This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Bridging the digital divide in South Korea:
A Content Analysis of Korean Government Projects from 2000 to 2004
ABSTRACT Jung-Sook Lee Competition
Meaningful access to the Internet should be paired with education and
content for
the disadvantaged groups as well as access within economic and
sociopolitical rationales.
This article examines government projects to bridge the digital
divide in South Korea by
asking: 1) distribution of the projects in access, literacy and
content by year, 2) rationales
in the projects for different disadvantage groups and 3) distribution
of the projects in
access, literacy and content for different groups.
Bridging the digital divide 2
INTRODUCTION Jung-Sook Lee Competition
The rapid development of information technologies affects almost
every aspect of
our lives. Indeed, information technology (IT) is now regarded as a
key component in
gaining national competitiveness on the global stage. Many developed countries
emphasize the construction of an information infrastructure, such as
broadband or highspeed
Internet service. Broadband access to the Internet is considered by
international
organizations as a key to enhancing the competitiveness of an economy
and sustaining
economic growth (International Telecommunication Union, 2001; Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001).
The power relationship between "the haves" and "have-nots" in the information
society hinders progress toward social and economic justice. IT
affects the construction of
social problems such as poverty and inequality. Therefore, as information and
communication technology becomes increasingly influential in relating
to educational
standards, economic competitiveness, and citizenship, access for
everyone is necessary in
tackling social exclusion and promoting equality in the new
information economy.
To ensure that the gap between the haves and have-nots does not
widen; the exact
definition of the digital divide should be preceded. The digital
divide is described as the
problem of the access. However, meaningful access to IT is far more
than providing
computers and Internet connections. The digital divide marks not only
physical access to
computers and connectivity but also access to the additional
resources that allow people to
use technology well.
Therefore, the digital divide needs to be reconceptualized. For providing
meaningful access to new technologies, literacy or education, and
content as well as
possession of a computer must be taken into account. With the
consideration of larger
dimensions of technology gaps, this article contemplates the factors
for widening the gaps
in terms of cost, infrastructure, discrimination, policy, and
culture. Furthermore, the
reasons and importance of closing the digital divide are examined
with economic and
sociopolitical rationale.
Based on the examination of the digital divide, a content analysis of annual
project reports from the Korean Ministry of Information and
Communication investigates
trends of the Korean government policy for closing the digital
divide. In specific, this
Bridging the digital divide 3
paper raises three issues about the policy. The first issue questions
the government policy
of different distributing in access, education, and content by year.
The second issue relates
to the relationships between digital disenfranchised groups and
rationales of the projects
for closing the digital divide. Finally, this article investigates
how the government policy
regarding access, education, and content is differently formulated
according to different
disadvantaged groups.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Redefining Digital Divide
IT has brought fundamental changes throughout society and shifted an
industrial
age to a network age. Global information networks are reshaping, at
an accelerated pace,
the material basis of society. Because IT is pervasive throughout the
whole realm of
human activity, it has altered the forms of commerce, education,
government, and
communications. We now live in a society that incorporates the
production, acquisition,
and flow of information to drive an economy in which global
information networks
represent key infrastructure.
Despite contribution of the IT to progress toward social and economic justice,
existing power relations and patterns of inequality have been
affected. The very existence
of the "digital divide" is evidence of the ability of technology to
exacerbate existing
inequality. The digital divide refers to the gap between individuals,
households,
businesses, and geographic areas with regard to access and use of the
Internet (Gaur,
2003). Gaur (2003) argues that it deals with haves and have-nots.
More than 80 percent of
the world population has never heard a telephone dial tone. Even if
provided with all
infrastructure facilities, most of the world's poor population would
still be excluded from
the Internet revolution because of their illiteracy and lack of
computer skills (Young,
2001; Compaine, 2001).
The digital divide is now recognized as an international issue. High-income
OECD countries account for more than three-fourths of the world's
Internet users (UNDP,
2001). In virtually all countries, Internet users tend to be young,
urban, male, and
relatively well-educated and wealthy (Servon, 2002). In other words,
the diffusion of
technology both within and between countries has been extremely
uneven. Current and
Bridging the digital divide 4
historical patterns of access to IT illustrate a significant
separation between information
haves and have-nots along lines of race, socioeconomic status,
education level, household
type, and geographic location (US Department of Commerce, 2000; Doctor, 1994).
The digital divide has been a concern of policy makers since the
mid-1990s, when
the Internet emerged as a major communications medium and information
utility (Pew
Internet and American Life Project, 2003). Anxiety about the divide
centers on arguments
that those who do not have access to the Internet are disadvantaged
compared to Internet
users for a number of reasons. According to the report of Pew
Internet and American Life
Project (2003), the concern is that Internet nonusers will have,
among other things, less
power as consumers and fewer economic opportunities, less access to
high-quality health
information, fewer options for dealing with government agencies, no
chance to learn about
their world from the millions of organizations and learning centers
that have posted their
material on the Web, and less opportunity to interact with others
through email and instant
messaging.
