Category Archives: Digital Divide

The Digital and Literacy Divides

Posted on by
1

If people do not have the skills, how can we be sure they find the 'right' information online? (Image c/o Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on Flickr.)

Over 18 months ago, I wrote an article for The Guardian website about the need for libraries in the digital age.  One of the key points in my piece was that IT literacy is as important as the provision of access to IT.  Whilst possessing the skills to utilise IT is clearly vital, underpinning such skills are basic literacy standards.  After all, if you do not meet certain literacy standards, how can you ever hope to develop a degree of IT literacy?  The two things work hand-in-hand.  Whilst there is a degree of compensation for literacy skills (Google’s “did you mean..” function for example), a distinct lack of literacy skills will severely hamper anyone from exploiting the internet to their advantage.

Three years ago, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) claimed that literacy levels in the UK represented a ‘dismal picture’.  In 2010, the Head of Ofsted claimed that standards of reading and writing amongst 11 year olds fell “stubbornly short” of achievable standards.  According to the National Literacy Trust, 5.2 million people in England (approximately 1 in 10) can be described as “functionally illiterate” (ie would not be able to pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below an 11 year old).  For those 5.2 million people, the provision of a computer and internet access in their home would simply be of no benefit to them.  Clearly, access is not the only issue, there needs to be a degree of support.

Today a new charity, National Numeracy, claimed that ‘millions’ of people struggle to understand a payslip or a train timetable.  The figures appear to have been drawn from the Skills for Life survey.  Personally, I am a little sceptical about these figures, not least because they are a new charity and making such claims does much to raise awareness of themselves amongst the general public.  Clearly they have done an excellent job as their claims have been all over the news websites (and now this blog).  But if we are to take the report at face value, then 17 million people in the UK have numeracy skills below those needed for the lowest grade at GCSE.  Chances are, provided this figure is accurate, a significant proportion of those 17 million people will experience difficulties both obtaining and interpreting data online.

Whilst this is clearly troubling, the most interesting aspect of the story comes from a YouGov poll for the charity.  According to the findings of the poll (and again it is sensible to be slightly sceptical about such polls):

4 in 5 (80%) would feel embarrassed to tell someone they were bad at reading & writing, but less than 3 in 5, or just over a half (56%), would feel the same about telling someone they were bad at maths.

Once more, there is a problem here that simple access cannot resolve.  But then there is also a problem in terms of support and how this can be provided.

One of the key institutions in addressing the concerns of the digital divide are libraries.  They provide free access for those who do not have a computer or internet connection at home as well as skilled staff in order to support them.  According to the latest figures, around 8.2 million people have never used the internet.  Paired with the figures claimed for literacy and numeracy levels, there are a significant number of people who are clearly unable to exploit the internet to its fullest and reap the economic and social benefits.

But herein lies the problem.  There is a perception that because people are sitting at a computer and appear to be comfortable using it, that they are using it effectively and to their best advantage.  As is apparent from the poll findings, many people would not like to admit that they struggle with reading and writing.  Which begs the question, how many people using a computer in a library (or anywhere else for that matter) would be prepared to admit they experience difficulties with their reading and writing and needed support?  How many would just carry on without requesting assistance thinking that they are getting what they require?  Furthermore, how can this best be addressed?  Should staff who are available to assist wait until they are approached by someone?  Or should they be taking a proactive approach?  Is it satisfactory to assume that if they are using the computer they probably know what they are doing?  Or should an interventionist strategy be adopted?

From my experience it is a difficult situation to judge.  We would often wait until we were approached before providing library users with assistance.  But with literacy standards at the levels supposedly reported, how many people use the computers in a public space, fail to make use of the resource fully and leave with second rate information because they aren’t confident in asking for assistance, or are unaware that the standard of information that they did obtain was poor?  How can we be sure that the playing field is levelled so that those without the skills are not disadvantaged?  If 80% of people do feel embarrassed to tell someone they have trouble reading and writing, I’m not really sure what the answer is.  But I do think an answer is fundamental if we are to ensure that the digital divide is closed and we ensure true equal access for all.

