be priced. I understand that as our economy shifts toward information, people will want to monetize the work that produces information, but I think that at least some information should be free. I may just be scared of the idea of having to pay a blogger because their post inspired me to some economic benefit. At some point monetizing information becomes absurd. I encourage working out how to economically value information, but I don't want that to be put into practice by monetizing ideas or knowledge spillover.
I'm still curious about: A lot, really. However I'm most interested in how we will decide to handle current disruptive technologies, particularly entertainment piracy. Is there a way to stop piracy? Should we? Is piracy ethical? Will it get worse or plateau? Is DRM worth it? Does piracy hurt or help producers? I think these are good question to ask about this issue that could have major effects on the future of the information economy.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Reflection: Library 2.0
March 8th class
What I liked: "An attitude, not technology" This adage brings into focus the essence of library 2.0. Library 2.0 isn't about what technologies libraries have adopted but how they apply the philosophies of web 2.0 into a new service model. It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation that I, myself, have a tendency to slip into. Instead of being concerned with what tech fads to jump on, we should be continually aware of how to incorporate the concepts of openness, sharing, participation, content creation, and user-centeredness. Technology isn't the goal, it's the medium.
What I agree with: I very much agree with the idea that libraries are in the midst of a necessary change, and that libraries that do not change become obsolete and risk closure. Libraries have always been an information provider, a place to serve information needs. For a long time, libraries enjoyed the security that came from relatively unchanged information behavior and environment -- wanted to learn something? Then you needed to go to the library to get a book.
But now, thanks to a new information environment through the internet, information behavior has drastically and irrevocably changed. Libraries are now a secondary (or tertiary) source of information - but that's OK (it has to be). Libraries now have to adjust their missions and find their new service models, not to compete with the internet, but to compliment it.
What I disagree with: Even though libraries should adopt new library 2.0 service models, I don't think it should completely eschew traditional services. The libraries brand is still books and we should not forsake that perception. Even though there is a definite shift to digital, there will always be at least some demand for traditional services. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm still curious about: Libraries are still in midst of change, so like most library professionals, I'm curious what the library will look like when the dust settles (or if it ever does). From now on will libraries be in a constant state of flux due to continually adjusting to meet evolving information needs or will it find a relatively stable niche?
What I liked: "An attitude, not technology" This adage brings into focus the essence of library 2.0. Library 2.0 isn't about what technologies libraries have adopted but how they apply the philosophies of web 2.0 into a new service model. It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees" situation that I, myself, have a tendency to slip into. Instead of being concerned with what tech fads to jump on, we should be continually aware of how to incorporate the concepts of openness, sharing, participation, content creation, and user-centeredness. Technology isn't the goal, it's the medium.
What I agree with: I very much agree with the idea that libraries are in the midst of a necessary change, and that libraries that do not change become obsolete and risk closure. Libraries have always been an information provider, a place to serve information needs. For a long time, libraries enjoyed the security that came from relatively unchanged information behavior and environment -- wanted to learn something? Then you needed to go to the library to get a book.
But now, thanks to a new information environment through the internet, information behavior has drastically and irrevocably changed. Libraries are now a secondary (or tertiary) source of information - but that's OK (it has to be). Libraries now have to adjust their missions and find their new service models, not to compete with the internet, but to compliment it.
What I disagree with: Even though libraries should adopt new library 2.0 service models, I don't think it should completely eschew traditional services. The libraries brand is still books and we should not forsake that perception. Even though there is a definite shift to digital, there will always be at least some demand for traditional services. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm still curious about: Libraries are still in midst of change, so like most library professionals, I'm curious what the library will look like when the dust settles (or if it ever does). From now on will libraries be in a constant state of flux due to continually adjusting to meet evolving information needs or will it find a relatively stable niche?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Reflections: Financial Inclusion
March 1st Class
What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted. Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life. Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy. However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance. Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access. I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.
What I agree with: I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion. Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale. I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.
What I disagree with: Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective. This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid". I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing. I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor. Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people. Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations.
Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring. I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.
I'm still curious about: I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance. Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty? Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America? Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance? Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.
