Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide by Mark Warschauer (Response)

I agree with the author that historical references to the "Digital Divide" overly simplify the issue and may lead to a weak response to address root causes. As referenced in other readings, it is not simply a technology access issue; that alone is one symptom, and its treatment in isolation is not sufficient to alleviate the damage it causes to our society and the individuals affected.

Even when resources are available to provide access, unintended consequences must be considered. These include disruption to existing social frameworks and practices. Examples in the reading include a public kiosk in India, a technology lottery in Ireland, and a university lab in Egypt. In each of these cases, the technology was disruptive, and not in a good way. It contributed to lower grades for poor Indian school kids, more isolation for Irish villagers, and political infighting and project delays at the Egyptian university. Lack of planning for implementation, education, and sustainability could have prevented these problems and resulted in better success for the initiatives.

Sustainability is greatly overlooked in general; technology is viewed as a magic bullet, without considering the entirety in a holistic manner. Additionally, every situation is unique and may have different challenges than other implementations. Those impacted by the digital divide must not be viewed as a monolith, or as the reading phrases it, a "binary divide."

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/967/888