However, to address the conception of the digital divide, the technology gap
problem must be specifically understood. Policymakers and the media
have defined the
technology gap as a problem of access in the narrow sense of
possession or permission to
use a computer and the Internet (Servon, 2002). As access to IT
increases at a rapid rate,
the problem of the digital divide is requires redefinition. Although
some groups of people
are far from the benefit of IT, the gap between those who have access
to IT and those who
do not is rapidly closing. For example, gaps between rural and
nonrural areas and between
seniors and younger people have begun to narrow (Servon, 2002).
Servon's study shows
that some divides, such as that the ones between women and men have
disappeared
altogether.
Servon (2002) challenges the current popular definition of the
digital divide. The
author indicates that a larger problem persists. Deep divides remain
between those
possessing the resources, education, and skills to gain the benefits
of the information
society and those who do not. Besides a problem of access, persistent
gaps remain
between different racial and ethnic groups, people with and without
disabilities, the old
and the young, people with different levels of income and education,
and rural and
nonrural areas (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2003). In
short, the digital divide
Bridging the digital divide 5
is much more complex than a mere lack of computers. Therefore, the
digital divide needs
to be defined in a broader and more complex context.
Dimensions of the digital divide
If the digital divide is not simply a problem of access, what is the
appropriate
definition? Servon (2002) explains the definition of the digital
divide with three
dimensions: access, training or IT literacy, and content. The British
Educational
Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA, 2001) argues that as the
range and
capacities of information and communication technologies (ICT)
increase, the questions of
what constitutes the digital divide and how to measure it become
unclear. The BECTA
(2001) report suggests that a clear and agreed indication of the
levels and type of access
should be sought. Likewise, the divide involve a complex web of
interconnected social,
economic, and cultural factors that cannot be fully captured by a
definition focusing solely
on access or ownership. Although access is a key factor to be
addressed in bridging the
digital divide, it is merely one aspect. Carvin (2000) suggests that
besides the problem of
access, disparities in terms of content and literacy must also be
considered. Access is the
first component of the dimensions. People need basic IT tools or
computers to gain the
benefit of IT.
The second dimension of the digital divide concerns training or IT
literacy - the
ability to use IT for a range of purposes and the knowledge of how
and why IT can be
used as a key resource (Servon, 2002). To completely achieve the
benefit from new
technologies, users with tools must understand and have the
facilities to fully exploit the
potential of IT. Yet literacy levels are often left out of debates
surrounding the digital
divide. Moreover, it is argued that new technological tools may
require a consideration of
a range of literacies that enable effective utilization by
individuals (BECTA, 2001). For
example, the Bertelsmann Foundation (2002) argues that aspects such
as contextual
literacy, media creativity, social competence, and responsibility
should be included. The
authors suggest that incorporation of these aspects presents
formidable challenges in three
key areas, namely education, workplace skills, and civic engagement.
In short, because IT
may be of little use without effective training, curriculum, and
teaching, the problem of
literacy becomes significant in discussions about the digital divide.
Bridging the digital divide 6
The third dimension of the digital divide has to do with content,
both content that
meets the needs and demands of disenfranchised groups and the content
created by these
groups (Servon, 2002). The Internet, like most media, is shaped by
the first people to
occupy its territory, such as middle-income and upper-income white males. When
disadvantaged groups seek information directly related to their
lives, and communities,
and cultures, the information does not exist. Lazarus and Mora (2000)
argues that the
problems of language and literacy are additional content-related
barriers. Likewise,
content tends to reflect wider inequalities and power differentials
(Digital Divide
Network, 2000).
In short, access is a necessary precondition, but engenders a need
for training to
use the tools. Once people have a facility with the tools, they
demand content that serves
their interests and meets their needs. Then, what factors cause the
digital divide? Servon
(2002) explains the emergence of the technology gap with several
factors. The first one is
"market forces." Although prices of computers and services for
Internet access have
dropped steadily in recent years, the price of obtaining and
maintaining these tools is still
in the luxury category for many low-income families. According to the
report of Pew
Internet and American Life Project (2003), cost is the major reason
nonusers remain
offline. In the report, 43 percent of nonusers agreed with the
statement, "Internet access is
too expensive," up slightly from 40 percent in 2000. The report shows
that women,
Hispanic, African-Americans, poorer Americans, and those living in
rural or urban areas
are most likely to point to cost pressures as a major reason why they
are not online.