Follow your dreams – but it will cost you

Posted on by
Reply

Following your dreams is getting that much harder (Image c/o andrewjsan on Flickr)

Earlier today, library campaigners in Brent received the news from the High Court in London that they had failed in their attempt to prevent the closure of six libraries (half of the total).  Within hours of the judgement, workmen arrived to close down the libraries that had, until then, merely been threatened.  According to The Bookseller, Mr Justice Ouseley judged that:

…the council had done “quite a detailed analysis of accessibility from the closed libraries to the nearest open ones”, including car ownership and public transport accessibility. “The council obviously did conclude, as it was reasonably entitled to do, that most users would go to the remaining nearest library albeit at some cost in time and travel,” the judgement states. “The council was entitled to draw the conclusions it did; certainly they were not unreasonable and unlawful.”

The judge also claimed that his ruling does not have national significance, but this remains to be seen.

And so, the slow, steady destruction of our public library system continues.  We are rapidly finding ourselves heading towards a society where access to information only comes at a price. Information is increasingly being monetised and the institutions that have traditionally opened up access to information are increasingly under attack and subject to various attempts at privatisation or destruction.

Only a few short years ago, a university education was free.  Not only was it free, but you were paid a grant to support you in your studies.  Now, however, not only has the grant been abolished, but it has swung the other way.  Students pay to attend university and have, effectively been forced to become customers or consumers of information.  A three year degree will cost a student £27,000 before they even factor in the cost of materials, accommodation etc.  The fact that this is paid after graduation and upon hitting a certain earnings threshold is irrelevant.  The debt is there and will need to be paid off over time (although, unlike government debt, this personal debt does not require prompt re-payment).  How did we find ourselves in this situation?

The combination of tuition fees to attend university and the slow erosion of our public library service (the street corner university) threatens to entrench a substantial divide between those with access to information and those without.  Many have access to the internet, but many do not (around 23% of households do not have internet access).  And for many that do not, price is an important factor.  There may be a wealth of information on the internet, but it is not free to access it.  Indeed, when you factor in all the equipment, it is still quite expensive.  And it’s not even the case that all of the material on the internet is free.  Many resources require subscriptions or are hidden behind paywalls.  Therein lies the danger.  With a university degree increasingly coming at a prohibitive price and access to free information at the local library being severely curtailed, the possibility of an increasingly pay-walled internet is a deeply disturbing one.

Of course, this may not come to pass, maybe the internet will always be free for all once the equipment is purchased.  On the other hand, we live in a world where the exchange of information has never been easier.  The potential is there to create a society where information can be exchanged widely and freely like never before.  This is what we should aspire to.  Unfortunately, the free-marketeers can see a pound sign even on something that is intangible.  Everything, so it appears, has a price.  And where there is a price, there is an opportunity to entrench old inequalities.

Mobile phone growth in Africa ‘revolutionising healthcare’

Posted on by
Reply

Mobile phone usage in Africa provides opportunities for healthcare provision (image c/o Ken Banks, kiwanja.net)

There’s an interesting article on the Mashable website today about the impact mobile phones in Africa are having on healthcare.  Zachary Sniderman writes:

A slew of mobile initiatives are revolutionizing the way that healthcare is delivered in Africa and other developing communities. While much has been made of the “mobile revolution” in North America, phones are even more important in developing communities where they are sometimes the only way for people to share and receive information.

Health and healthcare have always been a huge concern in Africa, especially when doctors and hospitals can get isolated in remote areas where care is often most needed.

Mobile has been the answer in many cases. In 2010, mobile phones represented more than 90% of all telephone lines in Africa with market penetration expected to pass 50% of the population. Some of the continent’s most advanced markets have already hit nearly 100% penetration, according to Developing Telecoms. Mobile’s big and only getting bigger.

This is indeed a very positive development in terms of access to healthcare on a continent that has been stricken with poverty for many years.  Previous research by Fox and Fellowes has demonstrated that the internet is a key resource for healthcare information and an educated healthcare consumer with access to the internet standards a better chance of receiving good treatment than those without.  Furthermore, research has repeatedly shown that those who do make use of the internet for healthcare tend to be wealthier, better educated and in better health than those who do not.

Of course, whilst this is encouraging news (not to mention inspiring to see the difference mobile technologies can make), there is still a long way to go before the benefits are felt across the continent.  As well as actually owning a mobile phone, users need to be educated in how to use it to get the best possible information available.  Sadly it is not enough to simply provide the populace with the equipment to take advantage of the information that is available (and this also applies in Western nations).  Without the support and education to accompany the technology, those with the means will simply leave behind those without, embedding a deep social and digital divide.  The initiatives referred to in the article are very encouraging, let’s just hope they continue to prosper and ensure better healthcare provision for everyone in Africa, not just the wealthy few.