Shifting sands globalization and digital equity ites midterm

SHIFTING SANDS: GLOBALIZATION AND DIGITAL EQUITY 1

Running head: Shifting Sands: Globalization and Digital Equity

Shifting Sands: Globalization and Digital Equity

Colleen M. Ites

Iowa State University

4 March 2011


ABSTRACT

Current views of globalization and its impact on digital equity have been hot-button topics for the

last decade. The publication of Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat in 2005 took an issue that had

previously been in the academic fields of education and economics and brought it to the American

forefront. The fears of globalization as a method of removing the United States’ traditional world

domination in the economic sector were directly and frankly confronted, as well as the role American

education must fulfill to give future world citizens the best possible chances at future careers.

Throughout the work Friedman argues that while a difficult process, acceptance of globalization

would be a benefit for Americans overall.

This article will address the optimistic ideals found in Friedman’s book by comparing it with other

current research on theories surrounding the digital divide, globalization, the Western influence on

developing nations, and the social responsibilities of multinational corporations. Important questions

addressed after an initial analysis of the review of literature will include the following:

What is the true definition of the digital divide and is this divide constant or changing?

To what extent are the ideas of globalization intertwined with corporate responsibility? Does

that responsibility extend to workers in developing countries, and how should this

responsibility be monitored or maintained on a global level?

How much of an influence should the Western world have in developing countries, as most

of the digital growth has initiated in the West?

How does bridging the digital divide include those who are often on society’s fringes?

Keywords: digital divide, globalization, digital equity, technology implementation


Shifting Sands: Globalization and Digital Equity

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF LITERATURE

In this essay the author will compare the ideas found in Friedman’s work with alternative

ideas on globalization and the digital divide, and explain possible ‘fixes’ for these complicated

issues. The issues of digital equity are addressed in James McShay's (2011)chapter “Paulo

Freire’s Liberatory Pedagogy: Rethinking Issues of Technology Access and Use in Education”

where the author discusses the need for a shift from thinking about technology access and use

toward thinking of technology as a form of Freire’s liberatory media, enabling repressed peoples

the potential for freedom and social change. Jill Jameson (2011) also draws on Freirean’s critical

pedagogy as she analyzes attempts at addressing the digital divide in Zimbabwe while taking into

account the country’s violent and impoverished past and present in her chapter “The Digital

Abyss in Zimbabwe.” Francesco Amoretti and Fortunato Musella (2011) in their chapter

“Governing Digital Divides: Power Structures and ICT Strategies in a Global Perspective”

discuss the impact Western ICT providers and growth has had on nations around the world and if

the dependence of developing countries on Western ICT providers puts them as risk of becoming

technology colonies to the West. All chapters are found in International Exploration of

Technology Equity and the Digital Divide, a collection of varying viewpoints and theories

surrounding the concept of digital equity edited by Patricia R. Leigh (2011).

The final works used in this article will give specific and detailed alternatives to the

‘automatic promise’ of closing the digital divide found in Friedman’s work. In Paul C. Gorski’s

(2009) “Insisting on Digital Equity: Reframing the Dominant Discourse on Multicultural

Education and Technology,” the author argues that the issues of digital inequities must be faced


and addressed before the digital divide can be overcome. Don Fallis (2007) argues for the

application of epistemic value theory to apply a value to knowledge learned through the

implementation and use of technology in his article, “Epistemic Value Theory and the Digital

Divide.” And finally, an examination of the impact technology has had on the complex caste

society found in India is found in Elizabeth Langran’s (2011) article “Caste, Class, and IT in

India.” All the resources above will be examined and analyzed to determine if the digital divide

is growing or closing.

ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSIONS

While all these texts address various interpretations of the term “digital divide” there is

no one steadfast definition for this concept. Friedman (2005) defines digital divide as the

technological differences found between those who have access to and have embraced new and

emerging communication and business technologies. His arguement that the digital divide is

shrinking is based on the implementation of new technologies by specific sectors of societies in

developing countries and how those in these sectors are utilizing these new technologies to better

their lives and the economic health of their country. He uses economic and industrial centers in

India and China to make his point: multinationals and home-grown companies developed

methods of outsourcing and off-shoring that brought about the ‘flattening’ process Friedman

espouses throughout the book (Friedman, 2005, p. 126-151).

Friedman’s definition is similar to the ‘accepted’ definition used by pundits and news

media all over the world, but new research on the topic intends to broaden and deepen the

definition of an idea that seems simple but is actually quite complicated. McShay (2011) uses

the Freire’s liberatory pedagogy to expand the definition from the access to and use of new

technologies to addressing the actual technology as an agent of liberation and a catalyst for social


change to disenfranchised peoples around the world (p. 138). In this example the technology

itself is a tool for providing educational and legal opportunities to those previously overlooked in

the new global economy, especially those of color, impoverished, or in a lowered social ranking.

This idea of using the language surrounding technology advances as a guidepost for state

development in poor nations is groundbreaking and will require an entire new viewpoint on the

idea of the digital divide.

