0125 Beyond Inclusion Draft

7/29/2019 0125 Beyond Inclusion Draft

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/0125-beyond-inclusion-draft 1/52

0125beyondinclusiondraft.doc

From the Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion and Beyond: An

Update on Telecentres and Community Technology Centers

(CTCs)

______________________________________________________________________

Books/articles discussed in this essay:

David Nemer, "Literature Review on Digital In-

clusion and Digital Divide" (unpublished, 2012)

Ricardo Gomez, Editor

Libraries, Telecentres, Cybercafés and Public

Access to ICT: International Comparisons (Hershey: Information Science Reference,

2012)

Panayiota Tsatsou

Digital Divides in Europe — Culture, Politics

and the Western-Southern Divide

(Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2011)

Christian Sandvig

"Connection at Ewiiaapaayp Mountain:

Indigenous Internet Infrastructure"

in Lisa Nakamura and Peter Chow-White,

Race After The Internet

(NY: Routledge, 2012),

also on the author's faculty page

Virginia Eubanks

Digital Dead End: Fighting for Social Justice in the Information Age

(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011)

an expansion of the author's article

"Trapped in the Digital Divide: The Distributive

Paradigm in Community Informatics," Journal of

Community Informatics, v3 #2 (2007)

Melissa Gilbert and Michele Masucci

ICT Geographies: Strategies for Bridging the

Digital Divide

(U of British Columbia, Canada, e-praxis epress,

2011)

______________________________________________________________________

Sections at a glance:

1. Introduction: Nemer I: From the Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion

2. Gomez3. Tsatsou

4. Nemer II: Beyond the Digital Divide and Digital Inclusion

5. Sandsvig6. Eubanks7. Gilbert & Masucci8. Conclusion

Section 1.

In his unpublished "Literature Review on Digital Inclusion and Digital Divide,"1 David Nemer, a

1 A brief, fleeting notice about the paper appeared in the initial announcement of the program for the 2012 International Community Informatics Conference in Prato, Italy. The notice soondisappeared, along with the author's plans/ability to attend. The paper was provided by the

http://faculty.washington.edu/rgomez/publications.html


http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Divides-Interdisciplinary-Communication-Studies/dp/3034301898


http://amzn.to/n7XtXA


http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/csandvig/research

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Dead-End-Fighting-Information/dp/026201498X



http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/293


http://www.praxis-epress.org/availablebooks/ictgeographies.html



http://cirn.wikispaces.com/Prato2012






http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/csandvig/research







http://cirn.wikispaces.com/Prato2012



PhD student in the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University and editor of

socialinformaticsblog.com, tells us first there is/was the Digital Divide, the gap of access to

technology's benefits between groups of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds, a

gap that mirrored and could exacerbate other basic inequalities. Definitive, clear, and straight

forward:

Studies have shown consistently that individuals who have access to ICTs, from thetelephone to the internet, tend to have more schooling, higher incomes, and higher statusoccupations than do those who do not have access (e.g. Chinn & Fairlie, 2004). Chinnand Fairlie (2004) propose a model that confirms the importance of per capita income inexplaining the gap in computer and internet use… (1-2)

And just as clearly, definitively and straight forwardly, the gap between "haves" and "have-nots"

was originally understood to be bridgeable by extending and equalizing physical access tocomputers, to information and communications technologies (ICTs) generally, and to the Internet

in particular. Studies provided detailed percentages and data to pin-point the gaps; government,

philanthropic, and corporate programs provided equipment and connectivity to close them.

As the limitations of this simple understanding of the problem and the practices based on it

became apparent, the focus on providing equipment and Internet access began to give way to a

more complex grasp and approach to helping those without effective technology access, to one

that emphasizes the human and systemic approaches needed, ones that came to coaslece most

usefully around the establishment of community technology centers or CTCs or, as they are

called primarily outside the United States, telecentres, places where people could find the human

support necessary for effective technology use to be nourished. A "second wave of research"

came to focus on a more complex explanation of the problem, "moving beyond physical access

to pay closer attention to concepts that are concerned with issues around culture, empowerment,

social mobility and differentiated uses of the Internet." (2)

The emergence of this "second wave" of research on digital inequality has been called different

names by various scholars. The idea of a "usage gap" underlines differences in "the skills to

search, select, process and apply information from a superabundance of sources and the ability to

author via email request to [email protected], along with a feedback-appreciated-thanks-for-your-interest note.

2

http://socialinformaticsblog.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://socialinformaticsblog.com/



strategically use this information to improve one's position in society." The "second-level digital

divide" points to a "production gap" that separates the consumers of Internet content from the

producers. An "emerging digital differentiation" approach emphasizes digital divides as

recursive, dynamic, changing along with the technology and skills needed to master it

effectively. (2-3)

And along with this "second wave research" — skills and usage access, content production, and

the like — digital "inclusion" became the more preferred phrase / call to arms, replacing the

simplicities of the digital "divide":

"Digital inclusion": Crandall and Fisher (2009) see digital inclusion as the rallying cry of the twenty-first century. They claim that digital inclusion goes beyond access to

computers and the internet for all, regardless of physical, cognitive or financial ability; itmeans technological literacy and the ability to access relevant online content andservices. Hache and Cullen (2009) extend the definition by arguing that digital inclusionis the process of democratization of access to ICTs, in order to allow the inclusion of themarginalized in the information society. The authors claim that digital inclusion should be seen as a wagon to social inclusion that ensures individuals and disadvantaged groupshave access to, and skills to use, ICTs and are therefore able to participate in and benefitfrom electronic mediated growing knowledge and information society. (3)

Two recent works — Ricardo Gomez, Editor, Libraries, Telecentres, Cybercafés and Public

Access to ICT: International Comparisons (Hershey: Information Science Reference, 2012) and

Panayiota Tsatsou, Digital Divides in Europe: Culture, Politics and the Western-Southern

Divide (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2011) — exemplify this "second wave" research that

moves well beyond examining access in simple physical terms and underline precisely how

analytic and deconstructive the field has become in looking at a wide range of contextual

phenomena, albeit each in a different way. The first surveys much of the world, with some

notable exceptions, including Europe, the geographic focus of the second study. Together they

make up a global survey of immense detail and particularity, with a range of lessons useful to

policy-makers and to informed citizens interested the current state of research and development

in the field. Together they provide contrasting critical perspectives that add to any examination

of digital divide and inclusion understandings and practices.

* * * * *

3











Section 2

I begin with Gomez, for although International Comparisons is the longest of all the works

under examination here, it is the easiest to read and to summarize in scope, process, and lessons,

the clearest and most usefully didactic and straight-forward in offering a major finding. Briefly,the many authors of this 600+ page work were all part of an international army of researchers

deployed in 25 countries across the globe looking at the primary venues for public access—

libraries, telecentres, and cybercafés — all providing complementary findings and conclusions to

the effect that combating digital divides and promoting a more widespread and effective digital

inclusion rests upon policies that reinforce a partnership and collaboration among all three

venues.

Undertaken with major support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation over a three year

period, 2007-2009 and led by a team in the Technology & Social Change Group at the

University of Washington Information School, the researchers were charged with a stated goal

"to portray the landscape of users and uses of public access to computers and the Internet in

developing countries around the world." As summarized in the Preface:

The results are promising: there is a vibrant ecosystem of organizations and initiativesthat support public access computing in all the countries we studied. Libraries,telecenters, and cybercafés all play an important role in offering access to, and use of,computers and the Internet, especially to people for whom these resources wouldotherwise be difficult or impossible to reach. Each type of venue has something special tooffer, and the idea of working in closer collaboration with each other is one of our greatest recommendations. When libraries, telecenters, and cybercafés work together toshare their specialized knowledge and resources, they can make a huge difference to thewell-being of underserved populations. (xx)

Having come out with it and said it straight-way, there are qualifications and distinctions to

made, to be sure, and such a finding is "only" a framework for further research and

recommendations for particular cases. But study's primary finding and framework are as

impressive as its scope, providing dramatic confirmation of the basic efficacy of public access

venues as the approach to promoting wider effective technology use. As the authors conclude:

This is the first systematic comparison across multiple countries to identify successfactors in different types of public access venues. Previous studies identified similar success factors in one country or one type of venue. However, the broad-based validation

4



in this Landscape Study provides solid guidance to policymakers, donors, and practitioners who want to focus their efforts where they can make the most difference tothe communities they serve. Furthermore, our findings provide clear direction for futureresearch to better understand each success factor in its local context. We also recommendconsidering the implications of this study for measuring, and ultimately improving, the

impact of public access ICT in underserved communities around the world. (92)

Libraries, Telecentres, Cybercafés and Public Access to ICT: International Comparisons is a

work of massive detail, with a multiplicity of contributors and reports, picturesque and accessible

to a wide audience.

The freely-available long report is divided into two sections, a ten chapter overview of the

Landscape Study, and a 25 chapter summary report from each of the individual country studies.

To edit/consolidate the Preface summary of the first section:

The first chapter moves from an overview of the distribution of each type of venue to a

comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each, looks at the public access users (chapter 2),

then at the owners, employees and volunteers who help users and the critical role of these

"infomediaries" in the success of the public access venues (ch. 3).

They discuss users' perceptions of public access venues (ch. 4) and then key into a look at their

preferences for choosing one venue over another, the role and influence of fees for service, and,

what proves to be more important, users' perceptions of relevance of content and of the

disposition of the operators and infomediaries to help them (ch 5). Special topics include the

benefits and barriers that affect women in particular (ch. 6) and specific challenges for libraries

(ch. 7).

The two penultimate chapters provide the guide for next steps and action: Three strategies for

understanding and better meeting the information needs of the populations served by public

access computing initiatives: (1) production of locally relevant content; (2) information

produced in local languages with a consideration of literacy levels and content for illiterate users,

and (3) ICT user capacity development and ICT training for and by venue operators. (ch. 8)

5






A synthesis of factors that contribute to the success of public access computing involves: (1)

understanding and taking care of local needs first; (2) building alliances with other venues; (3)

collaborating with other media and community services; (4) strengthening sustainability; and (5)

training infomediaries and users in digital literacy (ch. 9).

Finally, informing the Landscape Study itself, there's a description of the research methods used,

the process undertaken to select the 25 countries to be researched and analyzed, the conceptual

framework, and some major lessons learned in conducting large-scale, collaborative research

projects of this nature (ch. 10).

The Study's second section includes 15-25 page descriptions and analyses of the public access

computing landscape in each of the 25 countries studied, grouped by geographic region, with

links to all individual detailed country reports: Latin America and the Caribbean (including

Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, and Peru);

Asia and Eastern Europe (Bangladesh, Nepal, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Moldova, Georgia, and Sri Lanka); and Africa and the Middle East

(Algeria, Egypt, Namibia, South Africa, Turkey, and Uganda). (xxi-xxii)

The first three graphics simply and vividly illustrate and underline the report's orientation and

major findings. The first, the only graphic in the Preface, Figure 1. Public access triangle and

the effective role of the state, emphasizes the government's capacity to support public access in

all three venues and the nature of that support.

Figure 1. Public access triangle and the effective role of the state

6

http://tascha.uw.edu/research/landscape-study

http://tascha.uw.edu/research/landscape-study



In Chapter 1 the summary chart, Figure 1, Distribution of Public Access ICT Venues (based on

aggregated data from 25 countries in the Landscape Study) [note that figures are numbered anew

in each of the ten chapters; there are 16 figures in all], emphasizes visually as well as

numerically the overwhelming number of cybercafés and their location in urban areas and helps

underline and explain two major recommendations involving them: first, as the most commonly

available public access venue, accounting for almost three-fourths of the approximately 250,000

total venues surveyed, along with the fact that the vast majority of libraries are also urban, "the

urban non-urban divide is by far the most significant divide in public access to ICT." And,

second, given that their numbers are so substantial — and since a number of researchers have

pointed out their "social" and "public sphere" roles — "rather than competing with cybercafés by

setting up new or alternative public access venues, government policy and public funds could be better directed to help make ICT services offered by cybercafés more accessible and relevant to

underserved populations." (2-3)

Figure 1, Distribution of Public Access ICT Venues

(based on aggregated data from 25 countries in the Landscape Study)

It's a perspective and recommendation that's sharpened by a consideration of "Rethinking

Telecentre Sustainability: How To Implement A Social Enterprise Approach – Lessons From

India And Africa," by Meddie Mayanja, then Senior Program Officer for telecentre.org.

