Kelly Fair

Roughly seven years ago, when the term digital divide was coined, it described a presumed problem of uncertain dimensions. Policymakers speculated that despite its promise, the web-which was then dominated by wealthy, white males-might exacerbate societal divisions of race, income, gender, and education (Stone, 2003).

Currently, ìsome say the digital divide is aliveî (Reyes, 2004), and ìwideningî[1] and yet others say ìresearch shows itís narrowing-and that no problem serious enough to earn the scary label digital divide really existsî (Stone, 2003), and/or ìit makes greater sense to focus on more important divides in development, literacy, hygiene and medicine.î[2]

While a consensus does not exist on the extent of the divide (and whether the divide is growing or narrowing) researchers are nearly unanimous in acknowledging that some sort of divide exists at this point in time. Those who have access to information communication technology and are using it effectively and those who do not.

Recent numbers show: ìOnly 24 percent of Black children age 3-17 have home access to the internet compared to 50 percent of white children the same age.î More than 40 percent of Black children are dependent on their school for computer use compared to just 15 percent of white children.î (Reyes, 2004).

Further, only 31 percent of students from families earning less than $20,000 use computers at home, compared to 89 percent of those from families earning more than $75,000.î (American Libraries, 2004).

Only 31.6 percent of Hispanics are using computers at home (FRBSF Economic Letter, 2003). Latinos ìare following behind other groups in embracing itî (Leaf, 2002), and the tribal community (American Indians), are one of the ìmost neglected among the underserved (Hayden, 2004).

Nearly 65% of college graduates have home internet access; only 11.7% of households headed by persons with less than a high school education have internet access.[3]

Rural areas, though still lagging behind urban areas, had surpassed inner-cities in Internet availability and use: Urban 42.3, Rural 38.9, and Central City 37.7[4]

And what about the homeless, they donít have access to the most basic telecommunication devise: a phone (Taglang, 2001), let alone the internet.

The truth is the benefits of the Web have disproportionately gone to a class of Americans who are mostly white and predominately male. Theyíre also likely to have college degrees, earn relatively high incomes, live in nice neighborhoods, and use the internet for online banking (Salkever, 2003).

Those that lack access to basic communications infrastructure are increasingly shut out of todayís digital economy, which generates jobs and wealth, assists education, and allows communication with loved ones across the globe. Researchers have found that computer use has important implications for our material well-being.

One finding, for example, is that people who use computers in the workplace tend to earn higher wages than those who do not, and available evidence suggests that this reflects, at least in part, the direct impact of skills that are associated with or acquired through computer use. In addition, some research has attributed a significant portion of the acceleration in US productivity gains in the mid-1990s to the diffusion of computer technology throughout the workplace: therefore, differential computer use across states may help explain productivity growth differences across states.[5] The bottom line is the internet and computer literacy is rapidly becoming a part of literacy itself, and therefore, those who are information-poor run the risk of illiteracy.

A review of the literature, on a past projects that focused on bridging the digital divide include: 1) a computer giveaway program to low-income families, in the Kent School District in Washington (DíOrio, 2004); 2) high-speed wireless internet access to low income Detroit-area families at a reduced cost (Carnevale, 2004); 3) introducing technology-phobic seniors to the digital world (Flamm, 2003); 4) reasoning ìteach a person to fish and they can feed themselvesî a pilot computer literacy program that taught 15 single, low-income moms from Vancouverís Downtown eastside, how to use a PC, and gave them a free used machine upon completion[6] ; and 5) installation of street kiosks to provide local residents with online access to public services in Bolton, England (Rogers, 2004).

An interesting point, all of the above mentioned citations focused on home computer usage. A look at a 2002 controversial Commerce Department report cited an increased rate of access for the poor and multiple access points beyond the home, consumer groups focused on the lack of Internet access at home. In language that may rankle librarians, the groupsí report says, ìstopping by the library to use the internet or using it at work, may be transitional steps useful for creating skills in the population, or carrying out specific tasks associated with the activities of those locations, but they are not a replacement for its availability in the homeî (Oder, 2002). Nonsense, I say.

ìFor as long as libraries have existed, librarians have helped people in their communities find and use information. Today librarians play a pivotal role in making sure people of every race, locale, and economic background have the opportunity to become computer literate.î[7] Since, libraries exist to provide information resources that meet the needs of its population (Hensley, 2003) and public libraries offer free access to all; exist in almost every community; and thus bring opportunity to all, it makes sense to focus on the public library and itís role in narrowing the gap, or more specifically, how the public librarian can better prepare all patrons for the 21^st century, to be literate in this global information society.

At the opening General Session of the PLA conference February 25, 2004, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with the American Library Association and other groups, released ìToward Equality of Access: The role of Public Libraries in Addressing the Digital Divide.î It concluded that public libraries have helped close the digital divide but face challenges in sustaining and improving service.

The report, discussed at length, a 2003 study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which presented a more nuanced picture of the divide today. The study found that 42 percent of Americans do not use the Internet, sometimes by choice and sometimes because of factors beyond their control. For instance, lack of interest and perceived lack of benefit were among the top responses given for avoiding the Internet. But a large number of responses indicated that barriers to access and lack of skills are perceived as obstacles to Internet use. Forty-six percent of non-users indicated that ìthe internet is too complicated and hard to understand,î while another 48 percent indicate ìcostî is a reason they are not online. Embarrassment over lack of knowledge and fears over personal ability to learn new skills also surfaced in the study. These findings are significant on at least two levels. First, they underscore that three preconditions are necessary for an individual too achieve technology literacy: the person must have access to technology, the skills and knowledge to use the technology, and the interest to learn and use it. Second, the Pew study suggests that those with interest, but no access or skills-a substantial segment of the offline population-are within the reach of services or programs targeted to assist them.[8]

Since, 95 percent of the nationís public libraries have computers now available for use, his paper will focus on 1) the skills and knowledge needed to use the technology; 2) the interest to learn and use the internet and 3) targeting those offline population that are within reach (those with interest) of the programs that the public library can offer.

