- The notion and substance of a “Digital Divide” has been very extensively discussed and researched. The definition, at its most basic, is that the “Digital Divide” is the “divide” between those who have access to Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) and particularly the Internet and those who don’t have such access.
(I’ve covered a lot of this below in earlier blog posts and elsewhere but my intention in presenting this here in this form at this time is to raise and focus the discussion of a “Data Divide”particularly for Open Government Data now, when things are still somewhat in flux, and there is the real possibility of those most directly involved–data designers and government folks–paying some attention and intervening in a positive way.)
Researchers have extensively explored the range of social, economic, geographical and other barriers which underlie and to a considerable degree “explain” (cause) the Digital Divide. My own contribution has been to argue that “access is not enough”, it is whether opportunities and pre-conditions are in place for the “effective use” of the technology particularly for those at the grassroots.
The idea of a possible parallel “Data Divide” between those who have access and the opportunity to make effective use of data and particularly “open data” and those who do not, began to occur to me. I was attending several planning/recruitment events for the Open Data “movement” here in Vancouver and the socio-demographics and some of the underlying political assumptions seemed to be somewhat at odds with the expressed advocacy position of “data for all”.
Thus the “open data” which was being argued for would not likely be accessible and usable to the groups and individuals with which Community Informatics has largely been concerned – the grassroots, the poor and marginalized, indigenous people, rural people and slum dwellers in Less Developed countries. It was/is hard to see, given the explanations, provided to date how these folks could use this data in any effective way to help them in responding to the opportunities for advance and social betterment which open data advocates have been indicating as the outcome of their efforts.
As I presented this uneasiness in public fora and through my blog it became additionally clear that many involved in “open data” saw their interests and activities being confined to making data ‘legally” and “technically” accessible — what happened to it after that was somebody else’s responsibility. And with this I partially agree. Ensuring the broadest opportunity for the use of (for example) Open (Government) Data (OGD) is a broad public responsibility which of course, is shared between public authorities and technical developers; with however, the technical developers having the responsibility (IMHO) to ensure that from their – technical – side no barriers are introduced (and technical barriers are removed) to allowing for the broadest possible public use of the data where they are undertaking their activities.
As I thought more actively on these issues I realized that while there were striking parallels between the Digital Divide and what I was rapidly coming to see as an associated “Data Divide” there were also very substantial and significant differences –notably while the Digital Divide deals with, for the most part “infrastructure” issues, the Data Divide is concerned with “content” issues.
As well, where a Digital Divide might exist for example, as a result of geographical or policy considerations and thus have uniform effects on all those on the wrong side of the “divide” whatever their socio-demographic situation; a Data Divide and particularly one of the most significant current components of the Open Data movement i.e. OGD, would have particularly damaging negative effects and result in particularly significant lost opportunities for the most vulnerable groups and individuals in society and globally. (I’ve discussed some examples here at length in a previous blogpost.)
The Data Divide thus would be the gap between those who have access to and are able to use Open (Government) Data and those who are not so enabled.
I have suggested elsewhere that there are seven layers/components through which a “Data Divide” (building on my similar analysis of the Digital Divide”) might be understood:
1. infrastructure—being on the wrong side of the “Digital Divide” and thus not having access to the basic infrastructure supporting the availability of OGD.
2. devices—OGD that is not universally accessible and device independent (that only runs on I-Phones for example)
3. software—“accessible” OGD that requires specialized technical software/training to become “usable”
4. content—OGD not designed for use by those with handicaps, non-English speakers, those with low levels of functional literacy for example
5. interpretation/sense-making—OGD that is only accessible for use through a technical intermediary and/or is useful only if “interpreted” by a professional intermediary
6. advocacy—whether the OGD is in a form and context that is supportive for use in advocacy (or other purposes) on behalf of marginalized and other groups and individuals
7. governance—whether the OGD process includes representation from the broad public in its overall policy development and governance (not just lawyers, techies and public servants).
Intervening at this relatively early stage – whether by Open Data designers or through government (or other) policy and programmes (or most desirably both) –can help to avoid a Data Divide and preclude many of the negative effects (and relatively costly make up efforts) and lost opportunities associated with the Digital Divide.
My strong suggestion/hope would be that a minimum of 10% of expenditures on OGD would go to ensuring that structures of “data haves” and “data have nots’ was not being created as an outcome of OGD projects. Contributions to training for data use, for digital literacy, for disability oriented user interface design, to support advocacy based on OGD, for ensuring that OGD is not device dependent, to assist in participation in OGD governance and others would go some way in ensuring this outcome.
Gurstein's Community Informatics 
John Hawker
July 13, 2011
You’ve nailed it with the comment about being a infrastructure and layer issue!
OGD is essentially content, though of course it’s also applications running on layer or infrastructure. But Data is content.
Having easy ways to access OGD that is so important.
Real Literacy alone, not just digital, kills access straight off as you last line points too,
A point I keep stressing is that while for a long time we relied for PC’s alone for ICT communication, and more recently Mobile has come into play, but there are a number of other tools as well that are even better for reaching into the dark gulf of digital and data divide that’s caused by many reasons.
We need to look beyond just the PC and just the mobile for access to OGD, to beyond devices that mostly suit just young and literate people.
Older people don’t like PC’s – Even if they are literate – mostly not in rural developing countries. I call it the Fear Factor – test 1 – hold out your laptop or netbook to someone over 15 who hasn’t used one in a rural area in a developing country so they have to reach out with one hand and hold it – see what they do. By comparison do the same to a child near them. Do it with your own parents. I do this regularly.