Unequal investment in infrastructure also contributes to the technology gap
(Servon, 2002). Graham and Marvin (2001) argue that this problem is
profoundly rooted
in geography. Investment in telecommunications infrastructure is much
lower in poor
urban areas and rural regions than in wealthier areas. Wealthier
urban and suburban
neighborhoods are typically wired and upgraded before inner city and
rural areas (Goslee,
1998). This inequitable provision of infrastructure is caused by the
market failure of
private companies investing in infrastructure in areas where they are
most likely to be
profitable (Servon, 2002). Accordingly, the places characterized by
economic poverty also
tend to suffer from information poverty. A pattern has developed in
which inequalities in
physical and electronic spaces mutually reinforce one another (Graham
and Marvin,
Bridging the digital divide 7
1996).
Discrimination functions as a third factor that reinforces the
digital divide. Servon
(2002) argues that schools in low-income areas overwhelmingly housing
children of color
are much less likely to provide quality access, training, and content
than schools in
wealthier districts. According to Smith (2004), the digital divide
did not just occur because
of new technology like the Internet. The author argues that it is
supported and caused by
powerful historical factors that have devalued the education and
intellectual development
of African-Americans and other people of color. That is, the digital
divide must be placed
within the context of the historical conditions that have caused it
to demonstrate that the
digital divide is merely the most current phenomenon of the continued
intellectual
disenfranchisement of African-Americans.
The fourth factor, "insufficient policy efforts," is an additional factor in
exacerbating the digital divide. Existing public sector attempts to
address the technology
gap demonstrate a failure to understand the complexity of the issue
(Servon, 2002).
Because the technology gap has been narrowly defined as a problem of
access, policies
and programs have also been narrowly focused. Previously proposed
solutions to the
digital divide tend to begin with ensuring that schools are wired and
that every household
has a computer (Servon, 2002). The public sector efforts to wire
public schools cannot be
accomplished without funding for appropriate hardware, software, and
training of teachers
in the use of the hardware and software. Therefore, a connection
between public policy
and the need of disadvantage groups should be established.
The last factor is concerned with culture using the IT. People who do
not fit the
typical IT user profile are unlikely to explore cyberspace unless
they believe there is a
reason to go there (Servon, 2002). Fifty-two percent of nonusers said
that lack of need or
desire was a major reason for not going online (Pew Internet and
American Life Project,
2003). According to Castells (2001, Chapter 2, p.1), "Technological
systems are socially
produced. Social production is culturally informed. The Internet is
no exception. The
culture of the producers of Internet shaped the medium." That is, to
shape the information
technology, users' needs and interests must be reflected.
Rationale for closing the digital divide
Bridging the digital divide 8
All of these factors—cost, infrastructure, discrimination, policy, and
culture—interact with each other to keep certain groups from fully
participating in the
information society. To provide more appropriate solutions to the
technology gap, it is
necessary to understand these factors. Servon (2002) argues that
efforts to close the gap
are important for political, economic, and social reasons. Chapman
and Rhodes (1997)
assert "access to the Internet is as important a part of civil life
as parks, public transit,
libraries, and cultural centers." It is a civil right to obtain the
benefit from IT. Differential
access and use of IT may actually increase existing gaps in education
and access to
opportunity (Goslee, 1998). Therefore, the lack of access to IT and
the requisite skills
contributes both to an inability to compete in the mainstream economy
and participate in
civil society (Servon, 2002).
Because the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based
economy and other information-based economy occurred, information
played a different
and larger role in the current economy. Information is now both a
product of the new
economy and an increasingly more important input to production
processes (Castells,
1996). This economic shift changed the kinds of jobs available.
Low-end service sector
jobs tend to be lower-quality jobs that are often unstable or
temporary, pay low wages, and
offer few benefits. On the other hand, high-end service workers have
tended to be stable
and well paid. These changes affected the labor market in terms of
entry-level jobs.
Although many low-skilled workers have found new jobs in the service
sector displaced
by structural changes, these jobs tend to be low-wage, unstable, and
without benefits.
As a result, cities face the challenge of bridging a growing gap
between the skills
required for employment in advanced services and the limited skills
that many entry-level
workers gain in the job market (Atkinson, 1998). Atkinson (1998)
argues that as
technological literacy becomes an additional skill needed to join the
information economy,
IT has directly exacerbated the "skills mismatch" between higher-end
jobs and the lowskilled
labor force. The result is that inequality persists, while many jobs
in IT fields go
unfilled (Servon, 2002). Therefore, to realize that the entire range
of workers can benefit
from the opportunities provided by the new economy, it is essential
to close the digital
divide.
The digital divide has implications extending beyond the labor market (Servon,
Bridging the digital divide 9
2002). The sociopolitical argument for why the gap in access should
be closed is that
information is a public good to which everyone in society should have
access (Servon and
Horrigan, 1997). IT increasingly manages a whole range of information
and resources that
"serves to facilitate democratic decision-making, assists citizen
participation in
government, and contributes to the search for roughly egalitarian
measures in the economy
at large (Schiller, 1996, p.35)". Accordingly, unequal access
precludes many low-income
residents from civic engagement of this kind. A widening gap between
the "information
rich" and the "information poor" puts the democratic institutions at
risk (Doctor, 1994,
p. 10).
