Week Nine - Task 2: The Digital Divide

What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make?

a) To socioeconomically related access issues within a society?

b) To global access issues across countries and regions?

a) “The digital divide refers to the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not” (Digital Divide Org). The main focus of the digital divide is not on the fact that some people don’t have access to technology, it focuses on the fact that these people who don’t have access are at a loss in terms of the benefits gained by using technology. Some benefits of having technology, especially the internet are searching for lower priced goods and services, working from home, being more involved in their children’s education, access to e-learning facilities and informed healthcare decisions (Lu, 2001).

Socioeconomic issues within a society can be about the digital divide, as some people within a society will have access to digital technology whereas some will not. This creates a gap between people who have a higher socioeconomic status, and therefore have access to a range of technology and people who have a lower status and no access to technology.

Neil Selwyn points out that it’s also necessary to remember that the ‘digital divide’ is not just about computers and the internet “people’s use of technology extends far beyond the realm of the computer through technologies such as digital television, mobile telephony and games consoles, all constituting important but disparate elements of contemporary techno-culture” (2004: 346).

Children growing up are assumed by Prensky to be “digital natives” – they understand technology, get the ‘language’ and have no problems grasping the literacy needed to use digital technology. However, supposing this child comes from a family or community who are “digitally disengaged” (BT report) the only access to digital technology they will have will be in school and to computers / internet, reducing the chances of this child being a “digital native”. In this case I would say that digital nativism / immigration is a socioeconomically related issue within a society which the digital divide is adding pressure to.

b) “The term Digital Divide is also used to refer to the disparity in Internet access between developed and developing countries” (Lu, 2001). Therefore the digital divide affects global access issues across countries and regions. Similarly to how there is a digital divide in the UK, with some people being ‘technology rich’ and some people being ‘technology poor’, there is also a global digital divide. Developing countries are the ‘technology poor’ and developed countries are the ‘technology rich’.


In developing countries, citizens do not have the disposable income to purchase the necessary equipment for internet access or and digital technology in general. It is not just the equipment; a literacy is also necessary to use it (Lu, 2001).

In terms of Prensky’s notions of “digital immigrant” and “digital native”, I would say that in some countries they are not even applicable yet due to the lack of resources available. Prensky’s ideas are based around cultures which are immersed into a technological environment which I think means they can’t be applied to people who live in cultures that don’t have these advantages. Maybe, in years to come when the digital divide is much smaller and the majority of people, including those in developing countries, have access to a range of technologies, Prensky’s current theory will come into use.

BT Report, (2004) “The Digital Divide in 2025”, http://www.btplc.com/societyandenvironment/pdf/digitaldivide2025.pdf
Digital Divide Org, (n.d.) “The Digital Divide: What it is and why it matters”, http://www.digitaldivide.org/dd/digitaldivide.html
Selwyn, N (2004) “Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide”, New Media and Society, Volume 6 (3), pp. 341 – 362, http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/6/3/341

Lu, M (2001) “Digital Divide in Developing Countries” Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Volume 4 (3), pp. 1 – 4, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=83155528&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1237463068&clientId=57096