Mayanja's essay is notable for the way he has made teachable and informative his wide-ranging

experience in India and Africa assessing telecentres and cybercafés and the experiments in

7

http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/324/266




http://www.telecentre.org/








determining the best development of the mix at particular times in particular places with

particular habits and culture.2

As to the third and final graphic at the beginning of the book, the authors — Gomez and Melody

Clark, but from the leadership team in Seattle at the University of Washington — provide

another key chart of " Features across all countries by type of public access venue," based on the

Study's Access, Capacity and Environment (ACE) framework, assessing public access to ICT

venues (across the top) in terms of equitable access, human capacity, and enabling environment

(on the left down). Note the inclusion of "physical access" as one part of the Access component,

indicating that overall this the approach is "contrary to early thinking in the ICT-for-development

field, which assumed that setting up more connectivity infrastructure was enough to bridge the

digital divide, and convergent with other critiques that regard connectivity as only one of the keyelements for digital inclusion." (100) The authors parenthetically make reference to an expanded

full-page chart and explanation "(see more details about the framework in the Methods chapter)"

that provides a summary guide to all ten chapters in the first section describing the Landscape

Study.

Figure 2. Features across all countries by type of public access venue

2 In the peer-reviewed open-access Journal of Community Informatics, Special Issue:Telecentres, Volume 2, Number 3, 2006, at the time when telecentre.org, the peripetatic globalcommunication and support organization that changes its center location on a regular basis, wasat the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada. Telecentre.org, jointlysupported by IDRC, Microsoft and its host country, is currently at www.cict.gov.ph, theInformation and Communications Technology Office in the Department of Science andTechnology, Service Institute, Republic of the Philippines.

8


http://www.idrc.ca/

http://www.cict.gov.ph/



http://www.idrc.ca/




Here, each of the three dimensions of the ACE framework is broken down and deconstructed

into three-four distinct, basic measurable pieces, and note their further analytic deconstruction, as

per the four components of access:

Each of these components is comprised of multiple characteristics. Physical access takesinto account the locations of types of venues, as well as the hours of operation. Offeringuniversal access to different levels of income, providing physical safety, and meetinglocal needs comprise the suitability component of access. Affordability of a type of venuelooks at whether or not the venue is affordable to the majority of the population relativeto income. Availability of technology includes whether or not a type of venue offers ICTservices and connectivity.…The three main components of capacity include: the capacity and digital literacy of staff and how helpful they are to users, the digital literacy of users and if the venue offers ICTtraining, and if the venue provides locally relevant content and services…

As a basic finding involving capacity, what makes cybercafés so key is not only their

overwhelming numbers, it's their staffing. Perhaps somewhat surprising, there's a general rule:

"Across most of the countries, the …capacities in staff in cybercafés tend to rank above staff in

telecenters, and particularly public library staff." Those stated capacities spelled out include "the

most ICT training" and the "ability to help users with the computers." (4, 6) There's a similar

breakdown in the discussion and measurable detail on the environment.

Note that in the report's major orientations, findings, and recommendations coming in chapters

eight and nine it is the staffing and the role of intermediaries and their education that are the

culmination in each summary. In chapter 8, improving user and operator capacity is the final

recommendation for meeting information needs in underserved communities. There's some

extended discussion (p. 77 ff) involving useful advice in dealing with youth, seniors, and women,

places that have special needs for civil rights information, establishing conducive ambiance, peer

and inter-generational support — and that's just on the first of three plus pages.

In chapter 9, "Success Factors for Public Access Computing: Beyond Anecdotes of Success," the

final recommendation and entreaty to "train infomediaries and users" (89-90), to provide "basic

training and know-how… strengthening the training and capacities of librarians and other

operators of public access venues… who help make information resources more meaningful to

9



the local communities, and help bring local knowledge and information resources to the public

access venues" is illustrated, dramatized, and otherwise made vivid by citing a series of

individual country reports:

…In the words of the research team from Bangladesh: Either we have to make [the] whole population literate over-night or we have to develop

some mechanisms to make disadvantaged people immediately access benefit of ICTs. The

research shows that one of such mechanisms is [an] Infomediary deployed in non-urbantelecenters. Infomediary is a human interface between digital content and illiterate or

print-disable[d] people. The research shows, where there is an infomediary the user

profiles are broader including illiterate people. Furthermore, the performance of theinfomediary influences the performance of a telecenter, where such infomediary was

found.

Honduras researchers described ICT training as “elemental” to success. They alsosuggested that the success of cybercafés ought to be passed along to society by taking

responsibility for training the population in the use of ICT, thereby “boosting thecapacities of the individuals and generat[ing] a major communal impact.” Researchers inIndonesia took the call for increased digital literacy a step further, advocating universal,free ICT training for all, especially for underserved populations. The Argentina team pointed out that information literacy training for users should encompass their realinterests and needs in order “to make a real appropriation of ICTs.” Similarly, theEcuador team called for the development of ICT training programs that address the needsof “special groups,” such as “women, illiterates, non-Spanish speakers, and older people.”

Researchers in Georgia extended the call for training to include venue operators, whoshould learn more about searching for health and education information. The Malaysia

research team…

Sometimes the detail is unremarkable and ameliorative.

Along these lines, researchers in Kyrgyzstan noted the need to "renew training andeducation curriculum of the ICT specialists to meet requirements of fast growingindustry." Local businesses could also benefit from training. Indonesia’s teamrecommended that the government should support local e-commerce by training "small tomedium businesses to enable them to upload their products to the Warmasif [telecenter]website."

Sometimes it's somewhat provocative.

…The Moldova team argued that librarians and venue operators should be trained in bothfundraising and grant proposal development in order to acquire more financial support for ICT programs.

Extending the notion beyond the formal role of librarians or telecenter operators,other informal infomediaries play a critical role as well… [and illustrates and builds onthe observation] that "social networks are the foremost source of information of the urban

10



poor" and that the poor [like people generally] tend to believe people they trust rather than perhaps more informed contacts with which they do not have close ties. "[K]eyinformants…people inside, or sometimes outside, a community who are knowledgeablein particular livelihoods aspects, and are willing to share that knowledge" ... help servethe information needs of this underserved population, [through encouraging] involvement

of the poor themselves as equal partners, building on local knowledge, the use of community-based communication methods, and building the capacity of community- based organizations and key individuals within them…

In sum, training …infomediaries …is critical to the success of public access venues…[L]ibraries and telecenters need to start by making sure their staff (librarians andoperators) are digitally literate, and that they can, in turn, help train and support users, particularly those most marginalized and excluded by society... Public access to ICT isnot a single or isolated event, but a system of practices and opportunities that enableunderserved communities to take advantage of the ICT tools to promote empowermentand development. …for libraries, for telecenters, and for cybercafés… they will be all

more successful if they work together. (89-90)

The democratic, community-building dimension of the Study's recommendations comes through

as an integral aspect in places such as these. As Gomez had said earlier in the chapter:

Local communities …need to take ownership of the development of ICT programs andcontent, engaging community members to create practical solutions that improve the livesof individuals in the community. This idea of "social appropriation of ICT" is expressedin different ways across the 25 countries, [all of it tied to] a concept drawn from itsSpanish original, apropiación social … (84)

This leads naturally to "collaboration between networks of libraries, telecenter associations, and

cybercafés [that] can enhance partnerships between these venues within a community, making

public access to ICT stronger and more effective" leading to a wider media and community

service collaboration "with community radio stations, health clinics, community organizations

and government offices, as well as creative uses of mobile phones in combination with public

access venues…similar to models used in other public services" that "are now often provided by

a complex network of partnerships, contracts, and alliances between government agencies,

nonprofit organizations, and businesses, rather than by hierarchical government bureaucracy."

(85-86)

The range of cases cited for infomediary training runs from Bangladesh to Honduras, "boosting

the capacities of the individuals and generat[ing] a major communal impact." The Argentina

11



team pointed out that information literacy training for users should encompass their real interests

and needs in order "to make a real appropriation of ICTs." Similarly, the Ecuador team called for

the development of ICT training programs that address the needs of special groups, singling out

"women, illiterates, non-Spanish speakers, and older people." Researchers in Indonesia,

Georgia, Malaysia, and Kyrgyzstan call for similar actions (88-89).

A final chapter on methodology concludes with a description of how the global Landscape Study

was designed and carried out, the criteria for the country selection, the way the data was

analyzed the data, and some of the limitations of the study.

Focused on "middle of the pyramid" countries with existing public library systems, the country

selection process went through a series of four filters based on demographic data, feasibility and

ranking criteria. It began by reducing the total 237 countries to a subset of 90 by removing

all small countries (populations under one million) as well as countries with the most (China and

India) and countries with the highest per capita income and the lowest Human

Development Index. This number was further reduced by excluding countries where freedom of

expression or political unrest could undermine conducting independent research (down to 74),

focusing on those highest in needs (determined by greater inequality, lower ICT usage, higher

ICT costs) and readiness (government ICT prioritization, adult literacy and school enrollment,

ICT infrastructure development), and then considered tipping points, especially the availability

of country team candidates to conduct the field research, in going from 30 to 25.

The chapter contains more information about the research design, framework, and data

collection, validation, and analysis along with notes on the limitation of this global study and

methodology lessons learned in conducting it.

As to the individual country reports that make up the bulk of the volume, one can turn to any

country analysis for specifics as well as to see how it is integrated into and reflects the broader

framework. As an example, we can look at Brazil which has some reputation for its telecentres.

David Nemer has done much of his field work there; it is the home of the well-regarded Center

for Digital Inclusion, at cdiglobal.org, and its founder Rodrigo Baggio. Recent UN Broadband

12

http://cdiglobal.org/


http://www.broadbandcommission.org/work/documents.aspx






Commission reports have made surprisingly few references to telecentres, though one notable

citation in Broadband: A Platform for Progress (June 2011) singles out the Brazilian

government's effort at making broadband access available to low-income people, specifically the

e-Government Citizens’ Support Service (Governo Eletrônico, Serviço de Atendimento ao

Cidadão, or GESAC) that uses wireless technologies to roll out broadband to poorly served areas

and operates a network of community telecentres that offer Internet access free of charge.

"Through GESAC, the government aims to ensure that all of Brazil’s 5,565 municipalities have

at least one broadband access point… [and] to connect 56,865 state schools nationwide,

benefiting 37.1 million pupils, or 84% of the Brazilian student population." (159) Brazil's

Landscape Study report echoes the citation from the UN Broadband Commission. "The 1995

Lei Geral de Telecomunicações established the National Agency of Communication (ANATEL)

to regulate the Brazilian telecommunication industry, a policy of corporate social responsibility

to extend broadband service to all municipalities, and connect, free of charge, all urban schools."

(145)

There are more than two dozen references to the Brazil report in the first ten chapters, all of them

citations typical of and exemplifying its general findings, with the exception of its large size

serving as a qualification for focusing on a particular region rather than the country as a whole.

It's notable how the Brazilian study itself (chapter 12 in part two, pp. 134-49) self-consciously

builds upon recent digital activity there and means to actively contribute to it. The study team

"coordinated by the internationally recognized Fundação Pensamento Digital, an organization

dedicated to creating and supporting telecenters in partnership with other institutions" and able to

"draw upon preexisting contacts with policy makers, government officials, NGO and community

leaders" — and home of one of the report's co-authors — follows on the heals of a

comprehensive survey on ICT access the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI) conducted

in 2007 that revealed "marked increases in the number of Internet users, computer owners,

broadband connections, cybercafé users, and free access centers over the last year," an increase

due to recent efforts to increase public access to ICTs "as a way to foster its social and economic

development and address widespread poverty and economic inequality… [with] initiatives to

promote ICT access in underserved communities, lower tax rates to reduce computer prices,

increase investments in telecenter and school information technology laboratories…, [and

13


http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Reports/Report_2.pdf


http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Reports/Report_2.pdf



support] an entrepreneur-driven boom in cybercafés." (134-35)

The results of the Brazilian efforts to expand ICT access are clear, but serious capacity gaps

among underserved populations remain. The assessment reads as the general one in the book's

first section, with of a picturesque country overview to localize the picture.