What I liked: As someone who is financially stable in a developed country it's easy to take financial inclusion for granted. Checking, savings, direct deposits, debit cards, online, and mobile banking are all a fixture in my life. Class this week helped me to understand the severity behind the widespread issue of being "unbanked". 2.9 billion people in the do not hold bank accounts, making it more difficult for them to fully participate in the economy. However, in class we didn't just discuss the problem, we also took a look at an innovative solution: microfinance. Through small loans and other financial services coupled with innovative collection techniques, microfinance institutions have been able to extend financial services to those in poverty who did not previously have access. I enjoyed being introduced to these innovations.
What I agree with: I agree that those in poverty can (and should) benefit from financial inclusion. Being able to save, loan, and electronically send money is economically empowering and may be one way to improve the condition of the poor on a large scale. I also agree that providing financial services to the poor in remote areas can also be a challenge for finance institutions who need incentives and profitability to expend the resources on "last-mile" services.
What I disagree with: Many hold the opinion that microfinance should not be a charity and that developing countries do not need the benefaction of the West for microfinance to be viable and effective. This sentiment was made popular by C.K. Prahalad in his book "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid". I agree that microfinance can stand on its own apart from charity, but I think microfinance through a charitable lens is also a good thing. I understand that for sustainability and longevity microfinance needs to be a financially viable investment, but charitable giving can also have a large positive impact on the poor. Pride may also be a factor in the eschewing of charity, but pride shouldn't get in the way of helping more people. Besides, low to no-interest loans are only a small form of charity, unlike traditional charitable donations.
Before this class, I was aware of Kiva, a charitable MFI, and the way they have been enabling individuals to provide loans to people in developing nations is inspiring. I am hard pressed to criticize their methods.
I'm still curious about: I'm still curious about the overall effectiveness of microfinance. Financial inclusion is a good thing, but does it lift people out of poverty? Microfinance is most prevalent in developing countries (where there is the most need), but is microfinance in effect here in America? Also, why are women the primary targets of microfinance? Does is just happen that way or are they the intended recipients? I would have thought that men, who traditionally are the ones to pursue business ventures would be more likely to take advantage of micro credit.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Reflection: E-governance
February 23rd class
This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance. Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons. However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it. Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.
It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?). This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold. No doubt the major reason is lack of participation. No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.
I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on). I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming. However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either. I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media. I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things. Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.
In a way, that's OK. That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things. On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.
Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there. Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.
This week we talked about issues related to electronic governance. Much of the focus of the class was from an technical perspective: technology decisions, failures, and lessons. However, for me, its hard to talk about political participation without considering my role in it. Political participation is certainly a social issue, but it's also deeply personal.
It was shared that around 80% of government electronic initiatives are failures (similar to the amount of initiatives that don't make it to market - is it too easy for government initiative to "make it to market", perhaps?). This statistic leads us to examine the reasons behind the general failure of e-government to take hold. No doubt the major reason is lack of participation. No doubt the reasons why most Americans don't participate can be complex, so I start by examining myself.
I'm a young, tech-savvy person who votes and is generally interested in politics (I'm no die-hard, but I like to know what's going on). I don't participate much in the political process offline, where it's considered a bit more time and energy consuming. However, I don't really "participate" in the political process online either. I semi-frequently use government provided information and statistics services online, but I don't communicate with my representatives online, I don't follow politicians or government organizations through social media. I guess the reason why is I'm busy doing other things, or not necessarily busy, but I find more value in doing other things. Whether its working, schooling, or just watching T.V., I'd rather be doing that than e-mailing my representative or checking the governors twitter.
In a way, that's OK. That's partly the purpose of a representative system: we send people to represent us in the political world to free us up to do other, oftentimes productive things. On the other hand, thanks to the internet it's easier than ever to be connected. So traditional excuses don't hold up so well, anymore.
