[Air-l] relation digital divide - knowledge gap

[Paula]

Yes, an empirical study should address itself to something which *is* 
actually measurable, at least statistically. Even so, there may still be 
structural cultural assumptions which need unpacking.

I think most people would accept knowledge as a value -- "knowledge" 
pretty much encompasses the whole of human endeavour from how to make 
organised communicative sounds and chip flint tools to how to build a 
digital library. Who gets to define criteria for knowledge evaluation? 
And do we all accept that only knowledges which can be converted to 
exchange values are to be valued? Because this assumption does seem to 
be becoming increasingly structural to academic endeavour in a 
marketised system and is rapidly ceasing to be "marked" as a culturally 
specific assumption at all.

If the point of the study in question is to explain and address economic 
exclusion in capitalist economies proceeding from disadvantaged groups 
becoming differently skilled, it would seem important to explore the 
question of what constitutes "skill" or "knowledge" and how their value 
is measured. The assumption that only knowledges which can be exchanged 
for money within a capitalist system are valuable (or exist at all) is 
effectively built into the formulation of a "knowledge gap" itself. If 
this isn't deconstructed, the study will just contribute, once again, to 
renewed economic enforcement of ruling class knowledge values.

Renewed efforts will then be made to get economically excluded groups to 
devalue knowledges specific to their environment and adopt knowledges 
for which they have no use (because they do not address the immediate 
environment or provide knowledges which this specific group actually 
*can* convert to money). These knowledges will be largely rejected by 
the recipients who can't find a use for the knowledge offered (it has no 
application in their context). The effects of this effort will then be 
measured according to the values and assumptions of those constructing 
the study/skills programme and the poor will be found to be "less" 
again. QED: the poor are poor cos they're failing.

This assumption that economically excluded groups within capitalism 
possess *less* knowledge ought to be deconstructed. Are we measuring 
knowledge by the kilo or the pound? As has been a perennial source of 
film comedies, a yuppie abandoned in the wilderness would become 
dependent on bushmen who have the specific skills to exploit that 
enviornment. Tarzan in New York is equally amusing. So, are we looking 
at the specific knowledges required to facilitate specific modes of 
social and economic life?  And how do we assess the value of these 
different cultural/economic spaces? Is how rich they are in terms of 
money income going to be the dipstick again? Can the poor only "better 
themselves" by obliging the middle-class liberal will to elide class 
difference (by homogenising themselves with middle class knowledge values)?

Paula

Danny Butt wrote:

>Hi Michaël
>
>There are a number of ways of looking at this and it's possible to frame the
>question in the way you do. Decisions on terminology reflect long-standing
>political and disciplinary issues and I would be surprised if there was
>consensus around the correctness of your proposition.
>
>I would agree with 1), that knowledge is a social relationship and very
>elusive as an object. Once could say that ICT skills = "knowledge" =
>"resource" = "good". But the work of Eszter and others has made it clear
>that the acquisition of such knowledge is not at all straightforward, even
>if we agreed that it was valuable. (My view is that people like us who write
>to academic listservs tend to assume that it's valuable :).
>
>A more sceptical view would be to look at ICTs as part of a much larger set
>of social and economic relationships, that informationalise resources with
>unevenly distributed benefits. Some knowledge can be converted into material
>resources more readily than others, but it's very difficult to measure the
>knowledge, and I guess my question would be why introduce the "knowledge
>gap" when you can track ICT use against more measurable "divides" like
>increasing wage inequality? And even then ICT use itself is such a variable
>field - I think the value of work like Kathryn Shaw in the volume I referred
>to is that it addresses a specific field and looks at employment change,
>something that people can give good information on, rather than a hypothesis
>that treats all potential situations as a site of "the gap" rather than
>addressing the relationships between one's object of study and what is
>external to it. 
>
>Cheers,
>
>Danny
>
>--
>http://www.dannybutt.net
>adventures in cultural politics  - http://acp.dannybutt.net
>digital media - http://digital.dannybutt.net
>
>
>
>
>On 5/12/05 4:21 AM, "Opgenhaffen Michaël"
><michael.opgenhaffen at lessius-ho.be> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Thanks Eszter, Redhika, Ulla, Danny, Paula and others for your help.
>>I understand that my question was not well formulated, my excuses for that!
>> 
>>This is quite a complex domain for me and I want to get it right.
>>Therefore, an additional question:
>> 
>>If I got it right, the knowledge gap is the situation that some groups
>>(high-class, white, rich, well-educated, ...) are getting smarter en smarter
>>(because of there learning-abilities and -motivations and other benefits) and
>>the other groups aren't, so that the gap between the info-rich and info-poor
>>is widening (cfr Matthew-effect). Since the success of ICT, we can observe
>>sort of a same distinction between those who can work with internet and
>>computers and those who can't or won't. Those who can work with ict, benefit
>>from that use, while the groups for who it could be great to work on (for
>>closing the knowledge gap) aren't working with ict so that again, the gap is
>>widening. 
>> 
>>I now i formulated it very briefly, but is this in general correct?
>> 
>>My question is twofold:
>>1) Can i describe the difference in knowledge-output between users and
>>non-users as 'a knowledge gap'? I thought I read it somewhere, but as i read
>>your answers, i begin to think that the knowledge gap is more a social
>>phenomenon and not the difference in knowledge-output between users and
>>non-users. 
>>2) If this difference can not be called 'knowledge gap', which concept do you
>>suggest to describe this possible difference in knowledge-output between users
>>and non-users? 
>> 
>>Thankx a lot in advance. I know my English is not as good as my dutch is, but
>>i hope clear anough to understand.
>> 
>>Michaël 
>> 
>>-------------------------
>>Michaël Opgenhaffen
>>Translation studies and journalism
>>Lessius school Antwerp
>>Belgium
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>_______________________________________________
>>The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>>is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>>Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>>http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>>Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>>http://www.aoir.org/
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>The Air-l-aoir.org at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
>Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
>http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
>  
>