Brazil…the largest and most populated country in South America, …fifth largest andfifth most populated country in the world, with an area of 8.5 million sq km and roughly190 million people, …20% of the world’s biodiversity, …concentrated [inland]…in theAmazon Basin and Pantanal wetland…while, most Brazilians live in urban environments… São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, Belo Horizonte, and the capital, Brasilia.

Brazil is divided geo-politically among 26 states that contain 5,563 municipalitiesdistributed across five regions identified as the North, Northeast, South, Southeast, and

Center-West. Each one of these five regions has a distinctive geography, economicactivity, and culture. (136)

As with the report's general approach, these regions are further detailed, as is its diversified geo-

economy, "rich in natural resources, …timber, fresh water, gold, and iron ore, and… more than

70 million hectares of unused, arable land… up to 30 billion barrels in deepwater oil…reserves."

It's an especially promising time for the country's amalgam of indigenous, European, and African

cultures where "a reduction in birth rate, an increase in life expectancy, …what some

demographers term the demographic 'window of opportunity' in which the economically active

population exceeds that of children and the elderly..." live under a stable democratic republic,

constitutional system, one whose features are further detailed in a manner especially familiar to

those in the US. However:

Brazil’s relatively high per capita income of US$8,446 … contrasts with the terribleincome inequality said to be one of the world’s worst, according to the GINI index. Poor infrastructure, inadequate educational and public health systems, widespread functionalilliteracy …[and] still serious demographic, social, and educational inequities …areexacerbated by the widespread poverty and income inequalities... In particular, the black population is disproportionately poor and suffers more from violent crime, a lack of education, poor health, and unemployment… (139)

"Public Access ICT in Brazil" has its own section. There are national level policies and a

national ICT regulatory framework that supports the expansion of ICT access for the

underserved population. Some states, such as São Paulo and Bahia, have their own digital-

14



inclusion programs. The report notes: "Despite Brazil’s diversity, virtually all Brazilians speak

one language, which greatly facilitates information delivery and the production of locally

relevant content."

Brazil differs from most countries in that the national government has chosen to emphasize

telecenter creation via partnerships as its primary ICT promotion initiative aimed at the

underserved. Brazil has embraced NGO driven social movements and this approach is part of

that orientation. Collaboration among 5,000 libraries, 13,000 telecenters, and 58,000 cybercafés,

can tap into the "natural enticement that computers and the Internet hold for youth." Citing

Manuel Castells and Peter Drucker, among others, the report tells us, "There is an opportunity to

transform this interest into development through increased integration of reading and

appropriation of information into people’s daily lives." The chapter is the only one in the entire book with mention of a perspective found in Castells' massive three-volumes on The Network

Society, the Portuguese edition published in that country at that — A Sociedade em Rede – Era

da Informaçao. Economia, sociedade e Cultura (Vol. 1), São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2001 — it's the

only reference to Drucker as well.

Note the report's language around its recommended Infomediaries training program: "Brazil

needs to create social-change agents out of venue operators who understand their community's

needs, enabling them to also promote reading and information appropriation." They propose a

project that "would aim to create innovative services that engaged the population in ICT-enabled

information development as citizens of an information-based society. The success of the program

would rely on the creation of a new kind of venue operator, or 'community librarian.' Unlike

formally trained librarians, community librarians would likely have educational backgrounds

similar to those of the people they served." (145-46

The recommendation clearly reflects something of the sensibility of that Brazilian educator,

philosopher, and influential theorist of critical pedagogy, Paulo Freire.

* * * * *

Section 3

15



At first glance, Panayiota Tsatsou's Digital Divides in Europe — Culture, Politics and the

Western-Southern Divide (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2011) ought to be an excellent

complement to the Landscape Study. It provides key additional profiles, of Europe in general,

contrasting the key differences between the West and the South, with specific case studies of the

UK in the West, and Portugal and Greece in the South, also providing intra-regional contrasts

there. With a framework that combines the role of socio-cultural and decision-making

parameters in assessing multiple divides, the work shares with Gomez et al another critical

alternative to the simplicities of looking at and developing practices beyond physical access to

computers and Internet connectivity.

Alas, a closer look at first serves more to underline the disconnect between two very different

works and kinds of analyses. While Gomez et al undertook a massive original team research

project of global dimensions, Tsatsou's individual effort, with one notable exception, is focused

on analyzing the existing research and mass of statistics already collected by the Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU-27) Commission,

and the three case countries' national ministries and data centers. While public access venues are

the focus of Gomez et al , neither telecentres nor libraries nor cybercafés are listed in the index to

Digital Divides in Europe, and they are given comparatively scarce attention at all in her text. In

contrast to the Landscape Study, Tsatsou's purpose appears to be meta-methodologically pre-

occupied, that is, almost more concerned with the framework and methodology of how one

approaches digital divides theoretically and conceptually than it does with the divides

themselves. With a beginning chapter on Theory and Conceptual Foundations after the

Introduction, a never-ending stream of statistical tables, the work's culminating chapter, prior to

its summary conclusion, Empirical Analysis, tests the book's thesis on the influence of both

culture and politics via a statistical analysis the European Social Survey Data of 2008, using

logistic regression modeling to explore the role of socio-cultural and decision-making variables

in people's "decisions" about whether or not to adopt the Internet.

Even where regulatory and legislative arenas are explored — and this does take place in great

detail on numerous levels — traditional digital divide and inclusion concerns and public access

16







venue development are but one topic among many in a wide range of telecommunications

policies and practices. Thus, at one of its first basic summary point involving the EU

Commission's 2010 Digital Agenda for Europe, the priority area for raising digital skills,

literacy, and e-inclusion is listed along with single digital market development in copyright,

cross-border licensing, e-signatures, ecommerce, and business services; ICT interoperability and

standards; trust and security combating cybercrime and promoting privacy; developing fast and

ultra-fast Internet access; increasing ICT R&D; and using ICT to address social challenges in

climate change, health care, aging, energy consumption, and transportation (pp. 52-53).

Tsatsou often reads here as if she is avoiding actual policy. "This book takes a sociological

approach to policy and regulation… no specific policy and regulatory domains are explored…"

(9) At points she exhibits something akin to a pedantic researcher's preoccupation with minutiae

for academic's own sake and a value-neutral pose about judgements involving even the most

basic foundations.

"Do digital divides exist?" is one of the first questions Tsatsou tackles. "Since early on, two

camps have marked the research on digital divides: one espousing 'dystopian' views and the

other adopting 'utopian' approaches." One the one hand, the very existence of digital divides has

been denied. That's "a last century anxiety." Other the other hand, the phenomenon grows "and

comes on top of inequalities of income, education, age, gender, ethnicity, and geographical

location"; it's worsening, with multiple dimensions of barriers, foreboding "a new condition of

enslavement." These differences are further entrenched by "empirical studies that apply different

measures or methodologies, thereby producing contrasting findings about the divides." A

"syntopian" combination of these views comes close to Tsatsou's aim, she says. "What is needed

is a synthesis, namely a 'syntopic' conceptualization and contextualization of digital divides, so

that the ambiguity that surrounds them is disclosed." (17-19)

Over and against definitive dichotomies, Tsatsou favors "qualitative nuances," the "various

shades between 'inclusion' and 'exclusion,'" and a criticism of "insufficient conceptualization and

contextualization" of digital divides… in favor of their "complexity, mobility and multi-faceted

character" (20-21), a sensibility and orientation best exemplified in the continuous classification

17



and sub-classification of non-users who are differentiated into self-excluding "intermittent

users," "net dropouts," "net evaders," active "resisters," "passive resisters," the indifferent, and

"informed rejectors" and a more "truly unconnected" of those who are discriminated against and

digitally "excluded," a group/range later categorized as involving "incapable refusers," "self-

conscious indifferents," "the willing but incapable," "skilled ICT lovers with limited access," and

"price sensitive pragmatists." (22, 60) At points the distinctions read as if to say that digital

divide policies are fruitless in so far as a good portion of those on the deficit side are there by

virtue of their own choice and/or it's part of the socio-culture they live in.

In all of this, Tsatsou's work would appear to be an object lesson in just how far digital divide

studies have come in moving away from basic simplicities to a full range of socio-cultural and

policy-specific considerations. The digital divide has become a myriad of digital divides,

deconstructed down to all their constituent socio-cultural and legislative-regulatory-decision-

making components, torn utterly apart and then reassembled to a degree of detail that measures

the value of socio-cultural predictors of Internet use and is statistically significant, as per table

38, where p > .001 (p. 225).

At $60, with little discount available on Amazon, this would seem to be a specialized work

targeted to regulatory and legislative decision-makers and academics. Tsatsou's is not a work for

the faint-of-heart.

* *

To leave it at this, however, is to miss much that is of value in Tsatsou's undertaking. In his

freely-available draft chapter on "The Digital Divide in Europe" for The Handbook of Internet

Politics (2008), Jan van Dijk begins with a number of helpful perspectives on the expression "the

digital divide" — including the strengths and usefulness of the term, an overview of the

distortions it connotes and pitfalls of the metaphor, and his rehabilitated notion of how it can be

most informatively used — and then he notes some of the special difficulties in speaking about

this divide in Europe, because the whole idea of a unified Europe itself belies numerous

fragmentations and divisions. "[I]n the latest Eurobarometer statistics persistent large access gaps

appear between Northern and Southern or Eastern and Western European countries and between

people with different social class, education, age and gender within all these countries."

18

http://www.utwente.nl/gw/mco/bestanden/digitaldivide.pdf





Panayiota Tsatsou's Digital Divides in Europe — Culture, Politics and the Western-Southern

Divide is designed for those who wish to have extended detail about these divides and a critique

of the methodologies and approaches that are used to explain and deal with them.

Although targeted to a specialized audience of scholars and policy wonks rather than a general

one, the introductory chapter and table of contents are freely available on the publisher's site and

provide a useful overview of all eight chapters, of the deconstructive and analytic orientation of

its dual-focused research framework (chapter 2), the main aspects and dimensions of the

Western-Southern divide (3), further specifics about Greece, Portugal, and the UK (4-6), an

overview of the study's Empirical Analysis (7), and Conclusion (8).

"Departing from the theoretical ground of this book, an introduction to the Western-Southern

European divide and its main characteristics is required," Tsatsou tells us at the beginning of

chapter 3, and forthwith we see it as one that's delineated historically and within the broader

centuries-old European cultural divide, one with, as a recent historian's perspective puts it,

echoing van Dijk, "a European core and a European periphery, with the states in the north and

west occupying the core and states in the east and south functioning as the periphery. Envy and

inequality—whether defined in political, economic, social, or cultural terms — seem to describe

contemporary Europe, then, far better than the more familiar terminology of European

integration." (47, 48)

Tsatsou's presentation of the divide — prefaced with a history of the EU commission on

telecommunications policy in a section on "The European information society: policy, national

heterogeneity, the market, and socio-cultural interests" and then with some ruminations on

"Politics juxtaposing society in the EU? Implications for digital divides" — begins in the third

section where we finally get the story, from the EU Commission's third report of 2010,

Commission Staff Working Document, Europe's Digital Competitiveness Reports: ICT Country

Profiles Vol. I : "Sixty per cent of the EU population appears to be regular Internet users,

broadband is available to 94 per cent…, with 56 per cent of households having access to it and

24.8 per cent…using fixed-broadband." Gaps exist, to be sure, across countries and socio-

19

http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vLang=E&vID=430189

http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?vLang=E&vID=430189



demographic groups, and they include what the European Commission calls a "second digital

divide," based on quality of use, with disparate rates of Internet use having a strong regional

dimension. (62-63).

The history core-periphery division informs the European information society and its traits and

the course and divergent pictures of technological development in the West and South of Europe.

We should not be surprised that UK and the West surpass Portugal, Greece, and the South both

in its rate of technology adoption and in its efforts to bridge the digital divide. We perhaps can

even sense this from both socio-cultural and political decision-making contexts that Tsatsou's

analysis makes explicit, though it is less clear from a broad historical perspective why Greece

should score at the bottom in almost all dimensions of technological development and digital

divide efforts. Tsatsou's analysis is most helpful in this regard.

