Contents Introduction
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
First Monday, Volume 11, Number 5 — 1 May 2006<br />
There is no doubt that much digital divide work — including connectivity initiatives, technology<br />
transfer programs, and other projects — is done with good intention. Yet, as has been widely<br />
recognized, the conceptual framework of the digital divide is limiting. The language of the digital<br />
divide not only places people into simplistic “have”/“have not” categories, making assumptions<br />
about the solution to “information poverty” with little attention to local contexts, its logic also<br />
continues a paradigm of development that engages with the global south only at the point of what<br />
it “lacks”. I propose a framework, which provides a wider, and more nuanced, lens to look<br />
through. It focuses work in ways and in areas consistently overlooked by the digital divide,<br />
particularly on the realities, voices, and complexities within its unconnected, “have not” spaces —<br />
the zones of silence. Encouraging critical questioning of assumptions and an understanding of<br />
local contexts and points of view, a zones of silence framework is a way to broaden the dialogue<br />
on global communication and information access beyond a discourse of need, to one of mutual<br />
questioning, sharing, and learning. I begin with a brief critique of the digital divide, followed by a<br />
definition of this zones of silence framework and how it can help us to see and consider issues<br />
differently. I then suggest three areas where work from this perspective might begin.<br />
<strong>Contents</strong><br />
<strong>Introduction</strong><br />
The limitations of the digital divide<br />
Listening in the zones of silence: A tool to move beyond the digital divide<br />
Ways to begin: Working from a zones of silence framework<br />
First steps<br />
Conclusion<br />
<strong>Introduction</strong><br />
As the designer of a Web site for a project connecting Canada, Brazil, and Angola I began to<br />
become concerned with how, and if, it would be useful to all three project teams. The project’s<br />
goal was to develop and share knowledge about building food security (people’s ability to access<br />
affordable and acceptable food) through online courses, workshops, and local pilot projects.<br />
Communication by the Internet was key to the project’s design, but besides our language<br />
differences, I realized that I knew little about the context in which the Web site and its resources<br />
would be used outside of Canada. According to statistics, Internet and computer access differed<br />
1 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
significantly among the three countries, but what did this mean? What sort of information would<br />
be most relevant to each partner? How useful would resources written only in English be? Where<br />
and how would project team members access the Internet? Did their access to and use of<br />
computers differ from my own?<br />
Perhaps one of the most exciting possibilities of the Internet is the potential it has to connect<br />
people who have ideas, stories, and advice to share with each other. Currently, technology funds<br />
for development projects are aimed at enabling this. Making access possible to computers and the<br />
Internet is seen as a means of overcoming the “digital divide”. Or, as a way of alleviating<br />
“information poverty” by helping those in the countries, communities, or households where access<br />
to new information and communication technologies (ICTs) is not easy — to have the same type<br />
of information resources that information “haves” enjoy. With access to new resources and<br />
experts, it is argued, people will be able to solve many of the issues they face at a local level.<br />
Over the past decade this issue, the digital divide, has been the subject of much attention from<br />
development agencies, researchers, NGOs, governments, and the private sector. Given this<br />
attention, I expected to find a good deal of work on what it is like to live and work on “the other<br />
side of the information highway”, the places where access to computers and the Internet is tricky<br />
or presently non–existent, and where development agencies, corporations, researchers, and<br />
others believe such access would improve lives. Listening to stories from or of these places, I felt,<br />
would help me to begin to learn how to work with my project partners in Brazil and Angola by<br />
showing me what questions it might be important to start by asking.<br />
Yet, finding these stories was difficult. Current research provides very few images of what it is, in<br />
fact, like to be a “have not”, or to live and work on this “other side” of the divide. These<br />
non–connected spaces are defined in most cases as the places, communities, or households in<br />
need of ICTs. The simplistic view of these regions as, lacking, poor, and voiceless reflects the<br />
binary “have”/“have not” logic of the digital divide. This is not to say that people working on<br />
digital divide projects necessarily share this point of view. Many do not, but wider perspectives are<br />
