Digital divide in national informatization quotient : the perspective of mainland china
Jianbin Jin,Chengyu Xiong
2002-01-01
Abstract:This paper introduces a new approach in assessing the digital divide. Digital divide is a widely mentioned but conceptually confusing construct in contemporary communication studies. Beginning with the discussion of multi-faceted nature of digital divide, we argue that the presence of digital divide largely depends on how it is defined. National Informatization Quotient (NIQ) is an index launched by China government to evaluate the information and communication technologies development in different regions in China. It is composed of six dimensions which cover 20 indicators. The structure and computation of NIQ are introduced in detail. Utilizing the informatization development data of 2000 published by National Informatization Evaluation Center (NIEC), the digital divide situation in China is assessed. Specifically, the ratio of Standard Deviation to Mean of NIQ index of all cases is tactically employed as the indicator of digital divide level in our analysis of the digital divide. According to our analysis, there is “significant” digital divide in China in terms of NIQ in year 2000. The Digital Divide in Terms of National Informatization Quotient: 1 2002 International Conference on the Digital Divide: Technology & Politics in the Information Age The Perspective of Mainland China Laugksch (1999) pointed out that scientific literacy has become an internationally well-recognized educational slogan, buzzword, catchphrase, and contemporary educational goal. The same applies to the case of digital divide. Courtright & Robbin (2001:2) contend that “the metaphor of the ‘digital divide’ has become part of the national discourse of the United States, an abstract symbol that condenses public concerns about social inequality and evokes hopes for solutions related to the use of information technology.” In addition, “the digital divide is a potent resource whose symbolic properties and communicative power have activated a wide array of participants in the policy debates about how to create a more just society.” According to Hoffman (2001, cf.: Arquette, 2001), the term digital divide was first used by Lloyd Morrisett who vaguely conceived of a divide between the informationhaves and have-nots. However, the divide herein mainly is a gap of PC penetration in the early days of the Apple II in 1980 (Arquette, 2001). The term then grasped public’s attention with the issuance of the first National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) survey on Internet adoption and use in the US in 1994 with the catchy title: Falling Through the Net. Since then, numerous articles, either popular or academic, on this issue have been published. According to a convenient sample of newspapers, journal articles, newswires and similar mass media sources in the LexisNexis database from January 1999 to December 2000 (Arquette, 2001), the increasing rate of digital divide related articles hits almost 3000%. In China, digital divide is receiving similar social saliency. A quick search with the key words “digital divide” (in Chinese) in one of China’s leading news website People’s Daily Online (peopledaily.com.cn) shows that at least 500 articles somehow related to this term are available. On July 2001, a high-level forum on public understanding of information technology with the special topic of Pay Attention to the Digital Divide was held in Beijing. A wide range of representatives, including governmental officials, IT experts, educators, social scientists and media practitioners, presented their viewpoints and comments on this issue. Digital divide has been incorporated into people’s daily conversational discourse. Ironically, while the term digital divide has frequently appeared in varied contexts, including academic writings, both the connotative and denotative meanings of it are confusingly incoherent. The presence of other similarly prevalent terminologies, such as digital equality, information equality, e-development, network readiness, etc., add additional confusion. People seem to debate on the issue without a shared understanding of what is meant by the digital divide. As Arquette (2001) contends, the entire “e” researcher community is plagued by a lack of definitional clarity of the concepts such as digital divide: “each researcher assumes other researchers use the same definitional frameworks for these terms” while in fact “there is no such shared meaning in nomenclature.” (p.3). 1 The website of People’s Daily is: http://www.peopledaily.com.cn, the search is conducted on July 31, 2002. 2 2002 International Conference on the Digital Divide: Technology & Politics in the Information Age While the comment of Arquette (2001) mainly refers to the phenomenon in the English speaking world, the use of its Chinese counterpart of the term digital divide is also in a similar situation. For example, among more than 30 articles collected by the book Pay Attention to the Digital Divide in China (Leng, 2002), no consistent conceptual definition is available across the writings. While some are talking about the Internet penetration divide among different social groups categorized by age, occupation and educational level, others refer the concept to an uneven development of e-infrastructure among different areas or nations. So, whenever the term digital divide is confronted, the following question can always be raised: in terms of what? This article intends to introduce a new approach of operationalizing digital divide from the perspective of China. We first make a brief review of different definitional perspectives of the term digital divide. Then a detailed introduction of National Informatization Quotient is presented which will be employed as the operational definition of the informatization level of a region. Finally we will investigate the geographical digital divide in China in terms of NIQ. Conceptual Review Sartori (1984, p.22) contends that “clear thinking requires clear language,” and “in turn, a clear language requires that its terms be explicitly defined.” In the study of digital divide, a clear conceptual and operational definition of the term seems to be the essence of any meaningful conversation and communication. Conceptualization is the process through which we specify the essential dimensions of a concept. On the other hand, operationalization involves the development of specific research procedures that enables the empirical observations representing those intended concepts in the real world (Babbie, 1998). In this section, we will briefly review the multiple conceptions around digital divide. Digital divide is a fresh term not unfamiliar to communication scholars (Zhu, 2002). As early as 1970, a theory called knowledge gap (Tichenor, Donohue & Olien, 1970) was developedwhich has been one of the most active inquiry fields hereafter in communication studies. The supposition of knowledge gap mainly concerns the different knowledge possession through mass media by social groups with varied social-economicstatus. In 1980s, with the development of ICTs, especially with the wide application of PC in diverse contexts, a divide between the information-haves and have-nots was sensitively observed and warned (Compaine, 2001). Since early 1990s, digital divide has gradually become a convenient label, or more precisely, a metaphor (Courtright & Robbin, 2001), in describing the inequality of possessing and using ICTs, especially the Internet connectedness.