IT is also an important tool to strengthen social networks and
participation in
communities by providing the opportunity to bring together groups of
users sharing
common interests but not necessarily physical proximity (Sanyal,
2000). Many scholars
assume that ICT can empower individuals (D'Allesandro and Dosa,
2001), increase levels
of social interaction and civil involvement (Katz et al., 2001), as
well as facilitate easy and
widespread access to education and other public services. As online
virtual communities
are creating more equal opportunities for citizens to obtain
information through websites,
community features the increasing social and cultural homogeneity.
However, because
low-income groups lack access to and appropriate skills for IT, they
are excluded from
interacting within and outside of their geographic communities.
Therefore, it is important
to narrow the technology gap.
Likewise, the digital divide is a symptom of a much larger and more complex
problem that economic, social, and political aspects are integrated.
Although diffusion of
technology makes the digital divide happen, technology provides new
ways to solve this
problem. To have any significant effect, however, technology must be
enabled by effective
public policy in cooperation with concerted efforts by the private
for-profit and private
nonprofit sectors (Servon, 2002). Lloyd (1998) argues that
communications policy is
considered to be a civil rights issue. Therefore, to overcome the
existing problem of the
digital divide, communications policy should be framed and functioned
as a regulatory
and social impact in the information society.
Digital divide in South Korea
South Korea has the highest penetration of broadband in the world. In 2004, 75
percent of Korean households have a broadband connection (The Korean
Ministry of
Information and Communication, 2004). This result was achieved in
less than 4 years after
the introduction of the first broadband services in July 1998. The
Korean Ministry of
Information and Communication (KMIC) framed information policy to
correspond to a
ubiquitous society beyond high penetration of broadband.
Despite widespread use of the Internet, particularly via broadband access, the
Internet boom remains a largely urban phenomenon in Korea (Yun, K.,
Lee, H. and Lim,
S, 2002). For example, the provision of high-speed Internet access
concentrates on
metropolitan areas. Large parts of the country and its population
remain excluded from the
benefits that the Internet offers (see Table 1). Another divide
causing concern arises in
differences by gender, income, age, and disability. Only 9.3 percent
of those aged 50 and
older go online, compared with 91.4 percent of the 7-19 age group,
the most active group.
By income, only 22.9 percent of households with incomes less than
$12,000 go online,
while 76.4 percent of households with incomes higher than $50,000
have access to the
Internet. Unless well-managed and planned, broadband Internet
connections will be yet
another source of digital divide.
Table 1
The Present Condition of Digital Divide in Korea
Gender
Male
Female
Geography
Metropolitan/Mid-Size and Small Cities
Rural
Income
Lower than $12,000*
Higher than $50,000
Bridging the digital divide 10
Individuals with Internet (December 2003) (%)
70.7
57.5
66.1
44.2
22.9
76.4
Age
7-19 Years Old
50 Years Old and above
Disability
With a disability
Without a disability
Occupation
White-Collar Workers
Blue-Collar Workers
Source: Korean Information Center (2003)
* The income range between $12,000 and $50,000 was missing in the data.
In 2000, the Korean Ministry of Information and Communication (KMIC)
released the
first issue of annual reports for promoting and distributing the
information technology in
South Korea. The report contained the existence and particulars of
the digital divide in
South Korea that separates people with access to information
technology from those
without access. As the Korean government formulated an agenda and a
policy to confront
the digital divide, the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged
groups closed (Yun, K.,
Lee, H. and Lim, S, 2002). For example, to reduce the digital gap
between geographies,
the government grants loans to service providers that construct
broadband access network
in rural areas. Such a policy would help to reduce the digital divide
between urban and
rural areas. Moreover, the program of "Digital Literacy Education for
Women" has
contributed to closing the gender gap.
The Korean government made an effort to promote informatization in the late
1990s. Since the informatization project, called "Cyber Korea 21,"
was established in
1999, the digital divide has been considered as the important
problem, which should be
solved to advance into the information society (Choi and Kim, 2004).
According to Choi
and Kim (2004), "A Conference of Strategy for Informatization," in April 2000,
formulated basic programs to overcome the gap such as donating the
personal computer
(PC) and supporting cost of Internet services to low-income families,
and computer
Bridging the digital divide 11
91.4
9.3
22.4
59.4
88.7
31.8
Bridging the digital divide 12
training to the digital disadvantaged groups. Finally, the Korean
government shaped the
"Act of Closing the Digital Divide" in 2001.