difficult to articulate within the discourse. More troubling, the lack of attention to these spaces<br />
points to the ways that the digital divide is in some ways a continuation of “the West knows best”<br />
(modernization) paradigm in development. The digital divide discourse does encompass ideas<br />
about the importance of local context, for example, by promoting projects that provide<br />
communities with ICTs to access information to “solve their own problems.” Yet, digital divide<br />
work often assumes, one, that ICTs will be helpful, and two, that they will be used for educational,<br />
economic, and other “worthwhile” projects. As with the technology transfer programs of the past,<br />
the West’s ideas about technology’s usefulness and how it will be used, are not necessarily<br />
accurate (for example, see Dagron, 2001; Gunkel, 2003; Prahalad, 2005).<br />
Digital divide work often<br />
assumes that ICTs will be<br />
helpful, and that they will<br />
be used for educational,<br />
economic, and other<br />
“worthwhile” projects.<br />
Given these discrepancies, how might we begin to view information and communication contexts<br />
in a more nuanced way? How can we listen to, and speak with, the “in need” side of the digital<br />
divide? How might this alter the ways that ICT projects are designed? And, can we ask these<br />
questions from within a digital divide framework?<br />
While there are examples of studies that engage with complex questions from within the digital<br />
divide framework, the results are often not visible: they become subsumed into the paradigm’s<br />
narrow lens in such a way that it remains possible to read and talk about these projects<br />
simplistically. I believe that a new way of looking is necessary. In this paper, I briefly explore the<br />
ways that the logic of the digital divide is limiting. I then show how a “zones of silence” framework<br />
can function, not as a replacement of “digital divide”, but as a way of expanding how we work on<br />
2 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
communication initiatives beyond the areas that the digital divide covers by supporting a focus on<br />
unique contexts, and relative definitions of information and poverty.<br />
The limitations of the digital divide<br />
The digital divide is a common point of concern for researchers, governments, development<br />
agencies, and the private sector. The term, “digital divide”, itself is mobile, and, over the past<br />
decade, has been used to define everything from the difference between early and late technology<br />
adopters, to the difference in ICT access held by citizens of developed and developing nations. In<br />
fact, some argue that the term will likely continue to be flexible and to hold multiple meanings —<br />
as it should — because of the quick rate of change the issues it covers are undergoing as new<br />
technologies emerge (Gunkel, 2003). Nevertheless, at present, the digital divide broadly refers to<br />
the “gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such<br />
as the Internet, and those who cannot.” [1] Though research and discussion around the digital<br />
divide has helped to bring about a critique of cyber–utopianism — the belief that ICTs will, with<br />
ease, solve many of society’s problems, the term is “conceptually oversimplified and theoretically<br />
underdeveloped.” [2] The concept, in fact, is popular in part for its simplicity, allowing policy<br />
makers and others to follow a clear logic: “There is a gap between those with access to<br />
technology, and those without this access. If this is the problem, the solution is to provide those<br />
lacking technology, with this technology.”<br />
Accordingly, work on the digital divide has tended to slot people into a dichotomous model of<br />
technology “haves” and “have nots” (Selwyn, 2004). Instead, some argue, it is more helpful to<br />
view the digital divide as a continuum (Gunkel, 2003). In other words, it is not simply a matter of<br />
looking at whether people have access or not, but also of looking at the hierarchy of access<br />
among those who do. Furthermore, though many programs focus simply on providing technology,<br />
access to ICTs does not necessarily equal use of ICTs, or “instant information.” There are a variety<br />
of social, age–related, psychological, educational, economic, and most importantly, pragmatic<br />
reasons why people do not use ICTs (Selwyn, 2004). That is, just because people have the<br />
opportunity to use the Internet (or other technologies) does not mean that that they will, and if<br />
they do, it will not necessarily be in the ways that the organizations providing access might<br />
anticipate.<br />
Since the digital divide<br />
reflects other deep<br />
(social, racial,<br />
geographical,<br />
educational, economic)<br />
divides in society, making<br />
it possible for everyone<br />
to access a computer and<br />
the Internet is not going<br />
to solve all problems, as<br />
sometimes seems to be,<br />
optimistically, assumed.<br />
Furthermore, critics of digital divide work argue that, in the larger scheme of things, it is not<br />