(I just called the public library in my town and asked if they offered Internet trainingÖthey have one program that consists of one session which meets for 2 hours; they think the next one will be held in August.)

Because, ìtechnology education is not (no longer strictly) a technical subject. It is a branch of the humanities (Cox, 1997); and the ìconcept for 21^st century literacy reflects an expanded vision of what it means to be literate in a global information society,[9] it would make more sense for public libraries to offer formal training classes designed to help the patron become a full participant in the information society that describes the process of finding, organizing, using, producing and distributing information available on the internet; evaluate the quality of that information, and adjust to rapidly changing technology tools.

When patrons have completed this training they should gain the following skills: 1) Develop an awareness of how to use the Internet and access remote computerized information sources, 2) Use critical thinking skills to evaluate the validity and reliability of internet information sources and 3) Become more confident and knowledgeable about using the internet.

The formal training should consist of a minimum of 3 meetings, an hour and a half each. The first should consist of an overview of the internet, e-mail, and an introduction to the World Wide Web. The objective of this is so patrons can become familiar with online resources for accessing information. Attendees should perform searches on topics that interest them, for example, if the attendees are elderly, then health issues might be used. A hand-on experience in searching resources will stress the limitations or pitfalls of a source and will leave a lasting impression (Francis, 1997).

The second session ìSearching for Intelligent Life on the Netî should thoroughly discuss the evaluation of electronic materials, since, most material on the internet has not gone through an editorial process and special care is required in determining the quality and authenticity of a web site. With the objective that patrons will judge the value of web resources by noting its reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, point of view or bias (Warner, 2003). Using first, subject directories, and then the following search engines: Google, Alta Vista, and HotBot, patrons could individually search the web and then complete evaluation sheets.

The last session should provide an overview of the first two, and wrap them together by utilizing what they have learned. Patrons should be given an issue, for example, helmet laws of skate boarders in Massachusetts (say for teen-age patrons) and asked to formulate a response. Patrons should be encouraged to work in a collaborative fashion to identify and make sense of the information and come to an appropriate conclusion using correct sources, (for example, Mass General Laws and so on).

A push toward bringing certain groups by the library can lay the interest foundation and motivate patrons to learn and use technology, by edgier marketing. For instance, in introducing tech-phobia seniors to the digital world, the Tremont branch of the New York Public Library found one solution: It installed senior-friendly software (designed specifically for people born between 1920 and 1929) from nonprofit Generations on Line on some of its computers, designating them for use by seniors only (Flamm, 2003).

Additionally, in an attempt to ìmaking technology coolî to African Americans, legendary music and film producer Quincy Jones, teamed up with Bill Gates and Black comedian Sinbad at a ìBlacks in Technologyî conference in Chicago that aimed at narrowing the digital divide. Jones suggested to Apple (which has come closest to ethnic marketing with its ads featuring jazz great Miles Davis) that marketing a ìMacDaddyî PC would touch a nerve. Or Internet companies might consider promoting web sites with ìHomie Pagesî Jones said. And he wondered what if the message was ìYo! Peep the boxî rather than ìYouíve got mailî? Such lingo wouldnít appeal to everyone, much less to every African American. (Crockett, 2002). But just as Tommy Hilfiger did with jeans, edgier marketing could help public libraries to connect with certain groups.

Proactive outreach activities... who are the potential users of the community library? Take the time, do the studies, and compile the statistics to learn what percentage of each customer group is actually using and not using the services. To be successful in recruiting the technology reluctant (the ones not using), reach out to the town at large, target them, be creative, for example, in reaching the elderly contact the town senior center and offer to help seniors become literate by browsing certain sites, for example, the Social Security Administration.

The digital divide and its implications in re to information literacy in the 21^st century mandate that the public library and the public librarian must play a crucial role in closing this gap. Re-organization of literacy training must be incorporated into reaching and teaching in the community. This paper is submitted with a practical method of integration and an overview of the issue.

Carnevale, D. (2004). Professor wants to offer high-speed internet at low cost to Detroitís

Cox, R. (1997). Taking sides of the future of the book. American Libraries, 120, 52-55.

Crockett, R. (2002, Aug. 28). Selling African Americans on ìcoolî tech: Bill Gates,

digital divide just a little narrower. Business Week Online. Retrieved July1, 2004,

DíOrio, A. (2004). The gift that keeps on giving: This district proves that a digital divide

effort can be stretched to accomplish so much more. District Administration, 40, 22-

Flamm, M. (2003). Guiding seniors over digital divide. Crainís New York Business, 19,

Hensley, R.B. (2003). Technology as environment: From collections to connections. New

Oder, N. (2002). Digital divide: No place for libraries? Consumer groups blast Bush by

Rogers, J. (2004). Internet kiosks give Bolton residents free access to local-government

Taglang, K. (2001, Dec. 10). A low-tech, low cost tool for the homeless. Retrieved July

Warner, D. (2003). Programmatic assessment: Turning process into practice by teaching

[1] Africa News Services, April 23, 2004

[2] UN World Summit, 2003

[3] US Department of Commerce, 2000.

[4] Ibid

[5] FRBSF Economic Letter Number 2003-38, December 26, 2003

[6] BC Business, 2004

[7] ALA President Nancy Kranich

[8] Review Committee of Toward Equality of Access Report, 2004, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[9] American Library Association