In any case, the Western-Southern divide, exemplified and compared primarily from hereon in

primarily via the three countries, frequently in contrast with EU averages, is detailed across a

range of measurable indicators via OECD and EU Commission reports: infrastructure-related

development (via hosts and web servers by domain, national domain name registrations, DSL

and cable growth); telecommunications revenue growth, public telecommunications investment,

ICT equipment import-export balances. Regarding e-inclusion and indicators relevant to more

traditional digital divides, "recent Commission reports clearly point to continuing problems

countries in the South encounter" in contrast to the pace of development in the North and West,

and here Tsatsou singles out Greece's status as "persistently behind," citing 2008 statistics: 56

per cent having never used the Internet in 2008 (the EU-27 average was 33%) compared to

Portugal at 54%, with the UK at 19%. Broadband take-up in Greece reached only 13.4% of the

population that year; "household connectivity remained low and stood at half the EU-27

average." Portugal lags behind other EU member states, but not as severely; the UK generally

appears to be one of the leading countries in the EU in terms of their i2010 benchmarking

indicators, including the use of available Internet services, especially e-government and e-

commerce. (64-67)

The "striking disparities…are continuing." A longitudinal account (table 3, p. 68) shows the

20



rootedness of these ratings over time, beginning with an "early" history from 2002 and 2006,

displaying an increase everywhere but with the West (UK) being steadily ahead of the South

(Portugal and Greece) and Greece being continuously at the bottom in terms of computer,

Internet, and broadband access:

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

PC Net BB PC Net BB PC Net BB PC Net BB PC Net BB

Greece 25 12 — 19 16 1 19 17 — 33 22 1 37 23 4

Portugal 27 15 — 38 22 8 41 26 12 42 31 20 45 35 24

UK 58 50 — 63 55 11 65 56 16 70 60 32 71 63 44

Table 3. Computer (PC) / Internet (Net) / Broadband (BB) access rates

(% of households) Source: Eurostat (INE, 2006)

These trends are picked up nicely a few pages later (table 8 on p. 71) with specifics on Internet

and broadband access percentages of households from 2006 through 2009, along with EU-27

averages for comparison.

Internet Access (Net) Broadband connection (BB)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Greece 23 25 31 38 4 7 22 33

Portugal 35 40 46 48 24 30 39 46

UK 63 67 71 77 44 57 62 69

EU-27 49 54 60 65 30 42 49 56

Table 8. Internet (Net) / Broadband (BB) access rates (% of households)

Source: Lööf and Seybert, 2009: 2

18 tables in the chapter detail recent and current measurements showing the striking disparities

"that go beyond one-dimensional access and use indicators…[and] confirm the existence of a

Western-Southern gap marked by internal complexities and variations," some of which are quite

sophisticated and have a high degree of complexity as well as measurability. For example,

according to the UN's ICT Diffusion Index (ICTDI) — an average of two measurements,

connectivity (as measured by Internet hosts per capita, and the numbers of computers, telephone

lines and mobile subscribers per capita) and access (number of Internet users, adult literacy rate,

cost of a local call, and GDP per capita) — in 2006 Greece was rated 40th globally with a 0.493

ICTDI; Portugal 34th at 0.526; and the UK tenth at 0.680 (69-70).

21



Many of the indicators, including qualitative patterns of expanding Internet use in areas such as

social networking, online banking, commerce, and government are updated into 2010. And even

though both Greece and Portugal (along with Bulgaria and Romania) generally have the lowest

percentage of Internet users in the EU-27, the difference is not solely numerical. In 2008, the

Greek case was "quite distinctive" because only 17 per cent of non-users lacked access, whereas

in the other three countries more than 30 per cent of non-users lacked access. "This shows that a

lack of access has not been as important in Greece and that about 30 per cent of non-users…

have consciously decided to never or almost never use the Internet." (76) These and related

indicators show even greater disparities among "at risk" groups of those who are older and less

well educated.

In looking at the "drivers" of this divide, it is clear why it becomes useful to distinguish among

the variety of nonusers — they have some useful implications in terms of developing policies

with appropriate case-specific incentives.

As decision-making matters, it is closely linked to its historical context, and here Tsatsou uses

Samuel Huntington's ladder of three waves of democracy to explain something of the history and

character in contrasting her case study countries. Huntington outlines three historical waves of

democratic development and categorizes Portugal and Greece in the latest, in the third wave

democracy model, from 1974 on, specifically in the "second-try" pattern of third wave

democracies, where earlier efforts seeking democratization failed, in contrast to the UK which

was part of "the first wave of democratisation in modern history (1828-1926)," allowing the

development of a different policy model and political culture, one with a longer and more certain

rootedness in democratic traditions. World Bank governance data for 1996-2008 provide useful

documentation and measurable indicators for claims of "successful" democratic government

performance wherein the UK is general demonstrably superior to both Portugal and Greece and

Greece is lowest in rates of political stability, control of corruption, and successful policy- and

regulation-making, all usefully summarized via an effective governance indicators chart (81-83).

As to the social culture in the three countries, Tsatsou's assessment uses Geert Hofstede's

22



analytical framework and classification involving five measurable dimensions useful for cross-

national comparisons — individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance /

strength of social hierarchy, and masculinity-femininity / task versus person-orientation, and

long-term orientation — to hypothesize and help explain the nature and degrees of supportive

and resistant attitudes towards adopting new digital technologies and their usefulness in the

domains of education, labour, health, the economy, government, culture and communication.

Not surprisingly, "[i]t is indicative that Greece is found in the group of EU-27 countries with the

lowest rate of impact of the Internet, Portugal in the group with the next lowest rate of impact

and the UK in the group of countries where the Internet is highly important and impacts

significantly on the above-mentioned domains of people's lives." (93)

In summary, all major ICT and Internet adoption indicators over time, including those focused

on e-inclusion, show a major divide between the south and the west, represented by the UK, and

an almost across-the-board lower rate for Greece than for Portugal in the south. Huntington's

ladder of three waves of democratization and EU-27 and UN measures of governance and policy

models reinforce an assessment of digital divide policy programs and effectiveness on a similar

scale. Hofstede's analytical framework illustrates measurable socio-cultural differences

associated with Internet use and people's perceptions and evaluations of the Internet that are

similarly reinforcing.

* *

The three follow-up case study chapters provide additional detail in similarly-sectioned format

— a brief introduction, followed by an overview of each country's digital divides and ICT

market; a section on its history, social culture and the information society; one on policy and

regulation; and a final reflection on its digital divides in the dual context of its social culture and

decision-making — presumably to assist with comparative analysis, and key differences among

the countries and Tsatsou's approach to them start to emerge, some in unsuspecting ways.

Greece, the first, "widely seen as resistant to information society development given its quite

distinctive cultural and political milieu," as detailed in chapter 4, "slow in the diffusion of

network technologies and services," with a recent history, documented by the Hellenic Statistical

23



Authority (EL.STAT), that "seems to perpetuate this trend of slowness…" is also documented in

a different way. (95-96) Unlike the majority of detailed information that comes from EU

Commission, OECD, and national case study sources, here Tsatsou also uses a number of studies

that she undertook herself, ones that reflect substantial original survey and interview work, "a

survey of 1000 users and nonusers in 2007," a direct reference to "a focus groups of users and

non-users" and "interviews I conducted with elite actors in the Greek information society in

2006." (p 120)

Greece is Tsatsou's home country, and there is a poignancy and lament that one can find in her

assessments here, in its delays in comparison with the broader European context, failures to

comply with mandatory EU regulations and recommendations, delays and failures presented in

the context of "a social culture with a tendency to exhibit little interest in new technology," one

that's "highly reserved and insecure online" to a greater degree than in other countries, "a

dismissive culture," all confirmed by Tsatsou's own surveys, discussion groups, and interviews

with those from the grassroots to the highest level decision makers she is able to access.

Tsatsou does note new developments with the latest Greek Government of the Socialist Party

(PASOK) elected in October 2009 and a month later announcing strategic lines in information

policy for the forthcoming years with its bulleted list:

• access to broadband technologies and communications for all;

• the provision of information of public interest through its digitization and its availability

on digital platforms;

• the completed computerization and digitization of the public sector and the introduction

of open source software especially in education; and

• the transition from software supplies of the public sector to the provision of completed

services.

"However," she goes on, "the latest data available for 2008 show that e-government is serious

lagging behind in Greece as only 7 of the 20 electronic public series that the EU considers

important for e-government have been implemented…" (113-14)

More than the statistics, it is history that underlines the degree of the hardness and durability of

24



technological underdevelopment and digital divide and inclusion trends, and it is here where the

usefulness of Huntington's third wave analysis comes through. Though rightly criticized by

feminists who point out the historical schematization does not work out quite so neatly when one

takes gender disenfranchisement into account, the framework provides Tsatsou with a vehicle to

deftly compact key political historical events and cultural character and identity into two short

paragraphs involving the second try pattern of third wave democratization that took place with

both Southern case studies:

In Portugal, the army-led and personal dictatorship of Salazar and then Marcelo Caetano,'Estado Novo' (1926-74), was terminated by the Carnation Revolution of 25 April 1974and after a period of turmoil and struggle the first post-dictatorial elections followed in1975. Likewise, whereas Greece experienced some democratic operation in the late1940s and early 1950s, this operation was disrupted by a royal coup d'état in 1965 and a

military coup in 1967. The military dictatorship in Greece, the colonels' regime, wasdismantled three months after the end of the dictatorial regime in Portugal. Thus,democracy in Greece recovered in 1974 and quickly, in November the same year, thecountry experienced its first democratically elected government since the 1960s.

Both countries experienced the third wave of democratization under the influence of acomplex set of factors which undermined the former military regimes: the decline of legitimacy of the authoritarian/dictatorial regimes and consequently greater politicalviolence and suppression; economic growth and a subsequent improvement in livingstandards; a rise in social mobilization; pressure form the European Community and other international parties towards democratization (Huntington, 40-108). Further, in the initial

phase of the transition to a democracy and until the mid-1980s both countriesexperienced political unrest, attempts of a transition coup and scenarios of a militaryconspiracy, showing that democratic consolidation was a vision that was far from easy toachieve (Huntington, 237-8). Thus, the recent democracies of Portugal and Greece haveencountered the issue of disillusionment and the challenge of consolidation, whilestriving to create a democratic political culture (Huntington, 253-5).3

If reasons for the selection of Portugal is not as clear as that of Greece, then the treatment of the

UK, the author's adopted homeland, where she is currently a lecturer in Media and

Communication at Swansea University, three hours west of London, clearly reflects the selection

of a benchmark model nation with historical roots that are deep, from the beginning of the

nineteenth century, when there was, simply, "more space for democracy and public policy," more

3 Tsatsou, pp. 80-81. Samuel Huntington, Third Wave Democratization in the Late TwentiethCentury (Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991) — for more on Huntington'sthree waves, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Wave_Democracy andhttps://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/241/Huntington_Third_Wave.pdf .

25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Wave_Democracy


https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/241/Huntington_Third_Wave.pdf


https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/241/Huntington_Third_Wave.pdf



space "than in the rest of Europe at that time," with a market economy and "the big bang of the

industrial revolution" and in contrast to Portugal and Greece, "urbanization [that] took place

early and slowly and in a way that the countryside was not excluded from social and political

developments in the country" — with no identity politics, "no particular ethnic or religious

movements or fractions," only the "successful progress of the liberal and pluralistic model of

democracy," a "demand for independent political participation" along with "economic growth

and proletarianization [that]…increased the stakes of popular politics."

This history was itself "the legacy and conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."

From its civil wars up through the Reform Act of 1822 to the post-war era, the political events

and cultural developments that conspired to lead Great Britain to its particular post-colonial

legacy, multi-cultural version of the Welfare State, one whose "active character of civil society"

and "openness to change, difference and novelty… along with the favourably competitive market

environment in the country…have driven technological development and the early adoption and

penetration of ICTs and the Internet in particular," though it might be noted, perhaps out of

some of Tsatsou's own personal perspective, that the multi-culturalism is not without its

ambivalent attitude concerning immigrants and their "not always unproblematic status and

reception."4

As to "Policy and regulation in the British information society" (187-98), in general, the level of

mobilization of policy-makers to tackle digital exclusion has been "quite impressive," a judgment

confirmed in the European Commission's 2009 report: "No other EU Member State has, so far,

gone as far as the United Kingdom in its political treatment of the eInclusion set of threats and

opportunities." Noting the hundreds of programmes, projects and initiatives, the report singles

out the impact of creating a Cabinet post for Digital Inclusion, a move that also included the

4 Tsatsou, pp. 184-86. References include HJ Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society

(London: Routledge, 2002); RJ Morris, "Civil Society, Subscriber Democracies, andParliamentary Government in Great Britain," in Nancy Bermeo and Philip Nord (eds), Civil Society before Democracy: Lessons from Nineteenth-Century Europe (Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littfield Publishers, Inc., 2000); Charles Tilly, Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Asa Briggs, "The Welfare State in HistoricalPerspective," European Journal of Sociology 2, 1961; and Christian Joppke, Immigration and

the Nation-State: The United States, Germany, and Great Britain (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999).