Older people don’t like mobiles – I’ll be honest – I have trouble seeing the screen – and I am not that old even, still a handsome good looking bloke!
My mum has great trouble just unlocking the screen. She doesn’t drink that much, but older people have trouble pressing buttons twice fast to unlock them. If you don’t lock a screen you can’t afford the unwanted phone calls that are made.
So my fear is the devices are often for the younger generations.
But there are other ways to access information. Often not as exciting, or “groovy” so the manufactures aren’t so keen to promote, not so much profit in it for them.
And I say this because look at how many projects are actually “Vendor Driven”.
IPTV – for example, is pretty boring, but it can provide a wealth of government services on TV’s ideal for elderly people, ICON driven. great for ICT services. I know it works and it works anywhere. I put it into villages with no phone lines or cable access. Yes the same system used by the biggest cable/fibre and telephone Pay TV networks in USA and Europe.
We need to look at a wider range of solutions with the range of ICT than just the usual suspects.
Forgive my humore in the above.
ZOCA me
John Hawker
Hawkerj@sat-ed.com
Michael Gurstein
July 13, 2011
🙂
M
Laurent Elder
July 14, 2011
Michael, I continue to enjoy your thoughts on this issue.
However, I find the parallels are tenuous at best. To over-simplify things, objectives around the digital divide were focussed on those who were marginalized and didn’t have access to connectivity. The barriers to access were cost and capacity, not legal or technical (generally). The Open data movement’s general objective is making data that is “owned” by govt available to its rightful owners: citizens. Through breaking legal and technical constraints, any individual (who has the capacity, obviously) can access it. It doesn’t specifically target the marginalized. If you’re concerned with social inclusion then obviously understanding how marginalized people can or cannot use this data is important, but that isn’t the overarching objective of OGD. It is not concerned (yet) with equity or equality in access to data, but rather that the data go from the private to the public domain. Equity and equality of access to data (and use) entails much broader interventions that relate more to education at large, the digital divide and encouraging democratic participation. Those are huge issues that any country (even our own) is grappling with. Obviously putting data in the public domain can have negative consequences (even if you abide by all the safeguards you mention), as the Bangalore example demonstrates, but this can only be judged against the benefits it brings to society and governance at large…and the jury is still out on that.
I think your focus on inclusion is important and useful and that you are asking questions many do not, but should. We’ll support work that helps build an evidence base around these issues actually. But I fear the problems you highlight are much broader democratic and societal issues that OGD interventions can have little influence on. However OGD can, possibly, play a role in improving govt practices and create a context of accountability that benefits citizens at large…or so we hope.
Laurent
Michael Gurstein
July 14, 2011
Hi Laurent, thanks for your thoughtful and useful comments.
I’m not sure why the “objective” of those involved (even if one could say that there was a single objective) would be relevant here. As I’m sure you know, Industry Canada’s “objective” with the Community Access Program was to promote the availability of the means for e-Commerce in the general public. That the program transformed itself into a broad program facilitating public access to and use of the Internet for multiple objectives of which one of the least active from my experience being e-Commerce was an unanticipated (by the sponsors) but quite predictable (in retrospect) outcome. My overall argument is that Open Government Data may be a process of simply making the data “legally” and “technically” available from the perspective of certain of those involved in the process as techies or as government officials but again the outcome here seems to be both unanticipated (by these folks involved) but quite predictable (most everyone else with an interest in the area). Thus OGD is finding multiple social and commercial uses and (my argument) those social (and commercial) uses reinforce existing digitally structured “divides”. Again my point was to try to show that those “divides” are both “predictable” and to a very considerable degree “preventable” through a relatively modest degree of intervention at this, the planning and development end. I’m delighted to see that there might be an interest in “support(ing) work that helps build an evidence base around these issues” as I very strongly believe should be done. As well, subsequent to my publishing these blogposts I’ve now been introduced to the Community Data movement here in Canada which seems to be something to this point somewhat unique in responding to the issues of “data inclusion” and I’ll be covering that as a possible model of how to proceed towards “effective data use” in my next blogpost.
Laurent Elder
July 14, 2011
My point about objectives is simply that we need to measure and gauge the extent of OGD’s value according to how it achieves its stated “change”, which is largely to reduce corruption and improve state accountability. This then needs to be weighed against the exclusionary consequences of this type of activity. My second point is simply that I don’t think you can prevent consequences like the Bangalore land grab. That experience,was (as far as I know, which isn’t first hand) the result of enormous power and economic differentials that no amount of training or digital inclusion measures could prevent. Your ideas create the framework for a more level playing field, but don’t fully address the political economy that underlies these divides. Research would therefore need to concentrate both on measuring the Bangalore-like consequences and weighing them against the assumed governance benefits. The former is fairly easy to do, the latter is very very difficult. In essence, Bangalore-like cases will happen, but the question is whether OGD creates the context within which your average citizen is still better off because he’s better governed?
Michael Gurstein
July 14, 2011
Thanks for the clarification Laurent. And I completely agree with the need for some systematic research in this area. But to clarify on my side. I don’t see, say the Bangalore example, as either/or… My guess is that there may be net benefits overall (and in any case clarification of land titles is in most instances a broad social good I’m quite sure…) the question here would be whether some fairly simple processes (as a couple of those who have commented earlier indicated e.g. training, pro-active information distribution, direct links between the program and community based organizations and service providers) might not mitigate some of the negative consequences while not over-burdening the otherwise commendable program with additional costs or responsibilities. Anyway, certainly an area worthwhile exploring in much more depth.