Whether I have more of an obligation to participate politically, it's good to know that when I want to, it's there. Perhaps I (an other people) just need to get fired up about something before I jump.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Reflection: ICT's and Learning
February 16th class
What I liked most: It was hard not to like the TED presentation by Pranav Mistry detailing the use of his augmented reality technology. Augmented reality technology is a concept that I have been aware of for a few years, but mostly through science fiction, so to actually see someone physically manipulate digital information projected onto a wall is exciting. The techie in me relishes the idea of these near-magical technological innovations coming to market, but Mistry ends his presentation with a poignant thought: this technology will help us to be more connected with our physical world instead of "machines sitting in front of machines", it will help us to be more human. It's easy to become too physically dedicated to technology and machines so that we are less connected to the world around us (think texting and driving). This technology will help us find a more healthy balance between the digital and physical worlds.
What I agree with: I agree with the statement "smart technology will bring the classroom to the world". It seems that we are experiencing a shift towards informal and non-formal learning. With personal technology becoming more prolific, now people have the potential to learn anywhere at anytime thanks to smart technologies.
However, I don't think that non-formal learning will take the place of formal learning. In fact, the same smart technologies that benefit anywhere, anytime learning also benefit formal learning environments. Interactive whiteboards, SMS surveys, mobile learning, and other smart technologies have been successfully implemented in many schools. I think, in general, the more innovative technology schools adopt, the better.
What I disagree with: It's going to take some more convincing for me to see t-learning (television learning) as an influential learning tool in the future. I easily see the value of e-learning and m-learning (mobile learning) and why learners would be persuaded to use the technology. However, because of the nature and perceptions of television, I don't think it will take off as a learning device. Televisions provide (relatively) non-interactive, entertainment media and I think it will be near impossible to break that tradition. I can see televisions being given the capabilities to provide interactive learning media, but it seems that to achieve that you would have to turn the television into a computer with internet connectivity. In that case would it then just be e-learning? It would a least blur the line. I could be completely wrong. I just need to see it to believe it.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how or if technology will change K-12 education in the United States. I'm under the perception that the education system is stuck using outdated models of learning and that making substantial changes to the system are nearly impossible. Will there be a point in the future where, due to the effects of new technologies, schools will be forced to fundamentally change? Will schools someday only provide distance education? Will new technologies enable schools to provide true one-on-one education? Will schools continue to exist as we've always known them, or will they become some new institution that provides education in a radically new (presumably better) way?
What I liked most: It was hard not to like the TED presentation by Pranav Mistry detailing the use of his augmented reality technology. Augmented reality technology is a concept that I have been aware of for a few years, but mostly through science fiction, so to actually see someone physically manipulate digital information projected onto a wall is exciting. The techie in me relishes the idea of these near-magical technological innovations coming to market, but Mistry ends his presentation with a poignant thought: this technology will help us to be more connected with our physical world instead of "machines sitting in front of machines", it will help us to be more human. It's easy to become too physically dedicated to technology and machines so that we are less connected to the world around us (think texting and driving). This technology will help us find a more healthy balance between the digital and physical worlds.
What I agree with: I agree with the statement "smart technology will bring the classroom to the world". It seems that we are experiencing a shift towards informal and non-formal learning. With personal technology becoming more prolific, now people have the potential to learn anywhere at anytime thanks to smart technologies.
However, I don't think that non-formal learning will take the place of formal learning. In fact, the same smart technologies that benefit anywhere, anytime learning also benefit formal learning environments. Interactive whiteboards, SMS surveys, mobile learning, and other smart technologies have been successfully implemented in many schools. I think, in general, the more innovative technology schools adopt, the better.
What I disagree with: It's going to take some more convincing for me to see t-learning (television learning) as an influential learning tool in the future. I easily see the value of e-learning and m-learning (mobile learning) and why learners would be persuaded to use the technology. However, because of the nature and perceptions of television, I don't think it will take off as a learning device. Televisions provide (relatively) non-interactive, entertainment media and I think it will be near impossible to break that tradition. I can see televisions being given the capabilities to provide interactive learning media, but it seems that to achieve that you would have to turn the television into a computer with internet connectivity. In that case would it then just be e-learning? It would a least blur the line. I could be completely wrong. I just need to see it to believe it.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how or if technology will change K-12 education in the United States. I'm under the perception that the education system is stuck using outdated models of learning and that making substantial changes to the system are nearly impossible. Will there be a point in the future where, due to the effects of new technologies, schools will be forced to fundamentally change? Will schools someday only provide distance education? Will new technologies enable schools to provide true one-on-one education? Will schools continue to exist as we've always known them, or will they become some new institution that provides education in a radically new (presumably better) way?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Reflection: Gender Issues in an Information Society
February 9th Class
What I liked most: I appreciated having this issue brought to my attention. I've never seriously reflected on how ICT's affect different genders or how gender issues are relevant to the development of new technologies. Although I'm still reflecting on how gender issues should affect ICT's, I feel that it is important to recognize the instances that new ICT's can actually disadvantage women. In general, I think that new technologies (particularly web technologies) are a great equalizer that benefits everyone. However, I now see that when women are discouraged from or denied access, women can become disadvantaged -- to the detriment of society as a whole.