26



establishment of a Ministerial Digital Inclusion Committee, supported by a Cross-Government

Digital Inclusion Team. The history here, beginning with the launch of the Information Society

Initiative in February 1996, highlights the 2000 UK Online programme to boost universal access

that served as the stimulus for UK Online Centres that not only provided for the expansion of

governmental services online but also access, training, and other services to those with little or

no experience in using computers and the Internet, a programme that covered 84% of deprived

wards of the UK in 2009, with 3500 centres serving two million users, with funding from the

Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills via the Learning and Skills Council,

www.ukonlinecentres.com.

It is here where Tsatsou's approach bears some useful comparison with Gomez et al and the

Landscape Study. When she writes about the 2009 Digital Britain White Paper's "e-inclusionmeasures the authorities of the country are to take in order to fight against the main obstacles to

inclusion: availability (i.e. access), affordability (i.e. cost) and capability (i.e. skills)," this

sounds strikingly analogous to the Landscape Study's Access, Capacity and Environment (ACE)

framework. As she continues:

Through its emphasis on these areas of e-inclusion, the government aims to offer financial and expert support and to mobilize all available resources in order to encounter the main drives of digital exclusion in the country, drivers which have been evaluated by

the authorities and researchers in this domain. This strategy is to take care of mattersconcerning the affordability of digital technologies, the capability to use suchtechnologies and to enforce the relevance of technology to people's lives, following,however, a relatively prescriptive strategy in encountering people's self-exclusion fromdigital communications.

Here it sounds like Tsatsou is identifying her own role as a researcher as well as the

government's as if she were a part of a Landscape team surverying Great Britain, an

identification neatly confirmed by her concluding: "Further, in Digital Britain the government

supports the proposal for a Consortium of Stakeholders which will implement the required

policies for digital participation by bringing key stakeholders and departments together and

achieving greater co-ordination and collaboration." (191) It is the same call for co-ordination

and collaboration as the Landscape researchers', albeit in complementary realms. While the

former focus on telecentres and their common mission and issues with libraries and cybercafés,

Tsatsou focuses on the wider telecommunications context and range of political (as well as

27

http://www.ukonlinecentres.com/

http://www.ukonlinecentres.com/



cultural) issues that informs the UK national treatment of the digital divide and inclusion. If

there is little in Tsatsou that looks at what makes UKonline telecentres effective, the context of

related UK initiatives is clearly a perspective that impacts that effectiveness from other angles

involving such matters as spectrum, broadband availability, and the promotion of next generation

networks.

Tsatsou's account of UK digital divide/inclusion efforts provides numerous examples of models

that are exemplary and informative. Along with having a Digital Inclusion Cabinet Ministry, the

additional appointment of an independent Digital Champion to develop and promote a Digital

Inclusion Charter helps solidify the legitimacy, importance, and public attention given to this

mission. It helps explain the Prime Minister announcement in December 2009, six months later,

of £30 million in additional funding for UK Online Centres in order for one million new people

in the country to go online in the next three years (in mid-January 2013, the counter at

UKonlinecentres.com noted more than 1,050,000 "people have learnt with us since 2010"). And

this was a follow up in support of the National Plan for Digital Participation, to the formal launch

of the Consortium for the Promotion of Digital Participation, with £12 million in funding, to

control the assets of over 50 organisations to get online as many as possible of the 15 million

people not connected and to improve the populations digital skills," a plan that funded low-

income families with children with £300 million for free laptops and a one-year broadband

connection. (192)

These developments and support bear comparison with their analogues in the United States, the

limited Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) stimulus funding, especially in

light of the closing of both the Department of Ed CTC and Department of Commerce

Technology Opportunities Programs.

The history and overview of the UK's independent regulatory authority, the Office of

Telecommunications, or Oftel, established in 1984, provides yet another benchmark, what

Tsatsou calls "high-quality regulation," a judgement echoed by EOCD reports. It, too, merits

comparison with its counterpart in the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),

though in the context of Tsatsou's analysis the comparison is with its analogues in Portugal and

28



Greece, such as they are, ANACOM, the Autoridade Nacional de Comunicações in Portugal,

sometimes referred to as ICP-ANACOM, the latter being the new designation of the Instituto das

Comunicações de Portugal, after the publication of the new statutes in January 2002, and in

Greece, the National Telecommunications Commission, supervised by the Minister of

Transportation and Communications and renamed the National Commission for

Telecommunications and Post Commission in 1999, the Ministry itself transformed in 2009 into

the Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks. (113,116) The key interplay of all of

them is with the EU Commissions, whose history is provided at the beginning of chapter 3

(48ff). All of these dimensions reflect the complexity of the political-regulatory contexts of

dealing with telecentres and CTCs and other public access venues.

In concluding her treatment of the UK, in the final section (199-206) Tsatsou shows that, despite

the high regard for her adopted homeland, the UK is not without its critics and difficulties and

her own stance in this regard is pointed. She strings together a series of references expressing an

assessment that

…communications policy in the UK lacks a democratic element with marketisationcreating imbalances in resources and influence between public and private interests in policy-making that threaten the pluralist principles of competition, transparency,accountability and scientific values.

From a bottom-up perspective, there seems to be a problem of self-efficacy andinstitutional legitimacy of media regulation in the country, with ordinary people lackingtrust and a sense of participation…

Tsatsou called this "quite ironic," continuing the quote:

as there is '…a disconnect between how the public feel they are represented or communicated with and regulators' claim to have become more open and "public-facing."'This disconnect is also confirmed by what the country's policy and regulatory authoritiesthemselves report, as they admit they do not seriously consider the input offered through public participation and engagement activities such as public consultations.5

Although Tsatsou counts as positive the establishment of a Consumer Panel to advise and assist

5 Tsatsou p. 203. References here include Des Freedman, The Politics of Media Policy

(Cambridge, UK / Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2008); Peter Lunt et al , Public Understanding of

regimes of risk regulation: A report on focus group discussion with citizens and consumers(London, UK: Public Understanding of Regimes of Risk Regulation Project, 2008); StephenColeman and Jay Blumler, The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and

Policy (Cambridge, Eng: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

29



Ofcom and to represent and protect consumer interests, (195) she's also critical about the market-

oriented character of communication regulation in the country, "unclear definitive approaches to

the term 'citizen,'" that have "led some to argue that citizens and the public interest in the UK are

identified with the market and consumer interests." (204)

It's not just the quotes and citations from Sonia Livingstone, Peter Lunt, and Laura Miller,

"Citizens, consumers and the citizen-consumer: Articulating the citizen interest in media and

communications regulations" ( Discourse & Communication, I, 2007). Tsatsou had dwelt on this

earlier.

At the beginning discussion of the Western-Southern Divide in Europe, in the historical

overview of the European Commission's dealing with telecommunications matters Tsatsou

references a key Directive "to provide universal access to telecoms services and privacy

protection for all 'consumers.'" She puts "consumers" in quotes and comments on it as follows:

[T]he 'Citizens' Rights' Directive (Directive 2009/136/36), which claims to ensureuniversal access to telecoms services and privacy protection for all 'consumers,' has onlya seemingly civic and socially accountable character. That is because it refers to'consumers' instead of 'citizens,' obviously supporting the interests of ordinary people inthe information society on the grounds of how those interests are defined by market players and emerging technological challenges. At the same time, this directive does notaddress the ways in which possible conflicts between the interests of citizens and themarket might be resolved, thus offering a false picture of a balance between civic andmarket interest in digital communications. (55)

As she puts towards the conclusion of her assessment of UK policy, to think that a focus on

"consumers" can provide a corrective to the limits of market-driven solutions obscures the nature

and role of citizenship and "does not offer citizens a route to represent themselves directly."

(204)

The Digital Inclusion Team has its own criticisms in its 2007 report, about programme

fragmentation, lack of visibility, "a wide knowledge gap between social policy teams and

technology experts in their joint efforts to fight social and digital exclusion" with digital goals

often dissociated from social inclusion and welfare ones, barriers to scaling up and repeating

successful initiatives by and large related to funding limitations, and the need to be more

30



integrated, collaborative and well-focused. Tsatsou ends the final section on a critical note that

"the government does not seem to have sufficiently problematised the role of digital technologies

in people's lives…" (206)

In the end, Panayiota Tsatsou's view of the landscape is monumental. If it is not strategically

focused on the public access venues that are the key institutions for addressing traditional digital

divides and lead the effort towards greater inclusion, it does provide a map and guide to all the

socio-cultural and political decision-making dimensions that have important bearing and it does

so with an historical richness and depth that justifies all the capitals in her fully titled Digital

Divides in Europe: Culture, Politics and the Western-Southern Divide, if only in its vision and

sense of possibility if not entirely in its execution.

There is a common sense sensibility to Tsatsou's analysis. She begins with the OECD's

definition from its 2001 Understanding the Digital Divide is: "the gap between individuals,

households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both

to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their

use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities." From there, she comments matter-of-factly

"this phenomenon has many facets; there are 'interlocking' divides. These 'interlocking' divides

go beyond the access to and usage of technology, while their nature, scope and importance are

evolving along with the social, economic and political conditions in which technology is

designed, developed and consumed. (p. 2) From there, it's an intuitive, common-sense

appreciation for a dualistic approach that "a complex set of social cultures with their gaps and

disparities, as well as policy and regulatory mindsets and practices are in a constant dialogue

with technology, influencing digital inclusion and participation." (2, 6)

What may look like a preoccupation with methodology and statistics, deconstructivism and

regression analysis can be seen as an attempt to codify this common sense. Whatever the reality

of disassembling, deconstructionist regression analysis, it can surely be a useful tool, especially

if its use is tempered by an historical grasp of Culture and Politics and a commitment to our roles

— and identities — as citizens more than as consumers.

31



The potential for using a mastery of statistical detail — not only about decision-making policy

and regulation but also a broad range of social and cultural attitudes involving technophobia,

social tolerance, openness to change, and spending time outdoors — in the service of case-

specific digital divide and inclusion policy-making is clearly demonstrable. Tsatsou can surely

be considered a valuable member of the Landscape Study team.

* * * * *

Section 4

In Nemer's "Literature Review on Digital Inclusion and Digital Divide," after he summarizes for

of the features and perspectives of "digital inclusion" as it came to replace the earlier preferences

for addressing the problems of the digital divide, he quite emphatically tells us that "digital

inclusion" itself suffers from its own confusions and misunderstandings, he even intimates

without coming right out and saying so, that yet another "wave" or "level" of research and

practice has started to emerge. However that may be, Nemer's discussion and description after

this take up the largest section of his review. In the remaining four plus pages before the

bibliography, in what looks as if it constitutes a discrete section unto itself, he struggles to

define, describe, convey and otherwise provide a guide for what could be lumped together as a

third wave of research and criticism — as well as practice — one that moves beyond the bounds

of his review's title into a world of digital emancipation, Freirean popular education and practice,

what Gomez referred to as apropiación social , digital integration, appropriation, liberation.