As the efforts of the Korean government to narrow the technology gaps are
regularized, the Korean scholars' studies of the digital divide
become vigorous. Kim
(2004) divides the digital divide into three types: gaps of
opportunity to access to
information, gaps of ability to use information technology, and gaps
of willingness to use
IT tools and information. Kang et al (2002) argues that because
uneven distribution of IT
exacerbates the existing inequity in "digital vicious cycle," the
digital divide tends to
exclude the disenfranchised groups from the social networks. To solve
this problem, a plan
to guarantee the equal opportunity to gain information should be
formulated (Seo, 2004).
Thus, uneven development of the Internet and efforts to provide the Internet
access to the public brings the considerations of how the digital
divide in South Korea
might be narrowed. Accordingly, this study focuses on the policy to
close the digital
divide of the Korean government. Since the digital divide as social
problems has been
discovered, its definition has been differently shaped. At first,
policymakers and the media
defined the digital divide centered on the problem of access.
However, as the larger
problems such as education or skills persisted, it has now requires
reframing discourses of
the digital divide in terms of three dimensions: access, literacy,
and content. Therefore, the
following research questions are drawn:
RQ 1: How is distribution of the Korean government projects significantly
different in access, literacy, and content from 2000 to 2004?
Economic and sociopolitical rationale justifies the efforts of the
government to
close the technology gap. To compete in the mainstream information
economy, access to
the Internet and skills to deal with the information tools are
requisites. As government and
other public services such as education are increasingly going
online, it is necessary to
create more equal opportunities for low-skilled citizens to engage in
the political and civic
arena and to obtain the information sought. These rationales tend to
be differently
represented according to the needs of the residents of a country.
Based on this argument,
the next research question appears:
RQ 2: How do the rationales in the Korean government projects differ by
Bridging the digital divide 13
disadvantage groups?
Furthermore, different approaches, in terms of access, education, and
content, are
necessary for different disadvantaged groups in a society. In fact,
groups that have been
traditionally digital have-nots are now making dramatic gains. Gaps
between rural and
nonrural households and between seniors and younger people have begun
to narrow. The
divide between women and men has gradually disappeared. However, deep
divides still
remain between those possessing the education and skills to gain the
benefits of the
information society and those who do not. The gaps between different
racial and ethnic
groups, people with and without disabilities, single-parent families
and dual-parent
families, the old and the young, and people with different levels of
income and education
are persistent. To solve the gaps between different groups, the
government should
formulate appropriate a policy for each group. Accordingly, the
following research
question is addressed:
RQ 3: How does the Korean government differently distribute the projects in
access, literacy, and content according to different disadvantaged groups?
METHODOLOGY
Sampling
To answer three questions, this article examined the Annual Reports of Korean
Informatization by the Korean Ministry of Information and
Communication. The Annual
Reports included every project that government administered in the
given year. We
content analyzed each project in the reports from 2000 to 2004. The
reports were collected
from the website of the Korean Ministry of Information and Communication
(http://www.mic.go.kr). Project-by-project examination by authors
produced an exhaustive
list of 232 projects to close the digital divide. Other projects that
did not deal with the
digital divide, such as projects for other media, were excluded from the list.
The unit of analysis was an individual project. The projects were
first coded for
the year conducted, then, categorized by three variables: dimensions
of project, rationale
of projects and target groups.
Dimensions of Project
Bridging the digital divide 14
Based on previous literature, three distinctive dimensions of the
projects were
selected. An access dimension includes all government projects to
promote infrastructure
for the Internet access. For instance, PC donation projects or free
Internet access supply to
low income households were included in this category. An education
dimension includes
projects that provide educational opportunity for people to
appropriately learn the Internet,
such as lectures for using software or designing homepages. Finally,
a content dimension
includes projects that create and provide necessary Internet contents
to disenfranchised
people.
Rationales of Project
This variable was defined as whether each government project was conducted for
economic reason or sociopolitical reason. Each project contains its'
mission statement
addressing the goal of the project. If the project was directly
related to increase economic
benefit of individuals or a country, rationale of the project was
assumed as economic
reason. The sociopolitical rationale is applied when the projects
empower to participate in
social activity such as expressing public opinion on cyberspace.
Target groups
Each project was designed to close the information gap within demographic
groups. This study drew six distinctive groups of each project:
disability, gender, age,
income, occupation, and geography.
20% of randomly selected projects were coded by two authors to determine
intercoder reliability. Using Scott's pi1, this study yielded a .87
level of agreement.
RESULTS
The first research question asks about the distribution of government policy
approaches—access, education and content—from 2000 to 2004. As Table
2 shows, the
distribution of dimensions has been significantly different by year.
In earlier stage, portion
of access dimension recorded the highest amount (57% in 2000, and 46%
in 2001),
followed by educational and content dimension. In 2002, amount of
education dimension
ranked the highest (45%). In later stage, however, the content
dimension was the most
prominent among the three dimensions (34% in 2003, and 50% in 2004). In short,
distribution of access dimension has been decreased from 2000 (57%)
to 2003 (23%). At
the same time, content dimension has been increased (19% in 2000 to
50% in 2004).