particularly helpful to talk about the digital divide. This is because it is a symptom, not the cause<br />
of unequal socioeconomic opportunity (Gunkel, 2003). Essentially, since the digital divide reflects<br />
other deep (social, racial, geographical, educational, economic) divides in society, making it<br />
3 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
possible for everyone to access a computer and the Internet is not going to solve all problems, as<br />
sometimes seems to be, optimistically, assumed. Thus, they assert that “efforts to bridge the<br />
digital divide will succeed only if they are accompanied by bold policy initiatives to reduce<br />
structural inequalities, for instance in education and jobs, that would otherwise result in disparities<br />
in skills in using computers and Internet systems.” [3]<br />
Finally, the digital divide formulation that there are ‘information haves’ and ‘information have<br />
nots’, “although useful for identifying extant technological and social inequalities, has potentially<br />
disquieting ethical consequences, especially when applied in a global context. In distinguishing<br />
‘information haves’ from ‘information have nots’, the technologically privileged situate their<br />
experiences with technology as normative, so that those without access to similar systems and<br />
capabilities become perceived as deficient and lacking.” [4] Thus, the digital divide is<br />
unmistakably from the technology “haves” point of view — “you don’t have what we have.” It is<br />
also a continuation of a development paradigm, in which the global south only becomes a part of<br />
first world discussions at the point of what it lacks.<br />
How can we begin to talk about, and talk with, the global south in other instances? How can we<br />
move to a dialogue about to what sort of communication is happening, and how we might best<br />
learn from and assist each other? As stated earlier, I believe we will have difficultly beginning this<br />
dialogue from within a digital divide framework. Critics of the digital divide that have continued to<br />
use the term to frame their work have had limited success in shifting the paradigm, as seen by<br />
government, development and private sectors, to encompass more complexity. Though critics<br />
might make clear that their definition of “digital divide,” and what they are investigating, is not<br />
one–dimensional, the term powerfully draws up a black and white way of seeing. How can we<br />
speak differently about the complex issues that the digital divide tends to gloss over and still be<br />
heard by those operating within the framework?<br />
Listening in the zones of silence: A tool to move<br />
beyond the digital divide<br />
I propose a term and a framework that does not replace “digital divide”, but shifts attention to<br />
some of the complexities that the digital divide discourse omits. The term, “zones of silence”,<br />
provides a focus on three key ideas. Firstly, on voice, that is, what people on the “wrong side” of<br />
the digital divide have to say about their lives. Secondly, on communication, or on how and by<br />
whom people are heard, and why this is important. Thirdly, on context, or on the diversity of<br />
spaces, that the digital divide encompasses, and their interconnections. I begin by defining “zones<br />
of silence”, then discuss in more detail how the framework can be used.<br />
As a term I use zones of silence, to mean the unseen, seemingly quiet, technology–sparse spaces<br />
of the digital divide. Mansell and Wehn (1998), writing about developing countries and the<br />
international governance system, use the phrase to mean the places, found in the developing<br />
world, where communities are effectively “silent” because of a lack of access to ICTs. They do not<br />
develop the term, but I feel it can be used to name a larger idea. In my definition, the zones of<br />
silence, while there may be relative levels of silence, are everywhere. They are what Castells<br />
terms the “switch off” regions in the global digital economy: “These patterns of inclusion and<br />
exclusion challenge our visions about the geography and political economy of communication. We<br />
can no longer adequately refer to First and Third worlds, North and South, and so on, but must<br />
recognize regions that are hardwired to networks and information flows and thus ‘switched on’,<br />
and the vast disconnected or ‘switched off’ regions of the world.” [5] Zones of silence exist within<br />
countries with little connectivity altogether, as well as within zones of high connectivity. They are<br />
the places, communities, and homes in the developed/developing worlds where — because of a<br />
lack of access to ICTs — people’s voices are, effectively, outside of their immediate community,<br />
unconnected and unheard.<br />
What is key is that, while these voices may not be connected to the global communications grid,<br />
4 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
this does not mean that the zones of silence are silent! People talk, debate, write, dialogue,<br />
produce radio and television, argue, live. They are only silent to us. Using the word “silence” in<br />