Make no mistake, just as the concept of digital inclusion stands as a critique of the concept of the

digital divide, so Nemer's discussion picks up with an extended critique of digital inclusion, a

"term …often …used, particularly by international organizations and the public sector, as a

jargon in appealing and populist policies, … a new and dazzling solution for almost all gaps in

contemporary society," one that itself, though still very new, has become "a dogma," one that is

"the happiness of companies, NGOs and tech companies which are going to sell us, under this

ideology, more and more 'technological toys." (3)

If digital inclusion is difficult to grasp and express in contrast to the digital divide, the difficulties

32



in grasping and expressing new stage / level / wave three are even more so. And the political and

educational challenges are even more daunting. One can see this in the very language itself that

Nemer uses to describe what may be a post-inclusion phase, sometimes both awkward and

rhetorical, in contrast to the summaries and descriptions of the first and second waves. A close

look suggests that English is not Nemer's native language, though the problem is not a lack of

mastery on Nemer's part in this regard. For we are now in a place where actors talk about seizing

"critical and constructive senses" that "enhance interactions and possibilities of the marginalized

people to engage participative and actively in current sociotechnical dynamics, and afford new

social realities," and, going on, with a translated quote from the Program of Socio-Digital

Inclusion in Brazil, that encourages "the appropriation of technology and development of people

in the most different aspects, stimulate job creation and income, and promote quality of life for

families, provide greater social freedom, encourage the construction and maintenance of an

active society, educated and entrepreneurial." It's not just Kok and Bonilla and the other

references that take flight into the stratosphere where "new forms of citizenship, aimed at

transforming the existing social reality, [that] should set up a practice of human liberation that

allows human beings to recognize themselves as subjects of rights, participating in society." The

flight of fancy in this section is most understandable, for the dilemma of how public policy

escapes the hegemonic culture in which it is embedded is grappled with first in thought and

vision. Nemer's struggles reflect the enormity of the difficulties in coming to grips with grasping

a new stage and the seriousness of his efforts to do so.

As a distinct stage, this third wave post-digital inclusion theory and practice merits a look at its

Venn diagram-like overlap with the efforts of the Third Wave Study Group

(thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com) and CyRev (www.net4dem.org/cyrev), their "Journal of

Cybernetic Revolution, Sustainable Socialism, and Radical Democracy." The Third Wave here is

Alvin (and Heidi) Toffler's technological one, the wave that succeeded the agricultural and

industrial ones. The perspective the Study Group provides is a reformulation of Marxism that

incorporates this development as a radical and primary transformation rather than an

epiphenomenal one.

As exemplified by the Third Wave Study Group, begun in the early-mid 1990's and other work

33

http://thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com/

http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/

http://thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com/

http://www.net4dem.org/cyrev/



from an even earlier period, it's worth noting that the development of these levels may not be so

much historical as conceptual. Even in the earliest heyday years of the digital divide, there were

advocates, researchers, practitioners, and activists who helped pioneer research and practice in

the liberating contributions of emerging technology.

In any case, the three final recent works under review provide useful perspective on "third wave"

research and practice and can contribute to clarifying and contributing to it. Especially as the

framework becomes complex and difficult to express conceptually, these works helpfully

provide stories and examples about telecentres and CTCs that make vivid precisely the kind of

vision Nemer is struggling to give expression to, a struggles that studies involving the Native

American Pala Learning Center in San Diego County, the homeless women's project at the Troy-

Cohoes YWCA in upstate New York, and the CTC at the Harrison Plaza Public Housing

Development in North Philadelphia vividly illustrate.

Recent works by Christian Sandvig, Virginia Eubanks, and Melissa Gilbert and Michele Masucci

— each freely available in some relevant version (as per their initial listings) — provide quite

striking examples of the liberating possibilities of CTCs and their role in the wider world of

technology's potential role in democratic transformation. They do so by providing self-

consciously critical perspectives on the field of community technology, community informatics,

and related academic disciplines and their own participative methodologies. What follows is a

summary of their contributions.

* * *

Section 5

The Pala Learning Center (PLC) in Pala, California, is notable here for its role in the

development of the Tribal Digital Village (TDV), a solar wireless Internet distribution network

that serves Indian lands in San Diego County and is the subject of Sandvig's essay on

"Connection at Ewiiaapaayp Mountain: Indigenous Internet Infrastructure." As Sandvig tells us,

Over nine years the TDV grew from a connection to just one computer lab (the PalaLearning Center…) to serve about 1,500 users on seventeen Indian reservations. It began

34



as a way to provide service to government buildings (libraries, schools, fire stations,tribal offices, and community centers), as offering service to a central point in eachcommunity is common strategy for many broadband or Internet projects where resourcesare scare… Almost ten years later, a major problem for the network is now that it cannotgrow fast enough to accommodate the many demands for new services on reservation

lands. (176-77)

The PLC's centrality is, from its role at the beginning, in providing a foundation for the

experience of the first users.

The TDV started by offering service to tribal government offices in part so that the firstusers would be the tribal leaders, who could then act as emissaries for the service toothers. At the beginning of the TDV there was already a small population of Internetusers on reservation lands using dial-up (as at the Pala Learning Center), and these wereusually people with tribal government jobs related to education or administration. The

government workers, then, were sometimes the easiest to convince as they were alreadyusers. After the TDV provided broadband service to community centers and government buildings the network builders hoped to expand the network... (177)

If it weren't for the Pala Learning Center and its one computer lab, there would have been no

base of experience to build upon, no institutional founding for possibilities to spread to other

Cupeños Native Americans to experience the possibilities of Internet technology. There would

have been no need nor occasion for Joseph, Michael, and Matt's heroic story of raising seven-

story towers on dangerous mountaintops, subject to winds — the legendary Santa Anas — with

key pieces of safety equipment missing, little guidance and formal technical knowledge

available, and a lot of trial-and-error development; no need nor occasion to erect sheds filled

wall-to-wall with rows of car batteries connected to solar arrays, surrounded by chain-link

fencing to keep out the wild burros that'll chew anything, in some cases building roads to the

peaks to do all this, subject to mudslides, rockfalls, washouts and wildfires.

What also contributes to making the story special is Sandvig's telling of it, beginning not with

some long-ago forced Indian migration from the 19 th century, but from a later one in the 20th

century, a story updating the extent and rootedness of poverty, racial prejudice, and

discrimination extending right up to the present telecommunications chapter about access and

use in areas where even basic telephone service is a rarity. Omitting the references, Sandvig tells

us:

35



By many measures, American Indians are the most economically disadvantaged group inAmerica…the least likely group to be employed, the least likely to hold a professionaloccupation if they are employed, the least likely to work in a technology-related field,and the most likely to be below the poverty line.

In 2000, the tribal governments in San Diego County estimated the overall high

school graduation rate on San Diego area reservations at 15 percent and unemployment at50 percent, and noted that 75 percent of primary school students qualify for free or reduced-cost school lunch programs (a common measure of poverty). (170)

About 50,000 Indians live in the region, 8,000 on the reservations. San Diego County has more

distinct federally recognized Indian reservations than any other county in the US, over 350,000

acres of wildly different terrains, their common feature being that they are "lands that no one

white wanted." Economics conspires with geography so there is little incentive for corporate

telecommunications providers to implement even basic telephone service; legal and institutional

impediments reinforce geographic, demographic, and financial ones.

In this challenging context that Sandvig impressively presents the TDV evolved from an

experimental academic project to an ongoing public service one, begun with the serendipitous

intervention of research scientist Hans-Werner Braun of the San Diego Supercomputer Center at

the University of California, San Diego, the university/tribal partnership followed by the "Tribal

Digital Village," as per the title of the successful $5 million grant proposal to Hewlett-Packard to

develop the network, and now exists as a government project of the Southern California Tribal

Chairmen’s Association, a federation of nineteen tribes, where just getting this many tribes to do

anything together is a capital achievement.

Although the current home page for the Palas Learning Center reflects a remarkable range of

programs and services, Sandvig is at some pains to underline the ordinary, average use of both

the CTC and the TDV itself, pointing out how grants and public funding distract attention from

this being the case and how the heroic appropriation of technology here can actually best be

viewed as "appropriation toward parity," undertaken primarily by most Indians so they can use it

as a matter of course in everyday life just like everyone else, e.g., email, social media (MySpace

seems to be the venue of choice here), and on-line gaming. And, surprisingly, even for those on

the front lines of the creation of the TDV, in retrospect, they'd have preferred its construction to

have been done with others in the usual way without their help and, despite the status of a

36

http://www.palatribe.com/programs/pala-learning-center-1

http://www.palatribe.com/programs/pala-learning-center-1



number of them as network engineers and managers — their advanced experience especially

appreciated by the likes of Werner Braun at the UC San Diego Supercomputer Center — "no

jobs like that exist anywhere near the reservations… Work in the casinos as a valet is the bottom

rung of a defined career path. In contrast, a computing job is a dead end. (190)"

Sandvig concludes with a number of related insights involving the meaning of technological

appropriation in Indian country, including its provocative challenge to what is frequently taken to

be universal technological liberation, and a self-consciousness about his methodology and his

own role as a researcher, points that underline why his is a "third wave" research effort.

Despite the urge towards "appropriation towards parity," Indians involved in the technological

world suffer discrimination and oppression in both simple and complex ways. Sandvig cites the

example of "The Oregon Trail," the widely-popular game in which schoolchildren play the role

of white settlers colonizing the West in a manner that is quite alarming to Native users. The more

far-reaching example is the manner in which technology use among members of an indigenous

community challenges what is often celebrated as technology's potential for universal liberation.

For insofar as that universality is associated with placelessness and anonymity, the "state of

indigeneity, in contrast, is a continual assertion of place and an affirmation of identity," and

technological accessibility can be an attack on the community's foundations rather than a road to

its enhancement and liberation.

As Sandvig points out, one persistent common goal of well-intentioned researchers is to organize

indigenous knowledge for its preservation and broad dissemination. Networked communication

"condones equal and immediate access to information by all," but, citing one of the many

references he taps into for his discussion here, "this is antithetical to the social transmission of

morally sanctioned tribal knowledge" because it bypasses and undercuts tribal elders in their key

role as the community's teachers and guides. "In other words, promiscuous connection is the

problem, not the goal." Sandvig cites other critics concerned about the perspective of the tribes

and that its elders continue to act as gatekeepers of traditional knowledge including one, whose

emphatic conclusion is the title of his article: "until its universalistic and individualistic

foundation is restructured to incorporate spatial, spiritual, and experiential dimensions that

37



particularize its application, cyberspace is no place for tribalism." Sandvig goes on: "It could be

easy to see this concern as exotic (or even as backwards or primitive), but reflecting on other

nations quickly shows it to be quite common." And he cites legal restrictions developed in

France, Hungary, South Korea, Italy, and Spain to ensure that domestic language and culture are

not lost in a sea of universal accessibility.6

Sandvig does all this very self-consciously and ends with an appended "Note on Method" for all

third wave researchers to be guided by: "learning from and with Indians is a serious challenge

with unique problems and obligations." (195, emphasis added)

* * * * *

Section 6

The treatment of the Homeless Women's Technology Education Project at the Troy-Cohoes

YWCA in upstate New York, the center of Virginia Eubanks' article and book (I critique here

primarily the former), like Sandvig's analysis, places the CTC at a critical point in a major

informative community technology effort and the development of an impressive historical and

critical perspective — and here the CTC program itself is as significant a model of third wave

liberation as the wider lessons it points to.

As to the wider lessons, Eubanks' presentation begins with a helpful overview of the history of

federal digital divide programs that leads to an explication of the limitations of the "digital

divide" perspective itself insofar as it relies upon a deficit model of have-nots, a critique that's

based upon the insights of 90 highly resourceful women living in transitional circumstances, and

ends with a presentation on how an over-reliance on the "distributive paradigm" in thinking

about bridging the digital divide has unnecessarily restricted the scope of possible solutions and

approaches.

As to the historical overview Eubanks credits Lloyd Morrisett, founder of the Sesame Street

Workshop and then-president of the Markle Foundation, with inventing the term the "Digital

6 Sandvig, p. 179; quoting Craig Howe, "Cyberspace is No Place for Tribalism," Wicazo sa

Review, 1998: 13.2, pp. 23-24.

38



Divide" in 1996 to describe the chasm that purportedly separates "information haves" from

"information have-nots" — and then the Department of Commerce's National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) series of "Falling Through the

Net" reports where, beginning with the second one (1998), the "Digital Divide" became

incorporate into the titles, and where the third report, "Falling Through the Net: Defining the

Digital Divide," created the most public alarm and, with leadership from the Clinton-Gore

administration, activated policy-makers to establish a series of programs, supported by a wide

range of publications and research to clarify what was needed. Eubanks offers some helpful

summaries and a good bibliography for key second wave digital divide work undertaken from

1998-2003, that overlaps and complements the analysis already provided. Her summary covers

issues such as the production of relevant, useful, appropriate, and affordable content; language

and literacy barriers; effective use of information; the role of the user as a producer rather than a

passive consumer; infrastructure; community control; and program sustainability (Besser 2001;

Children’s Partnership 2002; Servon 2002; Wilhelm et al 2002). Some analysts (Mack 2001;

Mossberger et al 2003; Norris 2001) argue that technological inequities followed and reinforced

social and economic stratification that already existed — and are worsening — and that they are

responding and contributing to other kinds of "divides," naming the democratic divide, the global

divide, the information divide, the opportunity divide, the racial divide, and the social divide

among them.