Interestingly, the education dimension had increased by 2002, and
then has been decreased
again.
1Calculation of Scott's pi (Poindexter & McCombs, 2000)
% observed % expected
agreement - agreement
Reliability=
1 - % expected agreement
Table 2
Cross-tabulation of dimension of project by year
2000 Dimension of Project
Access 12
57%
Education 5
24%
Content 4
19%
Total 21
100%
Chi-Square = 21.98, df = 8, p < .01
It should be noted here that government projects were evenly
distributed to the
three dimensions: 32% in access, 33% in education, and 35% in
content. In addition, a
total number of government policy projects have been increased by year, while
government first concentrated on access dimension, then, moved to
education, and finally,
to the content dimension. Overall, a chi-square test on distribution
of frequency shows a
significant difference among government policy approaches at < .01
significance level.
See table 2.
.
2002 2001
15
30%
12
46%
22
45%
9
35%
12
25%
5
19%
49
100%
26
100%
Bridging the digital divide 15
Year
2004 2003
20
23%
16
32%
23
27%
17
34%
43
50%
17
34%
86
100%
50
100%
Total
75
32%
76
33%
81
35%
232
100%
Table 3
Cross-tabulation of government project rationale by each disadvantaged group
Disadvantaged Groups
Disability
Gender
Age
Income
Occupation
Geography
Total
Chi-Square = 26.13, df = 5, p < .001
The second research question asks, "How do the rationales in the Korean
government policy differ by disadvantage groups?" While almost half
of the projects were
toward people with disability and rural population, government
project rationale was
significantly different by disadvantage groups. Table 3 shows that
sociopolitical rationale
is mainly applied to people with disability (59%), gender (88%) and
age (61%) aspects.
On the other hands, economic rationale was applied to the aspects of
income (68%),
occupation (68%), and geography (65%). It is not surprising that
disability, gender and age
aspects take sociopolitical rational while other groups reflect
economic rationale.
Government policy concentrates on how to participate social
minorities such as women or
the elderly to political and social discussion. At the same time, the
policy helps people
with low income or blue collars to obtain their economic benefits by
using the Internet. It
is also noticeable that the government projects are evenly
distributed between two
rationales. In other words, their application of rationales was well balanced.
Table 4 answers our third research question, "How does the Korean government
differently distribute the policy in access, literacy, and content
according to different
disadvantaged groups?" Dimension of access was attributed to
disability (45%), income
(60%), and geography (49%). Especially, 15 out of 25 projects (60%)
for people with low
income were conducted in the dimension of access. This distribution
indicates that the
Economic
29 (41%)
2 (12%)
15 (39%)
17 (68%)
25 (68%)
28 (65%)
116 (50%)
Bridging the digital divide 16
Government Project Rationale
Sociopolitical
42 (59%)
15 (88%)
24 (61%)
8 (32%)
12 (32%)
15 (35%)
116 (50%)
Total
71 (100%)
17 (100%)
39 (100%)
25 (100%)
37 (100%)
43 (100%)
232 (100%)
dimension of access focuses on groups who have economical
difficulties. Dimension of
education is attributed to two groups: gender (53%) and occupation
(62%), while projects
to bridge the age gap are mainly based on content dimension (51%).
Table 4
Cross-tabulation of dimensions of project by disadvantaged group
Disadvantaged Groups
Disability
Gender
Age
Income
Occupation
Geography
Total
Chi-Square = 57.62, df = 10, p < .001
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Through the content analysis conducted on the government projects of
the digital
divide from 2000 to 2004, this study investigated the current trend
of the government
policy to close the digital divide, and analyzed the projects in
terms of year, rationale,
dimension and disadvantage groups. This analysis not only illustrates
distribution of the
projects but also reflects the efforts or goals to close the digital divide.
In short, this study finds that the emphasis of the government projects has
changed over the years. To narrow the gaps, the government provided
the access in an
earlier stage, and then offered education, and finally developed
content of the Internet
since 2000 (see Table 2). The economic rationale supported the
projects for the
disadvantaged groups in the category of lower income, occupation, and
geography while
the sociopolitical rationale explained the projects for those
belonging to the categories of
disability, gender, and age (see Table 3). Furthermore, this article
shows that the
government projects were differently distributed based on the needs
of different
Access
32 (45%)
0 (0%)
6 (16%)
15 (60%)
1 (3%)
21 (49%)
75 (32%)
Bridging the digital divide 17
Dimensions of Project
Content Education
26 (37%) 13 (18%)
8 (47%) 9 (53%)
20 (51%) 13 (33%)
5 (20%) 5 (20%)
13 (35%) 23 (62%)
9 (21%) 13 (30%)
81 (35%) 76 (33%)
Total
71 (100%)
17 (100%)
39 (100%)
25 (100%)
37 (100%)
43 (100%)
232 (100%)
Bridging the digital divide 18
disadvantaged groups (see Table 4).
