CCTP-632 Technology and Social Exclusion SPRING 2012 GEORGETOWN CCT Monday, 5pm 7:30pm CarBarn 315 Dr.

. Katy Pearce kep63@georgetown.edu Office hours in CarBarn 300 before class (2:30pm-4:30pm) and by appointment (or Skype/Google chat) Description: This course is designed to provide students with exposure to issues of digital divide and inequality and how information and communication technologies can reaffirm and deepen existing issues of social exclusion. Goals: In this course, we will: Critically read empirical studies and policy papers about inequality and information and communication technologies; Discuss empirical studies and policy papers and compare arguments and findings; Learn about academic, professional, and policy approaches to digital inequalities; Analyze change in digital inequalities over time with a resulting written product; Write a policy paper. Readings: Readings are to be completed before class. Readings are available in PDF form on Blackboard. Because it is likely that you will want access to non-assigned sections of the books, all of the books are on reserve at the library. You are welcome to buy the books via Amazon or elsewhere if you want a physical copy many are available used for a low price. Academic integrity: All students are expected to adhere to GUs academic integrity and code of conduct policies. This includes plagiarism. This is a serious topic and all assignments will be reviewed for integrity. Please familiarize yourself with these policies. Accommodations: Students with disabilities should register with GUs Academic Resource Center (arc@georgetown.edu) and meet with the instructor about accommodations. Assignments: In most class sessions a class member will lead discussion of an empirical or policy piece(s). Your discussion leadership is worth 10% of your final grade.) The primary way that you will be evaluated in this course is through 2 papers and a presentation (details at the end of syllabus). Each paper is between 13-20 pages in length (not including cover page, references, tables, or figures). You are expected to adhere to APA style and write in a social scientific style. Papers will be uploaded to Google documents and 2 of your classmates will proofread your paper for you. You will also be responsible for proofreading 2 of your classmates papers. (Each paper is worth 30% of your final grade and the presentation is worth 20% of your final grade.)

Schedule:
WEEK (0) DATE W 1/11 CANCELLED (no class on M 1/16) M 1/23 TOPIC READING (listed in order of importance) Please read before first class meeting for an overview: Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791 INEQUALITY
(Dont stress out about the amount of reading this week this is merely to establish a shared base understanding of inequality. You wont be expected to deeply engage with these readings directly.)

(Please read these before class) What is inequality? Hurst, C. E. (2010). Social inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. (p. 9-12) Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: Class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 9-11) Classical explanations for inequality Hurst, C. E. (2010). Social inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. (p. 182-211) Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: Class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 83-115) Contemporary explanations for inequality Hurst, C. E. (2010). Social inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. (p. 237-257) Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: Class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 117-148)

MAKE UP Su 1/29

INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL DIVIDE

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 1 (p.1-8) and Chapter 2 (p.926) and Chapter 3 (p. 27-44)) Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Introduction (p. 1-10) and Chapter 1 (p. 11-30)) Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Chapter 1 (p. 1-14)) Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341-362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519

PAPER 3 M 1/30 WHAT IS ACCESS?

(Dont stress out about the amount of reading this week there are many pages of tables.)

Discussion of expectations for paper 1 Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Chapter 2 (p. 15-37)) Rice, R. E., McCreadie, M., & Chang, S.-J. (2001). Accessing and browsing information and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 2 (p. 19-38) and Chapter 3, influences and constraints on access (p. 67-82))
2

Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Chapter 1 Introduction: (p. 1-13) and Chapter I-2 Access: (p. 17-34) and Chapter I3 Access Results: (p. 35-65) and Chapter I-5 Access Examples: (p. 83-99)) Guest speaker: Aaron Smith Student-led discussion 1 (one student will present on all): Jansen, J. (2010). Use of the Internet in higher-income households. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Better-offhouseholds-final.pdf Smith, A. (2010). Technology trends among people of color. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2010/September/Technolog y-Trends-Among-People-of-Color.aspx Department of Commerces Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2011). Exploring the digital nation - Computer and Internet use at home. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2011/exploring-digital-nationcomputer-and-internet-use-home 4 M 2/6 (Potluck dinner) PHYSICAL DIVIDE van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 4 (p. 45-70)) Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 3 (p. 49-80)) Student-led discussion 2 (one student will present on all): Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2006). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and Internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16-44. doi:10.1093/oep/gpl024 Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision versus reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66. doi:10.1145/1516046.1516063 Matthee, K. W., Mweemba, G., Pais, A. V., van Stam, G., & Rijken, M. (2007). Bringing Internet connectivity to rural Zambia using a collaborative approach. 2007 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (pp. 1-12). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICTD.2007.4937391 5 M 2/13 (no class on M 2/20) DEVICE SPEED DIVIDE
(Sorry for the heavy reading load, but with the holiday, I wanted to make sure that we covered this topic adequately.)