The Bush administration began to call for the elimination of funding for critical digital

opportunity programs in 2002, despite the digital divide remaining a verifiably significant

problem and former federal CTC Director Norris Dickard's report, "Federal Retrenchment on the

Digital Divide: Potential National Impact," showing that community technology investments

were beginning to pay off. National funding to bridge the digital divide had peaked in 2001 when

the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) in the Department of Commerce received $42.5

million and the Community Technology Centers Program in the Department of Education

received $65 million. In Bush’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, both programs were slated for

elimination though HUD’s Neighborhood Networks program to establish CTCs in subsidized

developments was kept, at $20 million.

39

http://www.benton.org/publibrary/policybriefs/brief01.html







Despite the growth of second wave digital divide analysss and practices that extended "access"

beyond the physical infrastructure, Eubanks underlines how the commodity focus of many

efforts (putting hardware and connectivity into schools without teacher training or software

support under the federal government's most extensive financial initiative, the E*Rate program,

for example) undermines our ability to see public needs in a clear light. "Even NGOs

occasionally fell prey to the commodity-focus of digital divide understandings, …focusing on

technological fixes. Our myopic commitment to the organizing concept of 'access' has left us

unable to articulate high-tech equity issues that are not distributive in nature." She thus sets the

stage for the women in Troy-Cohoes.

Their experience begins with an unusual though pivotal introduction to the computer, "How

Does the D@mn Thing Work?" loosely structured around the demolition of an unusable donated

computer, "an act of resistance, of rebelling against the tyranny of the box itself (and of the

institutions it represents and enables)…, a marker of women taking power back from a symbol of

the system."

Low-income women disproportionately experience the negative impacts of technology. The

mismatch they experience between the stories they hear about the potential for ICT to change

their lives for the better and their disproportionate experience of its negative effects creates

critical ambivalence, what Eubanks labels "a sign of incipient analysis." Rather than being

“information poor” in any simple way, participants in popular technology education programs at

the YWCA had copious direct experience with large-scale bureaucratic IT systems and provided

extremely articulate and astute critiques of the ways that ICT is deployed within the social

service system to limit their dignity, freedom, and opportunities.

"Critical ambivalence" is used here as a part of an emergent critical theory of technology that

popular technology education is intended to unleash, "by finding 'tipping points' that can guide

development and design out of its 'suspension between possibilities' and towards social justice."

Given the opportunity to express and explore their (well-founded) negative uneasiness about

technology, the women in the YWCA community were all the more liberated to explore its more

positive possibilities and "showed remarkable perseverance when trying to access ICT tools, and

40



even some optimism describing the possibilities of technological change." Eubanks offers an

extended presentation of the participants' alternatives to the deficit model implied in most talk

about bridging the digital divide, with not only the verbal articulations of the program

participants but with the sketches and graphic presentations they provided. The graphics in the

article are superior to the ones in the book in that they are in color, overlaying and modifying the

black cliff ledges separated by a chasm typically reflected in the idea of the digital divide, thus

challenging its presuppositions visually as well as conceptually. "Technology for people" is

different from universal access to existing computer systems, as one woman argued. It mixes

systems "designed by women, for everybody" with educational programs that combine

practical/functional goals with technology skills training in order to increase people’s well-being

financially, emotionally, socially, and intellectually, and leads to a very different pictorial

representation indeed, as the following sketch shows.

Figure 2: A copy of Ruth Delgado Gutzman’s re-articulation of the Digital Divide,

atop Virginia's Eubanks sketch of the traditional model

Eubanks and the women in the program demonstrate how the concept of a digital divide to be

bridged over not only underestimates the skills and resources of the people on the "deficit" side,

it also distorts the very qualities of networked communication that can make it a powerful tool

for social change: its flexibility, its openness, and its ability to connect people to people. And

beyond offering one of the most powerful critiques of the "digital divide" that contributed

41



definitively to its loss of favor as a descriptive summary expression of the problem, Eubanks'

analysis also presents a powerful critique of what happens when "distributive" becomes the sole

or primary descriptive in defining the meaning of justice.

Social movements' calls for justice frequently include many concerns that are not of a

distributive nature — demands to be free of cultural imperialism, to work in safe and fulfilling

environments, and to end gender-based violence. Eubanks reminds us that a focus on the

distribution of material goods and resources inappropriately restricts the scope of justice. It fails

to scrutinize social structure and institutional contexts — like decision-making procedures, the

sexual division of labor, and culture; it presupposes social atomism and self-interest, or

possessive individualism; it misrepresents nonmaterial goods and resources — like power, self-

respect, rights and opportunity – those things that, like citizenship, are learned and practiced in

relationship with others in the context of specific institutions, that are relational practices, not

possessions.

The distributive paradigm in ICT policy and practice acts to restrict the scope of the high-tech

equity agenda. It relies on a deficit orientation that under-estimates the considerable resources,

skills, and experiences of low-income communities to interact with, design and produce "popular

technologies" rather than being passive recipients of elite-produced technology tools. It

underestimates the considerable (but often negative) interaction low-income women already have

with technology at work and in their everyday lives. It obscures the operation of powerful

institutions like the criminal justice system, the social service system, and the low-wage

workplace to structure women’s relationship to ICT. It privatizes and individualizes digital

equity issues, limiting opportunities for social mobilization. These limitations have left digital

equity programs unable to counter the free-market enthusiasm of conservative critics. The over-

reliance on the distributive paradigm by policy makers and organizers alike is at the heart of

contemporary U.S. public policy’s inability to articulate technological citizenship as if low-

income women mattered.

Eubanks gives us a clear presentation of this perspective and why it matters.

42



* * * * *

Section 7

The final community technology center of note, the CTC at the Harrison Plaza Public Housing

Development in Philadelphia, is the institutional focus in the middle of three case studies that

Melissa Gilbert and Michele Masucci were all actively involved with and analyze in their book

Information and Communication Technology Geographies: Strategies for Bridging the Digital

Divide. Culminating 14 years of research, Gilbert & Masucci's work covers a sequence of

community action projects undertaken by the authors and their Temple University Geography

Department that begins with the development of an economic human rights database with the

Kensington Welfare Rights Union, moves to the establishment of the Harrison Plaza CTC, and

concludes with an evaluation of health outcomes associated with the use of telemedicine

communication protocols implemented through the Temple collaborative Women’s Heart Health

and Telemedicine program.

Gilbert & Masucci embed their work in the content of several major streams of critical literature,

integrating traditional digital divide/digital inclusion research with critical geographic

information systems (GIS), feminist geography, and welfare reform history. In their

Introduction, "Reframing the Digital Divide from the Perspectives of the 'Have Nots,'" the

authors here provide a beyond-physical-access historical perspective, much like Nemer and

Eubanks, with its own variation, beginning with a large group of scholars and researchers who

point to "the need to move beyond the characterizations of technology infrastructure access

provided by the NTIA reports," led by Lisa Servon's classic Beyond the Digital Divide:

Technology, Community, and Public Policy (NY: Wiley and Sons, 2002): "Servon (2002) was

among the first scholars to emphasize the importance of establishing policies that connect the

need to overcome physical accessibility barriers – like the lack of computers in the home – with

overcoming social capital barriers to the use of the Internet – like the lack of skills and self-

efficacy with respect to computers. Other scholars quickly followed suit…" (10)

The pathway to effective skills acquisition and ICT use, they find, rests upon a combination of

technology training and experiences, a combination where social networks are the main

43



contextual consideration needing to be appreciated "for a better understanding of how poor

individuals construct the use of ICTs in their daily lives." They cite other researchers in "calling

for academicians and community partners involved in designing technology opportunity

programs to provide greater variety in learning experiences … that emphasizes the aims and

directions of the technology 'have nots' on their own terms." Critical geography emphasizes the

connection of the problems of accessibility with the spatiality of daily life, how daily life is

embedded in particular places, and the embeddedness of ICTs in everyday life; feminist

geography literature focuses on the need to learn more about the multiplicity of women’s

experiences and perspectives as a basis for "praxis" based policy solutions. (40-41)

As to the landscape of their North Philadelphia action research area and the informing

demographic and policy contexts (chapter 3), by the middle of the first decade of the new

millennium, Philadelphia, with comparatively high levels of poverty and low uses of effective

technology usage, started to emerge as a leader in implementing digital inclusion policies

through advancing a public agenda of launching a municipal Wi-Fi system, Wireless

Philadelphia, coupled with low or no-cost computers and training on how to use the systems and

the Internet, doing so specifically so its impacted communities could to access and make use of

the city’s municipal and educational information resources.

Recent U.S. Census figures show: Philadelphia has a majority of racialized minorities among its

population of 1.5 million, 43 percent African American, 11 percent of Hispanic or Latino origin

(2007). The city's poverty rate was 21.1 percent compared to the national average of 13.2

percent (2008), 34.2 percent for all children under the age of 18, compared to the 18 percent

nationally (2007). In North Philadelphia, in the zip code areas immediately surrounding Temple

University where the research was targetted (19121, 22, 32, 33) – the population totals almost

100,000, of which 70 percent are African American and 24 percent are Hispanic, 41 percent live

below the poverty line, and unemployment ranges from 48-62 percent (2011). (52-55)

In the 90's when the project began, Pennsylvania had the third largest welfare caseloads in the

country behind California and New York. The local implementation of national welfare reform

defined the point of departure.

44



The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996fundamentally reshaped the welfare system as it had been known in the U.S. over the previous 30 years by eliminating the federal guarantee of cash assistance to poor people.It established a program called Temporary Assistance to Need Families (TANF) that

provided a block grant to the states with conditions for individual recipients that includedstringent work requirements in exchange for time-limited assistance. (56)

The three stages of welfare reform each required work component implementation. Many of the

women with whom Gilbert & Masucci worked stressed the importance of gaining access to ICTs

as a fundamental beginning point for improving their marketability as workers. The programs

they created with their partners, beginning in the late 1990s, were shaped by TANF

implementation as well as the national policy debate on the dimensions of the digital divide and

how to overcome it. Their work across the three projects focused specifically on providing

technology training as a key component of their social action methodology.

They first collaborated with the Kensington Welfare Rights Union (KWRU) to create a service

learning course to produce an intranet system to disseminate testimonials provided by poor

people from across the country to raise awareness about economic human rights violations and

contest welfare system changes being implemented. They worked with KWRU to obtain

equipment and provide training that would them to use the clickable, HTML-based system they

helped design specifically for the occasion. As they summarized it from their previous report:

We worked with KWRU members to develop a filing system, database, and intranet touse internally to illustrate the information for people with limited literacy. Our collaborative goal was to develop a geographically indexed database that could beupdated and used by people without computer or even basic literacy skills. In order toensure that members of KWRU could use the database, we developed software interfacesthat used geovisualization techniques such as clickable maps and geographically indexedinformation as a means of accessing testimonial records. (80)

It's notable that KWRU's role here is connected to its long history of activism and leadership

related to welfare rights, a role whose national prominence extends up to the present. Cheri

Honkala, their executive director, a former homeless mother and welfare recipient, is the co-

president of the National Welfare Rights Union. There's a published biography of her by a

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, David Zucchino, The Myth of the Welfare Queen (NY:

Touchstone, 1997); she's featured in the film Poverty Outlaw (Yates and Kinoy, 1997,

45



www.skylightpictures.com); she was Jill Stein's Vice Presidential candidate on the Green Party

ticket in this last election (http://economichumanrights.org/206).

The information system Gilbert & Masucci helped them develop was presented at the national

Poor People's Summit held in Philadelphia in October 1998 and featured at an international

workshop organized collaboratively with KWRU aimed at identifying a framework for

information technology use for economic human rights and environmental justice efforts.