The interesting thing is that the programs for education are
dramatically increased
in 2002 (see Table 2). The reason can be found in the government plan
to overcome the
digital divide. From 2000 to 2002, the Korean government conducted
the projects, "Task
of Information Education toward Ten Million Citizens," to educate the
knowledge for
fully exploiting the potential of IT (Annual Reports, 2002). As a
result, the number of
training projects increased from 5 in 2000 to 22 in 2002.
A comparison of Table 3 and Table 4 suggests that there is a possible
correlation
between government rationale and its dimensions. For instance,
projects to close the
digital divide between age groups and gender tended to be conducted
under the rationale
of sociopolitical perspective. Suggesting that the biggest problem of
digital divide within
those groups might be the unequal representation of demography in the
cyberspace, the
government seemed to try to encourage the participation of those
disadvantaged groups
through training them and providing appropriate contents. Similarly,
for people with low
income and living in rural area, government conducted projects under
economic rationale,
therefore, provided access. This correlation of results suggests that
the Korean government
has tried to solve the digital divide in appropriate ways.
The findings are not surprising that the government first emphasizes
the access,
and then increased education projects, and finally concentrated
projects on contents of the
Internet (see Table 2). To obtain the highest returns on IT, people
do need the
infrastructure to connect to the Internet such as, PC and Internet
access, at their disposal
(Servon, 2002). Education and contents would be a follow-up concern.
While the Korean government has tried to achieve this long-term systematic
development in 5 years, this study was limited to examining the
effectiveness of a
government plan whether 5-year systematic projects were effectively
distributed to
different perspectives in general. Measuring the effects of the
government projects,
therefore, would require a comparison of this study to other analysis
such as how each
project actually decreased the gap of haves and have-nots. A
comparison of projects and
effects is suggested for future analysis.
Our study sought to categorize and compare all government projects
rather than to
examine the effects of individual projects. Quantitative analysis of
comparing frequency
Bridging the digital divide 19
of different government project approaches suggested some insightful
findings. However,
this analysis was, on the other hand, limited to making a
quantitative analysis of projects.
For example, under our research method, a year-long and nationwide
project such as
donating PCs to rural areas and a one-time, local project such as a
lecture on "making
homepage" in a small town are both counted as one in our data. In
other words, each
project would implicate different importance and effects to the
digital divide.
While conducting the research, authors realized that there had been government
reports and small projects aimed at closing the digital divide before
2000. Although the
first digital divide act was initiated in 1999, the Korean government
had showed
intermittent efforts toward the digital divide since 1994. It is
important to review the
earlier projects to observe current situations and predict the future
plan, because those
earlier projects are the groundwork of formation of government policy
in Korea. Similarly,
a comprehensive understanding of efforts to close the digital divide
in Korea should
consider the projects by private sectors. Corporations, individuals,
and nongovernmental
organizations have invested money and labor to development of
Internet technology and
equal distribution of the benefit. Therefore, it is suggested that
future researchers analyze
projects by private sectors and possibly compare the results with the
government project.
In conclusion, this study suggests an appropriate approach to close
the digital
divide as reviewing the case of Korean government, one of the leading
countries of the
Internet technology. Adoption of theoretical conceptualization to the
real situation made it
possible to test current status of the digital divide and efforts to
close it as well as to
contribute scholarly development of the theoretical model. Again,
narrowing the digital
divide must be accelerated when Internet content and education for
the disenfranchised
people as well as access is well-balanced.
REFERENCE
Atkinson, R. D. (1998). Technological change and cities. Cityscape, 3, 129-70.
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)
(2002, February).
The digital divide: A discussion paper. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Bridging the digital divide 20
conference of the British Department for Education and Employment. Retrieved
November 27, 2004, from
http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/digitaldivide.pdf
Carvin, A. (2000). Mind the gap: The digital divide as the civil
rights issue of the new
millennium. MultiMedia Schools. January/February 2000. Retrieved November
27, from 2004 http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan00/carvin.htm
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the
Internet, business, and society.
Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers Inc.
Chapman, G. and Rhodes, L. (1997). Nurturing neighborhood nets.
Technology Review.
Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
http://www.techreview.com/articles/oct97/chapman.html
Choi, D. J. and Kim, J. H. (2004). Jeongbukyukcha paradigmeui jeonhwangwa
saengsanjeok jeongbohwalyong bangan [Conversion of digital divide paradigm
and suggestion for productive information use]. Issue Report, 1(2), 1-42.
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or
creating a myth?
