Hi all,
We didn't get to talk about the James article as much as I would have liked. To make up for it, I'm hoping to move our class discussion to our blog. The question comes from the list I sent out last week.
What are some examples of James’s evidence that he uses to argue against Compaine? How might Compaine reply?
James's article is replying directly to Compaine's--as well as a few others. You can see the number of times he cites him in his article. I'm asking us to give Compaine a chance to rebut. How might Compaine use James's evidence to argue for his point of view?
Please reply in the comment section of this post.
Video Reflection
14 years ago
One example of the evidence that James uses to prove Compaine wrong is his table on page 57 that represents the literacy need for different technologies that Compaine discusses, including the internet. James says that "the Internet demands a highly literate population with language skills, computer literacy, and technical competence."
ReplyDeleteI think that Compaine might reply with the fact that when the other technologies first came out, people may not have been as educated in the proper areas that gave them the literacy to use those objects. However, as time went on, those literacy rates rose because they became more integrated within that society. He may then continue to say that because the internet is in its early stages and has grown so rapidly people will begin to learn these technologies at a younger age. This may also cause more people to learn how to use the technologies because it is more spread throughout society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames makes the statement "one can only conclude that an input-based measure of the digital divide is not only totally irrelevant, but also possibly dangerous, if it is used by policy-makers who would then conclude, erroneously, that the digital divide has actually disappeared." Compaine would refute this by posing the question about what out-put based measure would be used. In essence, what is going to put an end to the trends of decreasing costs causing large adoption rates. It has been seen in both computer and other technology adoption that there are S-curve adoption rates. If other gaps have closed with time, why would the adoption of computers and access be any different. James says there needs to be an output variable, but how can the future be measured or accounted for?
ReplyDeleteOn page 56 James rebutes Compaine's argument that "Comparing eventual widespread adoption of technologies such as television, radios, and the telephone...the nature of the marketplace dynamics will eventually close the gaps without interference from policy maker." In Figure 1 James argues that it only seems like developing countries are advancing. They started with low levels of adoption and anytime there is a small number of new users it seems as if there are large increases in growth rates.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest arguments Compaine would have is that his results focuses on American users and not developing country users. But, Compaine could compare the S-curves of the internet in both countries. Compaine would need to comapre historical growth rates from developed countires and the current statistics from developing countries. This is because developed countries had a low percentage of internet users from the beginning, which is what is happening to developing countries now. Comapaine must compare apples to apples.
On page 57 James states that "The historical data chosen by these authors say nothing whatever about the future growth prospects of Internet use in developing countries and `certainly cannot be construed, as these authors do, as a positive augury about those prospects." By this statement, James means that the Digital Divide isn't going to just "close itself" as the divides between telephones and televisions did, because a certain set of skills or "capability" is needed to be able to use the internet. Compaine might argue that it is reasonable to compare the growth rates between these pieces of technology because of the rapid decreasing price of the computer. Once it is more affordable, people will be able to gain access more easily and with more purpose, and thus the Digital Divide will become smaller and smaller.
ReplyDeleteOne of James’s arguments against Compaine is that “there is every reason to doubt that these countries (developing) will continue to exhibit higher growth rates of Internet usage than developed parts of the global economy.” A survey was conducted and provides evidence that growth in Internet use has occurred in the upper-income, educated, urban areas of developing countries. This is a small percentage of the population and cannot act as the future growth of Internet use for long. James describes in his article how Compaine would reply. Compaine would create a new definition for the digital divide and use statistics to sway the audience into believing it will dissolve in time. Through all of the articles we have read, the interpretation of the digital divide has varied. Authors construe it to make their opinions clear.
ReplyDeleteOn page 55 James cites Compaine and his view on the digital divide. Compaine says "Information access is important. But where does it sit among the schedule of other phenomena for which there has been little or no concern about gaps and advocates who demand government programs to remove them." James then mentions that Compaine basically believes the digital divide is disappearing on its own. While James never straight up disagrees with this statement of Compaine, you can tell by reading the rest of the article where James stands on the subject.