The fear of developing a form of digital colonization by allowing Western information and

technology companies (ICTs) to control diffusion of new technologies in developing countries is

covered in depth by Amoretti and Musella (2011, p.193). This article espouses that the attempts

to use ICT as a method of reducing the digital divide is in effect providing a greater resource to

the elites found in developing countries, therefore making the digital divide greater than before.

This inequity between the educated elite and less-educated (usually rural) poor in such countries

takes into account how the digital divide is also a separation of social and democratic rights, and

argues that gaps in funding and infrastructures in developing countries must be addressed before

the digital divide can begin to close (Amoretti and Musella, 2011, pp. 196-198).

Specific countries serve as excellent examples of the complex interactions between the digital

divide and globalization. Zimbabwe is one of the poorest, most disorganized, and violent

countries in Africa today. Attempts at normalization and establishment of a democracy

following British colonial rule have been marred by the despot Mugabe, civil unrest, an epidemic

of HIV/AIDS, and a lack of natural resources. These factors all contribute to Zimbabwe’s

complete lack of “ ‘network readiness’ in ICT … in comparison with (other) African countries

… which have overtaken its capability amongst the ‘bottom 20’ “ nations in the 2008 - 2009

Global Information Technology Report (GITR) (Jameson, 2011, p.115). This with other ranking


accounts leads Zimbabwe to the dubious title of “least developed nation in the world for ICT”

(Jameson, 2011, p.117). These factors have also led Zimbabwe to become less informed and

therefore more isolated from the rest of the world; this generational lack of information has led

the oppressed peoples to not strive for freedom but instead to become cogs in the machinery of

violence and oppression. The oppressed fight instead to become the oppressors (Jameson, 2011

pp. 123-125). While Jameson argues that Freire’s praxis for positive change could lead to a

greater change in Zimbabwe, because of the country’s nearly complete disenfranchisement from

the developed world, those who would institute this change must be dependent on other states to

begin to close the digital divide (pp. 123-128). In this example, globalization has given up on

Zimbabwe, as her own people have given up on her, people who have instead chosen to become

displaced persons in search of skills to rebuild Zimbabwe. One issue not confronted in the

article was how those in power in Zimbabwe (often through bribes and illegal disbursement of

funds) would potentially deal with these newly skilled citizens ‘upending the apple cart’ in terms

of power. As with every society, those who hold the power will rule the people. The great

attention to detail given every other aspect of this article makes the lack of attention given to this

potential threat disturbing.

Gorski directly addresses the issue of the digital divide as hinging on the digital inequities

that are evident for all peoples on the fringes of societies. His proposal for continual

multicultural education is a combination of multicultural education and social reconstructionism.

Gorski cautions educators to carefully consider if the implementation of new innovations will

enrich and enable multicultural education or if it will create further inequalities between the

advantages and disadvantaged in American education. He also directs educators to dig deep into

honestly defining the multicultural education, the digital divide, access to technology, and digital


inequities (Gorski, 2009, pp.350-356).The issues that spoke most to me where how educators

needs to create non-hostile digital cultures designed to be safe places of learning for all

regardless of previous digital cultural norms. This addressed the issues of educating female,

minority, and impoverished students in a way that was not even regarded by the Friedman text.

The inclusion of these specific groups was a welcome addition to the current study of digital

inequities by displaying to educators specific areas of concern regarding implementation of

digital innovations.

Elizabeth Langran addresses these same issues of digital inequities specific to India and

utilizes comparisons to Thomas Friedmans’ (2005) The World Is Flat within her article. She

argues that providing access without considering the issues of class, caste, and power will never

allow for the ultimate flattening of all in India. If technologies are implemented and a blind eye

is turned toward these issues, the digital divide will continue to grow with the potential to result

in political instability and localized isolation of social groups already on the fringes of society

(pp.5-7). Langran also touches on the specific needs of women in a society where gender issues

abound. Finally, she addresses the issues specific to the caste system, class hierarchies, and the

rising divide between the digerati and the common, poor Indian ( pp.7-12). In her conclusions

Langran agrees with Friedman regarding necessary improvements to the Indian school system,

removal of bureaucratic and academic barriers, and creation of a domestic market for software as

the best ways to diffuse knowledge to the ‘have-nots’ of India. That being said, she did disagree

with Friedman regarding the infusion of new capital back into the Indian economy: Lungran

argues that these previous steps are necessary in order for change to occur while Friedman

believes it is already occurring (2011, pp.13-15; Friedman, 2005, pp.425, 479-482). A final

common ground between Langran and Friedman is in regards to corporate responsibilities for


multinational corporations. Friedman (2005) believes that multinationals need to offer workers a

safe environment with adequate pay (p.425), and Langran (2011) also believes this to be true

(p.16). The final difference is regarding the moral value of globalization, where both give

excellent factual supports for his and her points of view. These all comprise the complicated

state of globalization and the digital divide today, as well as the potential solutions to these

problems.

