EFECTOS FARMACOLÓGICOS EN LOS MODELOS BÁSICOS

The government’s focus is often argued in terms of a ‘digital divide’, which can be defined as

‘the gap between those individuals and communities who own, access, and effectively use information and communication technologies (ICT) and those who do not’ (Becta, 2001:3)

or the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. From the macro perspective this relates to developed and developing countries (Cattan, 2003), from the meso competing

businesses, and from the micro ‘technology-rich’ and technology-poor’ citizens (Becta, 2001). UK government initiatives have aimed at widening participation by providing access to technology and skill training targeted at ‘deprived’ urban areas and communities. Bromley (1998) argued that the reasoning behind the government’s aims is based on ‘dubious assumptions’ about the nature of technology. The first underlying assumption is determinist (Valentine and Holloway, 1999), specifically that technology benefits all individuals equally and that access guarantees upward social or economic mobility while, conversely, lack of access or skills leads to economic or social disadvantage. The second assumption is that these initiatives would inevitably lead to ICT use (Selwyn, 2004a; Valentine et al, 2002). However, despite these measures it is estimated (DIP, 2004) that about half the adult UK population remain digitally disengaged, in other words although people may have increasing access to and some skill to use computers they do not, for a variety of reasons, use computers in their daily lives or that their engagement is restricted. The benefits of ICT skills and access may therefore not be equal (Bromley, 1998; Foley, 2004). Complex power relationships (Bromley, 1998), socio-personal factors (Foley et al, 2002), or educational issues (iSkills, 2007) could all impact on use or non-use of ICT.

In early definitions of the digital divide socio-economic factors such as the ability to afford ICT equipment or differing employment skill needs (Sein et al, 1999) were seen as key to individuals ICT use or non-use. This focused attention on existing socio-economic power (Bromley, 1998) divisions associated with employment, class, gender, race and ethnicity. As accessibility to ICT has increased, the focus has expanded to include ‘digital (dis)engagement’. This broadening concept meant use was also seen as influenced by social-personal factors (Foley and Alfonso, 2002) such as levels of interest, awareness, understanding and acceptance of ICT, and educational level (iSkills, 2007). A large scale project in Belgium, (Roe and Broos, 2005) reported that 40% of respondents were either non-users or had negative attitudes towards digital developments. The strongest correlation with computer ‘disquietude’ was level of education, followed by age and then gender. These findings have been

replicated in other research, for example ‘The Skills of Life Survey’ in the UK (DfES, 2003b). There are several possible implications for such findings. Firstly, that non-use and negative attitudes, far from being confined to marginalised groups in society, could be widespread. Secondly, that access and training may not automatically lead to use. Thirdly, that the assumptions of the digital divide as temporary and ‘generational’, that is as younger ICT literate workers replace older illiterate workers (Roe and Broos, 2005) the problems will disappear, could be erroneous. Finally, that education, both basic (iSkills, 2007) and ICT could be a key factor rather than access.

Negative attitudes: Lack of relevance, confidence (Clarke, 2006; Cooke and Greenwood, 2008) or interest (Foley, 2004) are cited as reasons for non-use of ICT. These barriers may be less significant for ICT learners as enrolment requires motivation, even if that is externally driven for example employers require it. Lack of awareness of potential, fear, or lack of confidence could, however, remain key influences to level of use. Self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief regarding their ability to use a computer (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) was felt to play a significant role in a individual’s decision to use computers and how comfortable users were in learning skills related to effective use (Hasan, 2003; Marakas et al, 1998; Ong et al, 2004; Poynton, 2004; Torkzadeh et al, 2006; Wilfong, 2006). From a survey of managers and professionals, Compeau and Higgins (1995) concluded that computer self- efficacy exerted a significant influence on individual’s expectations of outcomes, their emotional reactions to computers, and their actual computer use. Individuals with high self-efficacy were said to use computers more, derive more enjoyment from their use and experience less computer anxiety. Wilfong (2006) predicted that increased levels of computer anxiety correlate with decreased levels of computer use. He further argued that anxiety and frustration were not just related to pre or beginner users but could affect users generally. Low self- efficacy could thus be wide spread and impact on computer usage at varying levels of experience.

Access and use: Angus et al (2004) in Australia looked at four families who were all connected to the Internet. In digital divide parlance they were all ‘haves’ by having access to the Internet but the researchers concluded that their engagement with the Internet was in some case limited, such as for chat room access only, and that the economic or socially disadvantaged families remained disadvantaged. A limitation of this research was lack of exploration of whether differing levels of experience, confidence, competence or attitude might have contributed to results. Valentine et al (2002) looking at children’s use of ICT in UK schools, similarly concluded that access to ICT alone did not equate to either use or development of skills but rather that different groups of children understood, valued and took up or rejected ICT in different ways. These children had equal access and training opportunities but socio-personal or socio-cultural attitudes impacted on engagement. Torkzadeh and Van Dyke (2002) concluded that training could improve Internet self-efficacy but not necessarily change attitudes to computers usage. Later research (Torkzadeh et al, 2006) indicted that learners with ‘favourable’ attitudes to computers improved their computer and Internet self-efficacy significantly more than individuals with ‘unfavourable’ attitudes. These findings suggest that attitudinal influences play a strong part in computer use and that skills alone are not enough to ensure use.

