Access: An Alternative View
Public access to technology in Austin flourishes both in theory and in
practice. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) are key elements of both.
Austin's public access effort, known as the Austin Access Model (AAM),
was conceived as a way to think about developing neighborhoods, rather
than just connect households to the Internet. The AAM constitutes a more
comprehensive approach to the problem of unequal access to advanced digital
technologies (ADT) in different Austin neighborhoods. As a result, Austin
currently has a robust network of CTCs, located in various neighborhoods,
that serves a range of communities.
Our research task is to determine how public access has evolved in Austin
and how it influences use of ADT in the targeted neighborhoods. The research
is a case study of public access in Austin and the role of CTCs.
We began the research by investigating the character and patterns of
access in Austin. The next challenge was to develop a framework to describe
and understand the patterns, to explain why they exist, and report on
the actions taken to solve the problems. We did not have to look long
or far to find differences in access to ADT. As with access to most resources
in low-income communities, the differences are systemic, structural, and
inequitable.
The "Digital Divide" is a popular political catchphrase, coined
to highlight the gap between those with access to ADT and those without
access. Unfortunately, the term is a less useful empirical concept. Early
in our work, we became suspicious of using the phrase to frame the problem
of unequal access to ADT. The term seems to lead researchers and organizations
to focus almost exclusively on counting computers and comparing the size
of their connections to the Internet. We think this approach is likely
to lead to a Digital Ditch, instead of serving as a bridge to useful insights
about unequal access.
We do, however, understand why the digital divide became the prevailing
view of access. It derives from thinking of technology use in terms
of income and consumption. In this view, users of technology are customers,
and the delivery system is the market. The assumption is that higher incomes
will automatically lead to more consumption (use) of technology. The only
real barrier to access and use, then, is time and the lack of the right
online 'killer application'. The way around this barrier is to wait. The
supposed rise in incomes and the inevitable drop in the prices of technological
consumer goods will solve any problems with access.
This consumption model obscures the importance of context and content
in understanding how and why citizens use technology. Instead of relying
on an income/consumption framework to investigate public access in Austin,
we use an alternative model that focuses on comprehensive development.
Our framework uses these criteria as dimensions of development and community
competence:
- comprehensive programming
- learning environments
- self-reliance
- ownership
- vision
Users of technology are citizens first, not customers. We then place
citizenship in the context of the structural poverty that defines patterns
of unequal access. We ask this operational question: what are the most
appropriate intervention and investment strategies that allow citizens
to use technology to solve the problems of structural poverty they face
as individuals, families, intermediary organizations, and neighborhoods?
Our interest in using this framework is twofold. We want to understand
access at the neighborhood level.This allows us to consider access to
the Internet as a collective asset rather than a personal one. Our second
interest is seeing and evaluating CTCs in their role as intermediary,
human-scale organizations. In this context, CTCs are community-based organizations
that function as "holding companies" for the cumulative human,
social, and intellectual capital of a neighborhood. They are the locally
controlled banks where citizens exchange various forms of capital among
themselves and others.
The empirical question is what are the internal controls these "banks"
use to secure investments and increase the rate of return to their citizen
members?
|
More info
Digital Divide in Context
this page last updated
April 18, 2002
|