the term is a risk; it has the potential to reinforce the idea that there is nothing here. But, it is a<br />
worthwhile risk, because the presence of “silence” implies that there are people who are part of<br />
the silence. A zones of silence framework moves our attention from a (digital) divide to a space,<br />
thus, raising the questions: Are the zones of silence truly silent? If not, why do they seem silent?<br />
Does this silence matter? What do “the silent” have to say? Or, broadly, it shifts our focus from<br />
“What do people need?” to “What are people saying?”<br />
Therefore, the question from a zone of silence standpoint is not, “What do they need to be equal<br />
to us?” But, “Who are you? And, what is it like to be where you are?” Individuals may be<br />
discussing their needs; or, they may be discussing many other things. It of course remains<br />
important to aid people without access to ICTs to gain that access if they so desire. In order to<br />
make a significant, effective, and positive difference in the lives of “information have nots,” we<br />
must listen to their stories, opinions, experiences, and insights — both positive and negative, in<br />
support of ICTs and stakeholders agendas, and against. There is much more that we may have to<br />
speak about and learn from each other than what we “need”. A zones of silence framework points<br />
to the necessity — and opens up a way — of listening.<br />
A zones of silence view can also help us to more easily recognize the diversity within the spaces of<br />
the digital divide. Most simply, the notion of “zones” is a very different metaphor from “divides”.<br />
In a divide there are two types, a black and a white, a good and a bad. Zones are more flexible.<br />
Within a zone, or between zones, there are many possible points of view, many potential<br />
gradations and combinations. Zones, unlike divides, are also continuous. What happens in one<br />
zone, or one part of a zone affects the rest. Thus, thinking not about a “digital divide”, but of a<br />
“zone of silence”, we can see the following. One, there are not simply two types of people —<br />
information “haves”/“have nots”. There are differences within a zone of silence, not just in terms<br />
of relative access to technology, but, more importantly, in opinions, everyday life, experiences,<br />
and modes of communication. We cannot assume that every zone of silence is the same. Each has<br />
its own context, its own knowledge. Two, what happens in a zone of silence affects and is affected<br />
by zones around them. We are not separated or divided; zones are not bounded from each other.<br />
Our actions, or lack of action, interplay with the actions of the rest of the world. Three, a zones of<br />
silence framework recognizes that as there are more categories than information “haves”/“have<br />
nots”. There is also more than one type of information. The digital divide discourse, when defining<br />
people as “information poor”, has a very specific type of “information” in mind. This “information”<br />
is important, but there are other types of knowledge. The “information poor” may lack what the<br />
digital divide defines as “information”, but this does not mean that the knowledge they have is<br />
less useful or less valuable.<br />
In the following section I suggest ways that we might begin working from a zones of silence<br />
framework.<br />
Ways to begin: Working from a zones of silence<br />
framework<br />
What does working from a zones of silence standpoint look like? I suggest three key areas of<br />
inquiry for the framework, simply put as: What is happening? Where are we wrong? And, who<br />
benefits? Work is occurring in each of these areas already. A zones of silence framework can help<br />
to support this, and to encourage more questions.<br />
What is happening in the zones of silence?<br />
The first type of inquiry that a zones of silence view can support answers the question: what is<br />
happening in the zones of silence? In particular, we might ask: In what ways is communication<br />
happening in the zones of silence? Face–to–face, orally, in written form, through performance,<br />
5 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
through technology, by other means? What attitudes towards, and ideas about, communication<br />
technologies, including radio, film, video, television, telephone, computers, and the Internet,<br />
exist? Where are these technologies used, how, and to what extent? How do people speak about<br />
ICTs? How does this resonate with or differ from the development discourse around ICTs? We<br />
might also consider questions such as: What might a person use a computer (or other technology)<br />
for? How easy or difficult is it to get this technology, and keep it running? How do climate, power<br />
supply, the local economy, and communications needs affect this?<br />
This work can draw on research that has treated digital divide issues as neither so simplistic, nor<br />
so straightforward as is often assumed. Thus this might include studies like that of Clark, et al.<br />