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
D'Allesandro, D. and Dosa, N. (2001). Empowering children and families with
information technology. Archives of Paediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 155(10),
1131-6.
Digital Divide Network (2000). Content and the digital divide: What
do people want?
Retrieved November 27, 2004, from
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=14
Doctor, Ronald D. (1994). Seeking equity in the national information
infrastructure.
Internet Research, 4(3), 9-22.
Gaur, R. (2003). Rethinking the Indian digital divide: The present
state of digitalization in
Indian management libraries. International Information & Library Review 35,
189-203.
Goslee, S. (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities
in the information
age. Benton Foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from
Bridging the digital divide 21
http://www.benton.org/publibrary/losing-ground/losing-ground.pdf
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked
infrastructures,
technological mobilities, and the urban condition. London, NY: Routledge.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1996). Telecommunications and the city:
Electronic spaces,
urban places. London, NY: Routledge.
International Telecommunications Union (2001). A broadband future: Reconciling
opportunities and uncertainties. ITU News, 6, 3-7. Retrieved November
28, 2004,
from http://www.itu.int/journal/200106/E/html/broadband.htm
Katz, J., Rice, R. and Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet 1995-2000:
Access, civic
involvement and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist,
45(3), 405-19.
Kang et al. (2002). Jeongbo kyukchae daehan sahoikyungchejeok hameui
[Social and
economic implications of digital divide]. Korean Information Strategy
Development Institute Report, 02-18, 1-161. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
http://www.kisdi.re.kr/
Kim, M. C. (2004). Jeongbohwawa sahoibulpyungdeung chekyeeui byunhwa
[Change of informatization and social unequal system]. Paper presented in 21st
Korean Megatrend Symposium.
Lazarus, W. and Mora, F. (2000). Online content for low-income and underserved
Americans: The digital divide's new frontier. Santa Monica, CA: The Children's
Partnership. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
http://www.childrenspartnership.org/pub/low_income/low_income.pdf
Lloyd, M. (1998). Communications policy is a civil rights issue.
Retrieved November
28, 2004, from http://www.comtechreview.org/winter-spring-1998/r981lloy.htm
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). The
development of
broadband access in OECD countries. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from
http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_33703_2475728_1_1_1_1,00
.html
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2003). The ever-shifting
Internet population: A
new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved
November 27, 2004,
from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_Report.pdf
Sanyal, B. (2000). From dirt road to information superhighway:
Advanced information
Bridging the digital divide 22
technology (AIT) and the future of the urban poor. In J. O. Wheeler,
Y. Aoyama,
and B. Warf (Eds.), Cities in the telecommunications age: The fracturing of
geographies. New York: Routledge.
Schiller, H. I. (1996). Information inequality: The deepening social
crisis in America. New
York: Routledge.
Seo, J. W. (2004). Pyungdeunghan jeongbogihoi bojangul wihan
jeongbojubkunseong jegobangan [Direction to guarantee equal opportunity to
access information]. Paper presented at Seminar in Commemoration of he 20th
Anniversary of the Founding of the Korea Agency for Digital Opportunity &
Production. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://www.kado.or.kr
Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology,
community, and public
policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Servon, L. J. and Horrigan, J. B. (1997). Urban poverty and access to
information
technology: A role for local government. Journal of Urban Technology,
4(3), 61-
81.
Smith, P. J. (2004, March). Exploring cyberschools as the educational
equivalent of 40
acres and a mule. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Conference on
Charter Schools: Trends and Policy Issues, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved November
27, 2004, from
http://www.mcgeorge.edu/government_law_and_policy/education_law/presentati
ons/smith_pamela/pamela_smith_cyberschools.pdf
The Bertelsmann Foundation/AOL Time Warner (2002). White Paper: 21st century
literacy in a convergent media world. Summit 7-8, March 2002, Berlin, Germany.
Retrieved November 27, 2004, from
http://www.21stcenturyliteracy.org/white/WhitePaperEnglish.pdf
The Korean Ministry of Information and Communication (2004). Internet
Baek Seo Korea
2004 [White Paper Internet Korea 2004]. National Computerization Agency.
Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://www.mic.go.kr/index.jsp
United Nations Development Program (2001). Human development report
2001: Making
new technologies work for human development. New York: United Nations
Development Program. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from
Bridging the digital divide 23
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/default.cfm
US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital
inclusion. A report
on Americans' access to technology tools. Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved November 26,
2004, from http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf
Young, J. R. (2001). Does 'digital divide' rhetoric do more harm than
good? The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(11), 51-52.
Youn, K., Lee, H. and Lim, S. (2002). The growth of broadband
Internet connections in
South Korea: Contributing factors. Asia Pacific Research Center,
Working Paper.
Stanford Institute for International Studies, CA. Retrieved November 28, 2004,
from http://siis.stanford.edu/publications/20032/
|