Alas, when KWRU overstepped privacy boundaries, the project dissolved. Fraught with class,

gender, and racial tensions to begin with, the differing goals and orientations between university

faculty committed to preserve the privacy of those who provided testimonials and KWRU

members driven primarily by publicity goals became part of a broader disagreement that erupted

over stresses that were built in from the beginning as they were collaborating with and training

poor people to do the ICT work they would in the end own and control. "Once the testimonial

information was publicly released, we opted to discontinue our collaboration with the

organization as representatives of our institution." (87)

Nonetheless, as a result of that work, Gilbert & Masucci were invited by the Tenants Association

at the Harrison Plaza public housing development just a few blocks from Temple University to

develop a university-community collaboration that created a community technology center

(CTC) and the framework for a set of educational programs. The CTC was designed to support

poor women, open to the 3,000 residents as well as 10,000 in the surrounding area, involved in

the transition from welfare-to-work through providing an integrated combination of educational

programs related to basic, technological, and employment skills, a model that, ten years later,

Gilbert & Masucci tell us, "is being implemented on a much larger scale in poor neighborhoods

across Philadelphia" and that they associate with the $6.4 million the city received in federal

stimulus funds from the Recovery Act (see the City's wordpress blog for July 2012), albeit "these

new investments may recreate the problems we experienced while setting up the CTC at

Harrison Plaza and later, nearby locations." (93-94)

CTCs in HUD-supported housing, whether it be public or subsidized housing, are among the

46

http://www.skylightpictures.com/

http://economichumanrights.org/206

http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/city-of-philadelphia-to-receive-6-4-million-in-stimulus-funding-to-expand-public-computer-centers

http://www.skylightpictures.com/

http://economichumanrights.org/206

http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/city-of-philadelphia-to-receive-6-4-million-in-stimulus-funding-to-expand-public-computer-centers



most difficult to establish in the best of circumstances to begin with, due to the built-in conflicts

and tensions among management, residents' councils, and residents. It took a year of planning

among the informal partners of the Harrison Tenants Association, Temple University, HUD, and

the City Housing Authority (PHA) before the CTC opened its doors.

Gilbert & Masucci label the complexities of establishing this CTC "a good example of why the

policy of simply providing access to computers and the Internet is not sufficient" because the

PHA, HUD, and even the leadership of the residents' council assumed that women facing welfare

cuts would prioritize gaining technology skills in order to find jobs and didn't take into account

"the time and space constraints that women experienced due to their roles as economic providers

for their families, mothers, caregivers, and students," their "need to search for jobs combined

with their reliance on public transportation, the lack of affordable day care, and the geographic

isolation of this neighborhood from employment sites, meant that women found it hard to find

time to engage in these programs." Along with these unanticipated barriers, the guidelines were

such that "participation did not count as part of job training"! (95-96)

As a result, when some women prioritized using the CTC for their children for homework

assistance and so that they could have a safe place for them during non-school hours and when

older women who had the time and interest to use it for a variety of purposes, this caused a

conflict with those who focused on the need to use it for the required job training. Unanticipated

barriers and the needs of users not previously considered, needs that Gilbert & Masucci find

"were literally invisible to all partners prior to the implementation phase suggests why it is

important to involve a wide variety of people in the planning process and to examine how

funding priorities may be inappropriately driving the discussion." (106)

Based on the training approaches the action researchers developed with elderly women of

Harrison Plaza, they became involved in training a group of North Philadelphia residents to use

telemedicine system communication tools and learn about heart health information and wellness.

The Women's Heart Health and Telemedicine program thus aimed to address three interrelated

literacies: basic, health, and ICT.

47



As with the Harrison Plaza CTC, the implementation of the program was exceedingly

complicated —the literacy challenges were also geographic, involving women having to navigate

a complex matrix of local technology centers, health services agencies, and transportation

systems. Its success underlined not only the complexity of required support but also the

fundamental usefulness and need to link technology training to topics of interest to women living

in poverty, a conclusion that has pointed policy implications.

All told this final example of community technology action research, of third wave digital

divide / inclusion research and practice integrating this history of welfare reform and feminist

geography perspectives, is especially rich in its methodological self-consciousness and the

lessons learned and shared from facing multiple challenges and difficulties. It's notable that the

problems and conflicts among partners are among the most informative dimensions of the

research reported on. With these complex, multi-partner projects undertaken over an extended

period, Gilbert & Masucci provide a useful overview of what they are others need to take under

advisement in considering similar projects in the future.

The authors had previously written about the critical pedagogical framework that guided the

involvement of students in various community collaborations, how it was developed

beyond conventional service learning courses through: (a) addressing the fundamentaltensions that often exist between institutions and settings with vast resource differences,(b) examining how the duration of commitments can impact outcomes of programs, (c)considering the effects of race, class, and gender positionality of students and ourselvesvis-à-vis our community collaborators, and (d) identifying common ground across thevarious constituencies that could serve as a platform for empowerment for each group.(69)

As conclude at another point:

The interrelated issues of resources needed for the projects we worked on (e.g., time,financial, labor, hardware and software), resource differentials between the partners, thelong-term sustainability of the partnership, and the empowerment of different partnersand stakeholders (community members, students, faculty) raised important questionsabout the nature of our institutional arrangements. As we became involved in new partnerships, we began to think of what kinds of institutional arrangements would work best to achieve longer-term sustainability and more effectively address the varying needsand interests of different partners and stakeholders. (91-92)

48



In their seventh and final chapter, "Bridging the Digital Divide?" the authors join the chorus in

calling for a new approach, with a note that reflects both the directions and the difficulties in

defining it. "There is an urgent need to reconceptualize the digital divide," they say, with an

added footnote to a previous work: "Gilbert (2010) theorizes the intersection between digital and

urban inequalities based on feminist and critical race theory, critical geography, and a

Bourdieusian conceptualization of technical capital." (138)

Their more ordinary language summary is equally applicable to Eubanks' work in neighboring

New York:

We aim to develop a new conceptualization of the digital divide by examining the

multiplicity of women’s experiences of ICTs in the context of routine matters of daily lifesuch as taking care of their families, seeking employment and educational opportunities,engaging with social service institutions, seeking health care, and interacting with their social networks. This new conceptualization recognizes both women’s agency in relationto ICTs and the ways in which their experiences are situated within constellations of unequal power relations in particular places. (139)

Lots of lesson summaries are applicable to all the studies under review here — "an integrated

service approach coupling ICT training policies with other services is a more efficient and

successful way of supporting those goals." (148) As they conclude: "If we are to address digital

inequalities we need to examine how ICT policy and social policy can be re-imagined from the

perspectives of poor women, and in an integrative and progressive manner." (162)

* * * * *

I trust these three CTC case studies usefully illustrate, exemplify, and inform Third Wave

community technology research and practice, as suggested by David Nemer's "Literature Review

on Digital Inclusion and Digital Divide." Our review here has come across has two additional

similarly named third wave perspectives, the most recent of Samuel Huntington's three waves of

democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries and Alvin Toffler and the Third Wave Study Group's

most recent wave in all of human history, the technological one of our current era. If I do not

dwell here more on the perspective and lessons of the latter, it is primarily because I have done

49



so elsewhere, though I will make one brief allusion as I conclude. 7

Let me simply offer an overview of some of the key features of the Third Wave as it is suggested

by Nemer and illustrated here: how it is holistic, self-conscious about theoretical frameworks,

generally but not fundamentally a temporal advancement, difficult to differentiate from Second

Wave examples, and finally self-consciously undertaken as an active, even activist contribution

to the well-being of the communities it studies.

First, as Nemer himself pointed out and perhaps most graphically expresses, third wave research

and practice goes beyond the digital divide and beyond the limitations of "inclusion" with its

connotations of consumerism and mistaken implication that the wider actual world to be

included into is the standard of judgement. Third wave research and practice aims to reveal and

develop something in the nature of that human excellence — skills, abilities, and achievements

that are more than narrowly, or even broadly, technological. It involves a story or perspective on

human development that is more holistic, something that illustrates or exemplify human

achievement in its fullest community-building context.

Second, it involves, too, a self-consciousness about theoretical frameworks. Sometimes this can

become overly excessive as appears to be the case with Tsatsou, but this is only indicative of the

degree to which, ever since talk about the digital divide began, there has been a self-

consciousness to how we are approaching a phenomenon, that there is something about the

language we are using that's not quite right.

Talk about the "digital divide" and "digital inclusion" is both revealing and distorting and in

nearly all cases of research and practice, the way to escape and go beyond the limitations and

misconceptions is by self-consciously and explicitly so doing.

Third, as a distinct stage, third wave digital studies and activities are not necessarily temporal

ones, developed by progressive stages over time. Although, to be sure, numerous individuals,

movements, and analyses have progressed from an initial preoccupation with physical access to

7 See "Carl Davidson: From SDS and The Guardian, to cyRev and CyberRadicalism for the 21stCentury" at Comm-Org, the Online Conference on Community Organizing.

50

http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2011/petermiller.htm






http://comm-org.wisc.edu/



http://comm-org.wisc.edu/



equipment and connectivity to a deeper conception of what differentiates those who effectively

use technology as an integrated tool in their daily lives from those who do not — and from there

on to a level that deals with such lofty themes as democracy, liberation, and human achievement.

But there are way too many examples and considerations to convince us that this need not

necessarily be the case and that, in fact, there is a wealth of history to learn from here. A perusal

of the previously-noted Bridging the Digital Divide classic from 2002 by Lisa Servon and the

previously mentioned CyRev by the Third World Study Group, its premier issue from 1994, have

much to suggest in terms of how much perspective of Third Wave theory and practice we have

lost and need to recover.

Fourth, along with this, though this stage beyond inclusion is distinct, it may be extremely

difficult to differentiate the Third Wave from the Second in many cases, and I illustrate two

different ways in which this happens with two examples from this review. First, with regard to

Gomez and the Landscape Study, one of the reasons the opening review gives so much attention

to the matter of human support, teaching the teachers, educating the "informediaries" is not only

because of its primacy; it is also to learn more about its nature. While the education presented

and recommended in these international comparisons here clearly goes beyond simply imparting

technical know-how in almost all instances, it is difficult to determine to what degree it is

liberating and transformative, and to what degree is it simply more broadly construed. The

answer, I believe, is unclear, and that shouldn't be surprising. An international study team's call

for infomediary training can hardly be an across-the-board radical call for a liberating pedagogy

of the oppressed; it must of necessity embrace a broader conception.

There is another way in which second and third wave studies are difficult to distinguish, and the

edifying example here is Panayiota Tsatsou. Just as the scope of her work exemplifies its

transcending the boundaries and limits of the digital divide's preoccupation with physical access,

so it seems to limit itself to a second wave model, albeit a very full one. There is little to indicate

an extended human achievement on anyone's part that's at stake. But that is not entirely the case

at all. Tsatsou's repeated critique of the primacy of the consumer at the expense of the citizen is

a key example of her attempt to help recover that calling and identity. I have tried to offer, too,

some of an heroic presentation of Tsatsou's work, too, that reveals a special richness to her

51



achievement, for the scope of all that she encompasses, including her Machiavellian capacity for

detailed political cultural manipulation in the service of a broad and democratic political culture

and a full view of both Politics and Culture in her initimations and visions. In these ways she

well exemplifies Third Wave formative research.

This brings us to the fifth and final quality of the Third Wave studies, one that goes along with the

theory-heavy, self-conscious sense of research as contributory, transformative activity itself. It is

clear with Eubanks and with Gilbert & Masucci how their action research is an integral part of the

community empowerment and transformation they are studying. One can see this in the work of

Gomez and the entire Lanscape Study team, and with Tsatsou and Sandvig as well. But not all

digital divide / inclusion studies are like this. Randy Stoecker has a most thoughtful critique of the

newly emerging field in his essay that asks "Is Community Informatics Good for Communities"and suggests that its studies can focus on information or technology to the detriment of community

and that it can be undertaken to serve elites and academics as easily as not.8

In the end, the usefulness of considering a Third Wave of community technology research and

practice is that it starts to subsume an enormous amount of critical history and grappling with the

theories and perspectives of the first and second and helps us look ahead with some more deeply

rooted sense of direction than we had previously recognized. It can gives us models and teachers

precisely in a way that Gomez and everyone else says they're needed — and a curriculum and

approach that contributes to the use of community technology to build our common future.✦

(19,043 words)

Documents

0125 Beyond Inclusion Draft