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 2 (p. 41-48)) Berkman Center for Internet and Society. (2010). Next generation connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkma n_Center_Broadband_Final_Report_15Feb2010.pdf Smith, A. (2010). Home broadband 2010. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/Home broadband 2010.pdf
3

Guest speaker: Jamilah King Student-led discussion 3 (one student will present on all): Donner, J. (2008). Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: A review of the literature. The Information Society, 24(3), 140-159. doi:10.1080/01972240802019970 Chigona, W., Beukes, D., Vally, J., & Tanner, M. (2009). Can mobile Internet help alleviate social exclusion in developing countries? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 36, 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2.../index.php/ejisdc/article/view/535 King, J. (2011). How big telecom used smartphones to create a new digital divide. Colorlines. Retrieved from http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/12/the_new_digital_divide_two_se parate_but_unequal_internets.html Crawford, S. (2011, December 3). The new digital divide. New York Times. New York. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/internetaccess-and-the-new-divide.html 6 M 2/27 (no class on M 3/5) LITERACY/EDUCA TION DIVIDE Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 5 (p. 109-152)) OECD (2000). Literacy in the information age. Final report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/21/39437980.pdf Guest speaker: Mark Warschauer Student-led discussion 4 (one student will present on all): Medhi, I., Sagar, A., & Toyama, K. (2006). Text-free user interfaces for illiterate and semi-literate users. 2006 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (pp. 72-82). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICTD.2006.301841 Lalji, Z., & Good, J. (2008). Designing new technologies for illiterate populations: A study in mobile phone interface design. Interacting with Computers, 20(6), 574-586. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2008.09.002 Birru, M. S., Monaco, V. M., Charles, L., Drew, H., Njie, V., Bierria, T., Detlefsen, E., et al. (2004). Internet usage by low-literacy adults seeking health information: An observational analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e25. doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e25 PAPER M 3/12 no class M 3/19 (Potluck dinner) Discussion of expectations for Paper 2 Please use this time to work on Paper 2. LANGUAGE DIVIDE Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 4 (p. 81-108)) Paolillo, J. C., Pimienta, D., & Prado, D. (2005). Measuring linguistic diversity on the Internet: UNESCO Report 14218. Paris. Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (in submission). Digital divides of Internet awareness, adoption, and use due to socioeconomic status and foreign language skill: The cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.
4

M 3/26

TECHNICAL SKILL DIVIDE

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 5 (p. 71-94)) Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Chapter 3 (p. 38-59)) Student-led discussion 5 (one student will present on all): van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774 van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Peters, O. (2011). Rethinking Internet skills: The contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills. Poetics, 39(2), 125-144. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2011.02.001 Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x

M 4/2 (no class on M 4/9) (Potluck dinner)

USE DIVIDE

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 6 (p. 95-130)) Student-led discussion 6 (one student will present on all): Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274-291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x Kreutzer, T. (2009). Generation mobile: Online and digital media usage on mobile phones among low-income urban youth in South Africa. Retrieved from http://tinokreutzer.org/mobile/MobileOnlineMedia-SurveyResults2009.pdf (Chapter 5, p. 53-71) Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2003). Americas online pursuits. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Online_ Pursuits_Final.PDF.PDF Purcell, K. (2011). Search and email still top the list of most popular online activities. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://fe01.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Searchand-Email.pdf

10

M 4/16

CAPITAL DIVIDE

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Chapter 6 (p. 153-198)) Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Chapter II-7 Civic and Community Involvement: (p. 103-132) and Chapter II-6 Political Involvement: (p. 135-149) and Chapter II-8 Community Involvement: (p. 153-159) and Chapter II-9 Involvement Examples: (p. 161-199) and Chapter IV-14 Social Capital: (p. 321-352)) Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Chapter 5 (p. 86-115))
5