Temporary problem: Older people are often perceived as lacking ICT skills (NS, 2007c; Robertson, 1998), fearful of learning (Cooke and Greenwood, 2008), and uninterested in using ICT (Roe and Broos, 2005; Selwyn et al, 2005). In terms of the workplace this was perceived to be a temporary problem that would be overcome as young ICT literate workers replaced older illiterate workers. But the discourse of computer disengagement suggests that younger workers may also lack the skills or motivation to use ICT, making such assumptions problematic. In addition it is now predicted that over the next decade only a third of jobs will be filled by younger workers as the UK’s expanding older population (Gilbert, 2002), due to increasing life-expectancy and falling birth rate (NIACE, 2005; Dowling, 2006), means older workers could have to stay in work longer (NIACE, 2005). Increasing lifespan also means that

people have longer retirements. Access to e-services connected with leisure, health, education, commerce and government could benefit retirees. This leisure focus may require exposure to differing software than that for work for example digital photography or family history applications, but arguments for literacy for democratic inclusion means skills to communicate, interpret and disseminate information within e-services are also required. Quan-Haase and Wellman (2004) warned that although the Internet could be viewed as reinforcing a sense of community by connecting people to each other and services, it could lead to isolation by drawing people away from physical social contact to a world of virtual relationships. But for older people who may become increasingly immobile (Gilbert, 2002) a virtual connection to community could enable them to stay connected economically and socially when otherwise they could not. From this perspective the Government’s vision of an e-society requires effective ICT use for all, not just the young.

Education: Such findings have led to calls for a more sophisticated construct of the digital divide (Foley, 2004; iSkills, 2007; Selwyn, 2004a), than the ‘have and have-not’ model. Use or non-use of ICT is more than simply being trained to use equipment. Selwyn’s (2004a) model proposed a focus on access, use and engagement through four stages: access, to effective access and basic use, to ‘meaningful’ use denoted by engagement with ICT, to productive outcomes. The ILP (iSkills, 2007) focused on access, and skills and training; emphasizing the need for functional and cognitive skills. For Foley and Alfonso (2002) motivation or attitude was the main barrier to use; they called for policy and educational frameworks that involved awareness of benefits of skills, access, and training, leading to use and enhanced participation which in turn would link back to increased awareness. These frameworks were seen as a continuum [Figure 1.4] but, in terms of engagement or disengagement, the models appear too simplistic. Each element on the continuum has is own continuum such as low to high awareness (Foley, 2004), slow to fast access (Norris, 2001), functional to reflective skills (Martin and Rader, 2003), non-use to productive use (Selwyn,

2004a), each of which could generate positive or negative impacts and attitudinal responses. Thus each element has an awareness/motivational feedback loop which could generate increased or more sophisticated participation with ICT. But negative responses to any of the elements, or at any stage, could lead to disengagement, for example Wilfong (2006) suggested frustration with slow Internet access could led to reduced use. Outcome can also be seen in terms of a continuum depending on the individual’s ability to engage meaningfully with ICT and the extent to which they are able to use ICT to enhance their role in the productive, political and social activities of society. The digital divide can thus be said to have multiple elements making a focus on access to hardware and functional skills alone inadequate but rather it should be defined by effectiveness of use and degree of democratic participation.

It has been argued (Bromley, 1998; Selwyn, 2003) that the digital divide is too focused on use as good and non-use as bad. Selwyn (2004b) suggested that focus should be on the individual’s right to chose involvement or non- involvement. Individuals were merely exercising agency and asserting control over their lives by choosing not to use ICT. For them, using a computer or the Internet was not necessary in their daily lives, just as they may choose not to own or watch television. He also concluded that the degree of use may differ at differing points in life, for example someone may use ICT extensively in their work life but in limited ways once retired. The problem with his argument is that it assumes that non-users make informed, intellectual decisions when they choose not to use ICT. The concern is that for the majority of non-users the decision not to use ICT could be emotional, uninformed or determined by a complex range of social, economic, cultural and psychological perceptions. For example the retired person above could simply be responding to perceptions of what it is to be retired, see ICT as connected with work environments, or be unaware of how ICT might benefit a retiree. Informed choice requires a reflective ICT literacy based on high levels of awareness, access and ability to apply skills if required. Returning to Bugliarello’s (2000) democratic arguments,

only when individuals fully understand what it is they are opting out of can they be said to be exercising agency.

Education could be a key factor in providing that understanding. Training is argued to improve self-efficacy (Compeau and Higgins, 1995) and increased self-efficacy to helping improve computer competence (Shih, 2006). Courses that encourage reflection on skills and uses beyond the classroom might help learners appreciate the significance for ICT in their own lives. Skill transfer, or lack of it, could perhaps explain, in part, why ‘some people go on to become increasingly confident and adventurous in their pattern of use, [while] others become frustrated and drop out’ (Murdock, 2002:27). For the ILP (iSkills, 2007) skill development and deployment was dependent on cognitive skills such as basic literacy and numeracy, critical thinking and problem solving. The dualism of confidence and problem solving ability was also taken up by Stephenson (1992) in his exploration of education for capability. He saw capability as the confidence to effectively use and develop skills to deal with unfamiliar problems in unfamiliar situations. He argued that individuals mostly operated within familiar contexts dealing with familiar problems but to be really effective required them to be able to find solutions beyond the familiar. This required, he concluded, knowledge and skills but also intuition, judgement, courage, reflection and creativity. Such conclusions raise questions about skills needs and indicate that the way that ICT users learn could be as important as what they learn. Ultimately if individuals acquire knowledge about ICT but are not equipped to use that knowledge in ways which are relevant in the outside world the imbalance (Stephenson and Weil, 1992) might be detrimental to individuals, industry or society.