(2004), who use ethnography to explore the attitudes of people of varying economic backgrounds<br />
towards the digital divide in the United States; like Salvador and Sherry’s (2004) research on<br />
practical barriers to ICT connectivity in the Peruvian Andes and the assumptions of technology<br />
designers in the West; or, the study by Barbatsis, et al. (2004) on the relevance and appeal of<br />
Internet sites to various social and ethic groups in the United States. This inquiry can also draw<br />
more generally on ethnographic accounts — detailed observations or personal accounts of<br />
everyday life — of areas within the zones of silence. To be useful this ethnographic work need not<br />
address technology. Many factors — including history, gender and power relations, climate, local<br />
job market, and family practices and expectations — influence how communication happens, and<br />
are important to understanding how technology might be used. Such studies show that in the<br />
“zones of silence”, there are an abundance of ways of speaking and communicating, a thriving use<br />
of radio (Dagron, 2001), significant film and television production for local markets (for example,<br />
Banerjee, 2002), engagement with a variety of media (Downing, 2003), and differences in gender<br />
in terms of access to communications and other technologies (for example, see Prahalad, 2005).<br />
These kinds of studies are distinguished from typical work on the digital divide by taking into<br />
account a wide range of people, not just ICT project leaders or ICTs use statistics. They also<br />
recognize that communication is much larger than technology, asking questions that do not<br />
assume more ICTs are necessarily the answer.<br />
Where are we wrong? Questioning assumptions<br />
“Development communication researchers have adopted research techniques<br />
designed to answer the needs of Western societies and which do not always suit<br />
African cultures or societies that are in the main rural and non–literate. This means<br />
that for most of the time communication scholars have either been asking the<br />
wrong questions altogether or asking the right questions to the wrong people.” [6]<br />
We must learn to<br />
examine the way we<br />
think technology is, can,<br />
and should be used.<br />
For policy makers, researchers, or designers who live day to day within zones of high connectivity,<br />
enjoying high–speed Internet access, their own computer, reliable electricity and controlled indoor<br />
environments, it is sometimes difficult to imagine what it might be like to work with ICTs in other<br />
places, and how and why people might, in fact, like to use them. We must learn to examine the<br />
way we think technology is, can, and should be used. The danger of making assumptions about<br />
the relevance and usefulness of ICTs is apparent historically. For example, in the 1960s, working<br />
under the similar beliefs to those now held by “information poverty” projects, UNESCO<br />
recommended minimum numbers of ICTs per capita as a hallmark of development (UNESCO,<br />
1961). A number of governments implemented policies to increase ICT access. Many exceeded<br />
the minimum and yet failed to develop corresponding improvements in social and economic<br />
conditions (Tehranian, 1990). Specifically, we might ask: What do we assume about technology<br />
use and the usefulness of technology? Do these assumptions correspond with reality? How have<br />
these assumptions shaped our questions and actions? Have they been misguided?<br />
Important issues to consider include potential differences in language, literacy, relevance of<br />
6 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
content, connection speed, access to ICTs, and cultural patterns of leisure and work. Useful<br />
directions for future research should include not just whether our assumptions about ICT use<br />
correspond with reality, but how these assumptions are formed and perpetuated. For instance, an<br />
interesting project would be to evaluate the plans and suggestions made by development agencies<br />
regarding ICTs in comparison with how people in the zones of silence, in reality, conceive of and<br />
make use of these technologies: In the recent explosion of funding programs for ICT–based<br />
development projects, what sorts of application criteria and project guidelines have emerged?<br />
What types of project designs are supported or rejected? Why? In these designs what<br />
assumptions are made? How do agency workers conceptualize zones of silence and how ICTs<br />
might influence them? How are projects evaluated, and what counts as “success”?<br />
In the next section I suggest ways how we might investigate one of the largest assumptions of<br />
the digital divide.<br />
Who benefits from connectivity and how?<br />
A key assumption of digital divide discourse is that greater access to technology and, through this,<br />
information, will improve lives. This may be the true but, it is important to consider more critically<br />
who benefits from ICT connectivity and how.<br />
Global capital<br />
The interests of international corporations and global capital in high–speed, pervasive<br />