Student-led discussion 7 (one student will present on all): Stern, M. J., & Adams, A. E. (2010). Do rural residents really use the Internet to build social capital? An empirical investigation. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(9), 1389-1422. doi:10.1177/0002764210361692 Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x Pasek, J., More, E., & Romer, D. (2009). Realizing the social Internet? Online social networking meets offline civic engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3-4), 197-215. doi:10.1080/19331680902996403 Seiter, E. (2008). Practicing at home: Computers, pianos, and cultural capital. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected (pp. 2752). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262633598.027 11 M 4/23 FREEDOM DIVIDE Roberts, H., Zuckerman, E., Faris, R., York, J., & Palfrey, J. (2011). The evolving landscape of Internet control: A summary of our recent research and recommendations. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Evolvin g_Landscape_of_Internet_Control_3.pdf Guest speaker: James Losey Student-led discussion 8 (one student will present on all): Meinrath, S. D., Losey, J., & Lennett, B. (2011). A growing digital divide: Internet freedom and the negative impact of command-and-control networking. IEEE Internet Computing, 15(4), 75-79. doi:10.1109/MIC.2011.85 Sinnreich, A., Graham, N., & Trammell, A. (2011). Weaving a new net: A meshbased solution for democratizing networked communications. The Information Society, 27(5), 336-345. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.607056 Pearce, K. E., & Kendzior, S. (2012). Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan. Journal of Communication, 62(2), x-x. 12 M 4/30 POLICY BRIEFINGS Students will present their policy paper in a 15 minute briefing.

Evaluation:
Below expectations (C-F) Contributes to class discussions Contributes to the discussion by raising questions and comments that reflect little understanding of the material, sometimes builds on others ideas and seldom challenges assumptions and ideas. Presents simplistic critique. Presentation quality lacking. Meets expectations (Bs) Sometimes contributes to the discussion by raising questions, making sometimes relevant comments, builds on others ideas and sometimes challenges assumptions and ideas. Presents respectful but simplistic critique. Clearly Exceeds expectations (As) Always contributes to the discussion by raising thoughtful questions, comments are relevant, and often builds on others ideas and most of the time. Challenges assumptions and ideas appropriately. Presents respectful and thoughtful critique. Clearly % of final grade 10% of final grade

Empirical study critique

10% of final
6

and discussion

Leads class discussion.

presented. Leads class discussion.

Paper 1

Does not bring together literature or find literature gap. Does not write clearly. Organization and style with error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor.

Brings together some relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, approaches question/literature gap. Writes clearly. Organization and style with some error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor.

presented. Leads class discussion in a thoughtful way. Brings in other empirical articles to provide counterexamples. Ties back to other class readings. Brings together relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, finds novel ways to approach question/literature gap. Writes clearly and persuasively. Organization and style without error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor. Fulfilled all expectations in assignment guidelines. Brings together relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, finds novel ways to approach question/literature gap. Writes clearly and persuasively. Organization and style without error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor. Fulfilled all expectations in assignment guidelines. Background does not detract from text or other graphics. Choice of background is appropriate for this project. Font formats (e.g. color, bold, italic) have been carefully planned to enhance readability and content. Presentation has no misspellings or grammatical errors. Engaging and confident presentation style. Interaction with audience. Project includes all material needed to gain a comfortable understanding of the topic.

grade

30% of final grade

Paper 2

Does not bring together literature or find literature gap. Does not write clearly. Organization and style with error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor.

Brings together some relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, approaches question/literature gap. Writes clearly. Organization and style with some error. Fully responded to draft comments from peers and instructor. Fulfilled all expectations in assignment guidelines.

30% of final grade

Policy paper briefing Aesthetic

Background makes it difficult to see text or competes with other graphics on the page. Font formatting makes it very difficult to read the material. Presentation has more than 2 grammatical and/or spelling errors. Not engaging and confident presentation style. No interaction with audience. Project is lacking several key elements and has inaccuracies.

Presentation Effectiveness (most important)

Background does not detract from text or other graphics. Choice of background could have been better suited for the project. Font formatting has been carefully planned to complement the content. It may be a little hard to read. Presentation has 1-2 misspellings and/or grammatical errors. Less engaging and confident presentation style. Little interaction with audience. Project includes most material needed to gain a comfortable understanding of the topic.

20% of final grade

Grading scale:
A AB+ B B94-100% 90-93% 87-89% 83-86% 80-82%
7

C F

70-79% 0-69%