ReplyDeleteFor Compaine's defense, Figure 20.3 on page 322 of his article shows the common "S curves" of adaptation of many typical household appliances/electronics over the years including VCRs and microwaves. Overall, they all follow the same trend and it seems that in time, the internet and information access will follow the normalization pattern.
On page 56 James refutes Compaine's statement that "Comparing eventual widespread adoption of technologies such as television, radios and the telephone... the nature of the marketplace dynamics will eventually close the gaps without interference from policy-maker." James does this using Figure 1, which shows that although digital development in developing countries is increasing, there is still a huge gap between that of developed countries. James states that using statistics to show the growth rate is misleading because when you start with practically nothing, even the smallest change will produce a large growth rate.
ReplyDeleteI think Compaine would defend his argument by saying that while the gap in 2004 is still quite large, if you look at the increasing rate of the digital divide (first increasing by .03 in 1995, then by 2004 increasing by 1.3 over one year) the gap will start closing in more and more quickly if this trend continues.
On page 55 James argues Compaine's idea that, "Information access is important. But where does it sit among...other phenomena for which there has been little or no concern about gaps and advocates who demand government programs to remove them." Compaine then goes on to demonstrate how the use of an automobile also had a gap between those who could afford it and those who could not and says the use of the automobile was just as important as as email is today and there was no intervention to close the gap between automobiles.
ReplyDeleteJames doubts the idea that the digital divide will fix itself. For Compaine to refute James he needs to prove the other gaps that have closed naturally and over time. The example he already stated about automobiles is exactly what he needs to do he just needs more statistical information to better represent his ideas. Also, the graph show on page 322 of Compaine’s article would help to show James the other gaps that have closed themselves with no help from the government.
In his article, James speaks about the concern with access to the digital technologies on page 57. He says that when you look at things in terms of access, affordability is just one factor, and lots of other things have to be taken into account to analyze and figure out how easy it really is to not only get online but to navigate around the web as well.
ReplyDeleteCompaine, however, only speaks of costs, pointing out that although tv originally cost 4 weeks work, it now costs less than 4 days, and argues a similar trend will likely happen with the internet, with costs going even lower, so that eventually the technology will be so affordable everyone will have access and it won't be a problem.
PS- I would also like to add that I think if given the chance to argue back with James, Compaine would say that cost IS the one thing that determines if people have access to technology and everything else will fall into place so it's the only thing that really matters anyway.
ReplyDeleteJames made an interesting point when saying, "Simple arithmetic will show that even only minor absolute increases will register as phenomenally high rates of growth, suggesting that the digital divide will shrink dramatically." (PG 56-57) This makes sense. It shows that people who want to ignore the digital divide can simply manipulate data to "prove" their point. Compaine could argue back, saying that these improvements have to start somewhere, and if left alone, the S curve will continue to give more and more people access.
ReplyDeleteOn page 55, there is a large section from Compaine describing the fact that no one was concerned when people couldn't afford automobiles, which are "as critical to one's livelihood in the second half of the 20th century as having access to email may be today". Compaine then is let "to propose that [it]..is disappearing on its own". This basically says that we need not worry about people not having access to the internet because the divide will take care of itself. James combats this argument saying that the Bush administration had the same idea as Compaine and that the digital divide is "all but dead". This is only a small part of James' argument against Compaine, but I think that Compaine could have easily refuted James with evidence from his article. Not only the automobile but phones, television, radio, air travel, and many other technologies started out with divides similar to the internet divide of today. Compaine forms a decently logical argument in his article saying that as prices decrease, adoption rates will increase, and eventually the gap will be bridged. Compaine would have been able to combat James' arguments and comparisons to the unpopular Bush administration with historical fact, which in this case, are valid and should be noted.
ReplyDelete