communications technologies are often overlooked in work on the digital divide. Yet, this<br />
perspective is important. Or, in parallel, “labor is too often excluded from discussions about the<br />
Information Society. It is, however, one of the critical components. Information and<br />
communication technologies (ICTs) are changing not only people’s actual work environments, but<br />
also the way labor markets operate.” [7] Using the Internet and other ICTs corporations can<br />
function as transnationals with increasing ease. ICTs enable them not only to communicate<br />
quickly with subsidiaries around the world to organize production and distribution, but also with<br />
consumers, to market and sell their products. In fact, it is argued, that no country can hope to<br />
attract foreign investment without an adequate telecommunication infrastructure (Sonaike, 2004).<br />
Thus, as countries are able to acquire appropriate connections they will become integrated more<br />
fully into the global economy. Is this desirable? Or, further, how does enabling connectivity in a<br />
region affect the labor market? According to people who have been affected in this way, has the<br />
experience, ultimately, been to their benefit? Is there any alternative to joining the network?<br />
What would it mean to continue to live within a zone of silence? Are there more strategic ways of<br />
becoming connected?<br />
Community connections, world connections<br />
Besides enabling access to information, ICTs are often seen as important means of increasing<br />
communication opportunities. While they clearly have this potential, it is important to ask if ICTs<br />
are the best form of communication in zones of silence? What means of communication are<br />
already in use? Are additional means of communication needed? These questions are significant<br />
because the relationship between ICTs and communication is not direct. ICTs are one element in a<br />
larger view of communications. In fact, despite the euphoria for ICTs, older technologies such as<br />
radio (Dagron, 2001), video (White, 2003), and theatre (Riley, 1990), seem to continue to be<br />
better community–level communication tools. Effective dialogue does not need to be high–tech.<br />
ICTs might be initially more useful in helping geographically dispersed zones of silence connect<br />
with each other [8] as well as connect zones of silence with zones of connectivity in ways that are<br />
strategically and socially beneficial. Connections to family members abroad, between members of<br />
diaspora populations, and between activists and researchers around the world are important. The<br />
power of this sort of communication has been demonstrated in the work of the Zapatistas in<br />
Mexico, and the Kayapo in Brazil, who have used communication technologies (Internet, video) to<br />
raise awareness about issues they have faced as indigenous communities. Through these means<br />
they have successfully attracted international attention. This has led to pressure on their<br />
respective governments, who have consequently, to some extent, modified their policies (Dagron,<br />
2001). These questions return to issues of silence and of voice — who is being heard by whom?<br />
7 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
First steps<br />
How can we begin? Initially it is important to bring together individuals whose work takes a<br />
nuanced view of digital divide issues with those whose research falls outside of the digital divide<br />
discussion — including work in mass media, local and community media, and on social factors that<br />
influence communication and access to ICTs. Perhaps even more crucial to include are those who<br />
have experienced life and work in zones of silence, as well as within zones of connectivity, and<br />
who have a perspective on some of the misguided assumptions that operate between the two. At<br />
this stage it is both important to think about the questions we have been asking and to find ways<br />
of formulating the questions we should ask.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Much research on the digital divide has been done with good intentions. Yet, the conceptual<br />
framework of the digital divide is limiting. We need a new, wider, and more nuanced, lens to look<br />
through. A zones of silence framework can provide part of this lens. It focuses work in ways and<br />
in areas consistently overlooked by traditional notions of the digital divide, particularly on the<br />
realities, voices, and complexities from within its unconnected, “have not” spaces. By encouraging<br />
a critical questioning of assumptions and greater attention to local context and points of view, it is<br />
a way to broaden the dialogue between zones of connectivity beyond a discourse of need, to one<br />
of mutual questioning, sharing, and learning.<br />
About the author<br />
Amelia Bryne Potter is an M.A. candidate at the York/Ryerson Joint Programme in Communication<br />
in Culture, and holds a B.A. in Anthropology from Columbia University, Barnard College. Her work<br />
has focused on instances of cross–cultural meeting, narratives of change, and ways to use<br />