What I agree with: I agree that biases of the old media often translate to new media. If a society or culture doesn't value women as highly as men it is unreasonable to think that new technologies will erase those biases. However, I do think that ICT's play an integral role in the process of eliminating old biases, but this change will happen gradually.
I also agree that gender issues in the information society is a worthwhile issue to address. I don't think there will be a major paradigm shift towards ICT's from a gender perspective, but I do think that it is a topic that should be continuously monitored and addressed so that new technologies benefit all genders.
I agree that women should be encouraged to study STEM subjects. Young women should be know that women are absolutely capable of pursuing any career they wish and that traditional gender roles and views should dictate women's field of study. However, I don't think it should be viewed as a failure when a woman decided to study a non-STEM subject.
What I disagree with: I don't agree with the assumption (in the readings and in class) that all technologies everywhere benefit men and not necessarily women. Although the topic for the week was "gender issues" it was addressed solely as women's issues. I'm not saying women's issues shouldn't be addressed, but I think in a discussion of gender issues it is falsely assumed that men's issues are always perfectly addressed and need not be discussed.
Despite the criticism this "traditional" view received in some of the reading I do think ICT's are (and should be) gender-neutral. When disparities based on gender arise due to ICT's (and I agree that it is almost always women who are disadvantaged), they should certainly be addressed. However, I don't think always developing ICT's from a gender perspective is the best practice. There are many groups and market segments that should be considered when developing new technologies and I think it would be short-sighted to focus on only one.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how gender disparities in ICT's compare among different counties/societies. We didn't get to see any hard data on the subject, but it's my guess that in the United States we have far fewer disparities that other countries with developing women's rights. I don't want to say that the United States doesn't have any gender problems in ICT's, but I feel like whatever issues we have are not widespread nor indicative of our mostly equally empowering technologies. One indicator is the amount of women who use ICT's. In the case of social networks, women high higher rates of usage than men according to a Pew Internet study.
What I liked most: I appreciated having this issue brought to my attention. I've never seriously reflected on how ICT's affect different genders or how gender issues are relevant to the development of new technologies. Although I'm still reflecting on how gender issues should affect ICT's, I feel that it is important to recognize the instances that new ICT's can actually disadvantage women. In general, I think that new technologies (particularly web technologies) are a great equalizer that benefits everyone. However, I now see that when women are discouraged from or denied access, women can become disadvantaged -- to the detriment of society as a whole.
What I agree with: I agree that biases of the old media often translate to new media. If a society or culture doesn't value women as highly as men it is unreasonable to think that new technologies will erase those biases. However, I do think that ICT's play an integral role in the process of eliminating old biases, but this change will happen gradually.
I also agree that gender issues in the information society is a worthwhile issue to address. I don't think there will be a major paradigm shift towards ICT's from a gender perspective, but I do think that it is a topic that should be continuously monitored and addressed so that new technologies benefit all genders.
I agree that women should be encouraged to study STEM subjects. Young women should be know that women are absolutely capable of pursuing any career they wish and that traditional gender roles and views should dictate women's field of study. However, I don't think it should be viewed as a failure when a woman decided to study a non-STEM subject.
What I disagree with: I don't agree with the assumption (in the readings and in class) that all technologies everywhere benefit men and not necessarily women. Although the topic for the week was "gender issues" it was addressed solely as women's issues. I'm not saying women's issues shouldn't be addressed, but I think in a discussion of gender issues it is falsely assumed that men's issues are always perfectly addressed and need not be discussed.