While many articles espouse theories on how to truly define the digital divide and

implement globalization effectively in developing countries, Don Fallis (2007) proposes the use

of a mathematic methodology epistemology value theory to measure the distribution of

knowledge and the value of access to information technology (pp.30-31). This quantification is

measurable once the distribution of knowledge regarding differing digital divide policies to

determine which (if any) are most effective based on the types of implementation and societies

encountered. He has two solid arguments comparing differing distributions of knowledge:

utilitarian, with the maximized average amount of cumulative societal knowledge, egalitarian, an

attempt to distribute knowledge equally to all members of society, Rawlsian, where inequities

among members of a society are accepted as long as those less informed receive the greatest

increase in knowledge (pp. 31-35). While this scientific measurement of the distribution of new

knowledge may seem like a guaranteed way to solve the digital divide, Fallis cautions the reader

regarding acquirement of new knowledge harming previous social, religious, and cultural norms

is a raw reality in the flattening of the world as we know it (pp.35-39). While Feinstein (2005)

does address the changes that technology diffusion may bring to local communities and cultures,

his positive spin on creating policies that honor these traditions while implementing new


technologies would require a scientific scaffold such as Fallis’ theory to establish an effective

implementation.

CONCLUSION

Each of these authors feels passionate about the impact of globalization and the digital divide

on different cultures throughout the world. Overall Friedman’s book is perhaps too optimistic at

the long-term effects of globalization. This is seen in his minimal accounts of the negative

impacts of new innovations on the cultural, local economic, and religious peoples of the world.

When Friedman does address this issue, he tends to give examples of extremists, such as the rise

of militant Islam and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East and Africa. This is a typical tactic of

Friedman’s regarding the darker side of globalization. While the book has a positive tone, he

does slip in some of the more negative aspects, including the sometimes lack of corporate

responsibility in a globalized world (Friedman, 2005, pp. 151-166), while in the same breath

extolling the virtues of the same company. For example, he discusses how the Gates Foundation

is a multinational that can be seen as controlling and rigid but that has done wonders for public

health all over the world when wealthy nations would not step up to the challenge (pp.541-545).

This process of partnering a negative aspect of globalization followed by a positive one is an

excellent way to slip bias past the reader to convince him or her to take a positive tone or spin

away from the book.

The chapters from Leigh’s book and the other articles do not use as much sugar-coating

as Friedman does. Instead, they often pick out specific cultural, gender, social, and economic

issues upon which to build the research of and attitudes toward globalization and attempts at

closing the digital divide. These same articles require the reading to really look at the long-


standing effects of globalization regarding digital equity and recommend that further research in

this field do the same.

Perhaps the greatest difference between Friedman and the other texts is how much time

Friedman spends explaining how all American schools need to change. McShay addresses the

unique needs of multicultural education and Gorski discusses the need to revamp definitions and

applications of new technologies, but Friedman far and away has the deepest and broadest

opinion on what is wrong in American education today. That being said, he offers many errors

and few solutions. The articles and chapters give more potential solutions to these issues as well

as others including the best ways to implement new technologies for specific groups and how to

address unique student and societal needs in technology education. They also address the

somewhat uncomfortable issue of developing countries becoming dependent on wealthier ones

for assistance in implementing new technologies, creating a new form of digital colonialism.

The awareness of how best to address these issues will be the guiding force for future

educational technologists and researchers. Technologists then must use this awareness along

with research results to make changes to the implementation, type, and dispersal of new

innovations to specific cultures and groups. Perhaps the best solution is to incorporate the Freire

pedagogy toward innovation implementation or the application of epistemic value theory toward

the overall accumulation of knowledge. As the shifting sands of information and communication

technologies continue to evolve and expand, it will require a broad and deep analysis of what has

not worked, minus emotional bias, to help educational researchers determine the best solutions in

successfully overcoming the digital divide. The greater emphasis recently placed on the complex

interactions of culture, tradition, religion, SES, understanding and application of new

technologies is a first step in the right direction.


REFERENCES

Amoretti, F & Musella F. (2011). Power structures and ICT strategies in a global perspective. In

P. R. Leigh (Ed.). International explorations of technology equity and the digital divide:

Critical, historical, and social perspectives. Hershey. PA: IGI Global.

Fallis, D. (2007). Epistemic value theory and the digital divide. In E. Rooksby & J. Weckert

(Eds.) Information technology and social justice, pp. 29-46. Hershey, PA: Information

Science Publishing.

Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Picador.

Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on

multicultural education and technology. Urban education, 44(3), pp. 348-364.

Jameson, J. (2011). The digital abyss in Zimbabwe. In P. R. Leigh (Ed.). International

explorations of technology equity and the digital divide: Critical, historical, and social

perspectives. Hershey. PA: IGI Global.

Langran, E. K. (2011). Caste, class, and IT in India. In P. R. Leigh (Ed.). International

explorations of technology equity and the digital divide: Critical, historical, and social

perspectives. Hershey. PA: IGI Global.

McShay, J. C. (2011). Paulo Freire's liberatory pedagogy: Rethinking issues of technology. In P.

R. Leigh (Ed.). International explorations of technology equity and the digital divide:

Critical, historical, and social perspectives. Hershey. PA: IGI Global.