intellectual and creative work to encourage people to consider points of view that they otherwise<br />
might not. She is currently working on processes for using video to explore, build, and present<br />
layers of imagination and memory surrounding stories of global migrations.<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
Special thanks to Amin Alhassan for his encouragement and editorial support.<br />
Notes<br />
1. Gunkel, 2003, p. 504, citing Benton Foundation.<br />
2. Selwyn, 2004, p. 343.<br />
3. Sonaike, 2004, p. 45.<br />
8 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
4. Gunkel, 2003, p. 507.<br />
5. Winseck, 2002, p. 401, citing Castells, 1996.<br />
6. Nyamnjoh, 2000, p. 146.<br />
7. Zachmann, 2004, p. 84.<br />
8. For example, see Skint Stream at http://www.jelliedeel.org/skintstream/.<br />
References<br />
I. Banerjee, 2002. “The Local Strikes Back? Media Globalization and Localization in the New Asian<br />
Television Landscape,” Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, volume 64,<br />
number 6, pp. 517–535.<br />
G. Barbatsis, M. Camacho, and L. Jackson, 2004. “Does It Speak to Me? Visual Aesthetics and the<br />
Digital Divide,” Visual Studies, volume 19, number 1, pp. 36–514.<br />
M. Castells, 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.<br />
L. Clark, C. Demont–Heinrich, and S. Webber, 2004. “Ethnographic Interviews on the Digital<br />
Divide,” New Media and Society, volume 6, number 4, pp. 529–547.<br />
A.G. Dagron, 2001. “Making Waves: Stories of Participatory Communication for Social Change,” at<br />
http://www.comminit.com/making-waves.html, accessed 18 March 2006.<br />
J. Downing, 2003. “Radical Media and Globalization,” In: L. Artz and Y.R. Kamalipour (editors).<br />
The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.<br />
283–293.<br />
D. Gunkel, 2004. “Second Thoughts: Towards a Critique of the Digital Divide,” New Media and<br />
Society, volume 5, number 4, pp. 499–522.<br />
R. Mansell and U. Wehn, 1998. “Friend or Foe? Developing Countries and the International<br />
Governance System,” In: R. Mansell and U. Wehn (editors). Knowledge Societies: Information<br />
Technology for Sustainable Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 180–203.<br />
F.B. Nyamnjoh, 2000: “Communication Research and Sustainable Development in Africa: The<br />
Need for a Domesticated Perspective,” In: J. Servaes (editor). Walking on the Other Side of the<br />
Information Highway: Communication, Culture, and Development in the 21st Century. Penang,<br />
Malaysia: Southbound, pp. 146–160.<br />
C.K. Prahalad, 2005. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:<br />
Wharton School Publishing.<br />
M. Riley, 1990. “Indigenous Resources in Africa: Unexplored Communication Potential,” Howard<br />
Journal of Communications, volume 2, number 3, pp. 301–314.<br />
T. Salvador and J. Sherry, 2004. “Local Learnings: An Essay on Designing to Facilitate Effective<br />
Use of ICTs,” Journal of Community Informatics, volume 1, number 1, at http://ci-journal.net<br />
/viewarticle.php?id=35&layout=abstract, accessed 18 March 2006.<br />
N. Selwyn, 2004. “Reconsidering Popular and Political Understandings of the Digital Divide” New<br />
Media and Society, volume 6, number 3, pp. 341–362.<br />
S. Sonaike, 2004. “The Internet and the Dilemma of Africa’s Development,” Gazette: The<br />
International Journal for Communication Studies, volume 66, number 1, pp. 41–61.<br />
M. Tehranian, 1990. “Communication, Peace and Development: A Communitarian Perspective,”<br />
In: F. Korzenny, S. Ting–Toomey, and S.D. Ryan (editors). Communicating for Peace: Diplomacy<br />
9 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM
Potter http://frodo.lib.uic.edu/ojsjournals/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriend...<br />
and Negotiation. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, pp. 157–175.<br />
UNESCO, 1961. Mass Media in the Developing Countries. Paris: UNESCO, Department of Mass<br />
Communication.<br />
S.A. White (editor), 2003. Participatory Video: Images that Transform and Empower. Thousand<br />
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.<br />
D. Winseck, 2002: “Wired Cities and Transnational Communications: New Forms of Governance<br />
for Telecommunications in the New Media,” In: L.A. Lievrouw and S.M. Livingstone (editors).<br />
Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. London: Sage, pp. 393–409.<br />
R. Zachmann, 2004. “ICTs and the World of Work: Weaving a Bright New Fabric or a Tangled<br />
Web?” Information Technologies and International Development, volume 1, number 4, pp. 84–86,<br />
at http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/itid_1_3-4_84_0.pdf, accessed 18 March 2006.<br />
Editorial history<br />
Paper received 19 March 2006; accepted 12 April 2006.<br />
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5<br />
License.<br />
Zones of silence: A framework beyond the digital divide by Amelia Bryne Potter<br />
First Monday, volume 11, number 5 (May 2006),<br />
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_5/potter/index.html<br />
10 of 10 11-12-21 4:41 PM