Despite the criticism this "traditional" view received in some of the reading I do think ICT's are (and should be) gender-neutral. When disparities based on gender arise due to ICT's (and I agree that it is almost always women who are disadvantaged), they should certainly be addressed. However, I don't think always developing ICT's from a gender perspective is the best practice. There are many groups and market segments that should be considered when developing new technologies and I think it would be short-sighted to focus on only one.
I'm still curious about: I wonder how gender disparities in ICT's compare among different counties/societies. We didn't get to see any hard data on the subject, but it's my guess that in the United States we have far fewer disparities that other countries with developing women's rights. I don't want to say that the United States doesn't have any gender problems in ICT's, but I feel like whatever issues we have are not widespread nor indicative of our mostly equally empowering technologies. One indicator is the amount of women who use ICT's. In the case of social networks, women high higher rates of usage than men according to a Pew Internet study.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Reflections: Digital Divide
Last weeks class was all about the digital divide: what is it, why it happens, who it affects, where it is in effect, and how we can overcome it. The concept of a digital divide is not a new one to me, but I learned much more about it through the lecture.
The most interesting part of the class, to me, was the wealth of statistics that were shared concerning the digital divide. I appreciated seeing up to date data on internet and broadband access, but I wasn't surprised by the information: generally, lower income and rural people have less/slower access than their wealthy/urban counterparts (that's what the digital divide is). There were some statistics, though, that I wouldn't have predicted. First, while households with householders over 65 use the internet significantly less than younger age groups, the householder age ranges of 16-44 and 45-64 have relatively the same access. This shows that perhaps computers & internet have become a necessity for younger and older Americans alike, and that we may see more people having access in the coming years just due to the fact that those who use the internet now are getting older.
One statistic that was particularly interesting concerned the reasons for not having home internet access. It seems that one of the assumptions behind the digital divide discussion is that internet access is a good thing that people should have and that if people don't have internet access it is because of some barrier to access that must be overcome. Most would guess that the primary reason people don't have home internet access is because of the cost (especially given that lower income Americans have a much lower rate of internet access). However, 47% report that the main reason for not having internet access is because they don't want it or don't need it.
What does this do to the basic digital divide discussion? Does this mean that we (as information professionals or at least those who do have internet access) need to change their perceptions? Is that part of the goal? I do believe that everyone can be better of with internet access, but I feel it is presumptuous to try to force technology on people. Or is this not the case? Is the goal then not to achieve 100% internet access for everyone, but to achieve roughly 92% usage and 8% who don't want it? I guess, practically, the goal is for everyone that wants access to have it and eventually those who don't want it will "see the light", eventually leading to 100% access.
The most interesting part of the class, to me, was the wealth of statistics that were shared concerning the digital divide. I appreciated seeing up to date data on internet and broadband access, but I wasn't surprised by the information: generally, lower income and rural people have less/slower access than their wealthy/urban counterparts (that's what the digital divide is). There were some statistics, though, that I wouldn't have predicted. First, while households with householders over 65 use the internet significantly less than younger age groups, the householder age ranges of 16-44 and 45-64 have relatively the same access. This shows that perhaps computers & internet have become a necessity for younger and older Americans alike, and that we may see more people having access in the coming years just due to the fact that those who use the internet now are getting older.
One statistic that was particularly interesting concerned the reasons for not having home internet access. It seems that one of the assumptions behind the digital divide discussion is that internet access is a good thing that people should have and that if people don't have internet access it is because of some barrier to access that must be overcome. Most would guess that the primary reason people don't have home internet access is because of the cost (especially given that lower income Americans have a much lower rate of internet access). However, 47% report that the main reason for not having internet access is because they don't want it or don't need it.
What does this do to the basic digital divide discussion? Does this mean that we (as information professionals or at least those who do have internet access) need to change their perceptions? Is that part of the goal? I do believe that everyone can be better of with internet access, but I feel it is presumptuous to try to force technology on people. Or is this not the case? Is the goal then not to achieve 100% internet access for everyone, but to achieve roughly 92% usage and 8% who don't want it? I guess, practically, the goal is for everyone that wants access to have it and eventually those who don't want it will "see the light", eventually leading to 100% access.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)