We must implement thoughtful training programs that engage the students that already feel marginalized. Warschauer states in his paper “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide” that “access to ICT [Information and communication technology] is embedded in a complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships. Content and language, literacy and education, and community and institutional structures must all be taken into account if meaningful access to new technologies is to be provided” (4). If students are guided correctly, the digital age has enormous power to reshape our world. “The primary benefit of moving to a global online culture that is more participatory and that requires higher digital literacy skills is that is may lead to stronger democracies…This stronger democracy will stem from more people becoming engaged in the making, interpreting, and remaking of meaning in the culture…but only if we manage to teach digital literacy effectively” (Palfrey 129). The ramifications of not addressing digital literacy in libraries and schools have great implications.

Nonusers are excluded from the same opportunities to remake meaning in our culture, but they will still feel the effects of their peers who are reshaping it. They will be living by someone else’s interpretations, someone else’s definition of meaning, and they will have less opportunity to shape their identities in the world. Palfrey and Gasser state that the digital native is increasingly “using networked public spaces as crucial environments to learn socialization as well as identity development” (26). This identity development creates different communities of social norms that will manifest in all areas of their lives. This experience is “central to a Digital Native’s emerging identity” (23). Digital Natives are creating more content than ever before, but the quality of content is questionable. “…the Digital Natives—the savvy users—are not in great danger. The people we should worry about instead are those users who fall on the other side of the participation gap: young people growing up in the digital age who do not have the digital literacy skills to control their identities” (37). These non-users will not have the sophistication to create content or control their “digital dossiers” that users of technology do (39). Palfrey continues to say, “If left alone, these digital gaps will cause other unhealthy gaps in society to widen” (279).

This participation gap then perpetuates certain norms that exist today that marginalize people of color and other groups that have historically had “other” status in society. “…those who are already marginalized will have fewer opportunities to access and use computers and the Internet…the goal of using ICT with marginalized groups is not to overcome the digital divide, but rather to further a process of social inclusion…a matter not only of an adequate share of resources, but also of ‘participation in the determination of both individual and collective life chances’” (Warschauer 5-6). Those who create meaning in society will continue to hold the power within it—leaving the rest to follow along beneath it unless the institutions of education explicitly create systems of inclusion. As Nick Couldry, professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmiths College, University of London, writes, “If we agree with Jan van Dijk that ‘the position of people in media networks will largely determine their position in society,’ then solving this divide must be an issue for social justice” (251). Technology should be a “source of opportunity rather than as a reinforcement of privilege” (DiMaggio 3). Digital literacy must be taught for students to be socially included or we create more social exclusion in greater spectrums.

The quality of use should be of primary importance in developing training for users. “As was the case for education, we anticipate that high rates of Internet penetration will not eliminate inequality so much as increase the salience of new kinds of inequality—inequality among Internet users in the extent to which they are able to reap benefits from their use of the technology” (DiMaggio 8). This is not the vision of those implementing technology, but it is the dire reality of society today. Without training, students are left to flounder within the participation gap on their own—and often, it is a gap they cannot overcome. Furthermore, studies show that those who are just adopting technology do it in a realm with less support than those who were early adopters of technology. “More recent converts to the Internet are often less sophisticated and more isolated” (DiMaggio 12). These new adopters are then more likely to have less social support and may relegate themselves to using technology for games and social mediums that are less sophisticated forums than creating media and assessing information that furthers their educational opportunities.

This participation gap that exists within the digital native population is the more specific problem that the digital divide is a part of. As Palfrey and Gasser write in Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, “The biggest concern…is the impact of the participation gap. The digital world offers new opportunities to those who know how to avail themselves of them” (15). It is evident that the digital world holds within it vast opportunities for those who know how to use it; the real problem is how to reach the users that do not have the inclination or training to participate in this digital world. Studies show that the problem is more complex than users having access or not, the “digital divide” is only one part of the participation gap. Palfrey and Gasser continue by stating:

In the past, many have worried about the “digital divide,” the separation between those with access to the network and those without access. This is a persistent problem, but it’s not the whole problem. The harder issue arises when you realize that access to the technologies are not enough. Young people need to learn digital literacy–the skills to navigate this complicated, hybrid world that their peers are growing up in. This type of inequality must be overcome. The costs of leaving the participation gap unaddressed over time will be higher than we should be willing to bear. (15) 

Yael Enoch and Zeev Soker also address this problem in their 2006 paper entitled “Age, Gender, Ethnicity and the Digital Divide: University Students’ Use of Web-based Instruction. They state, “This distinction [between those who have and those who do not have access to the Internet] assumes that mere access to computer, whether at home, at work or in a public library, will automatically generate learning and development” (Enoch 101). The reasons why some students do not utilize technology, whether they have access or do not, varies. Some students “suffer from computer-anxiety, others lack computer literacy or have no access to informal network of advice and support” (Enoch 101). Additionally, according to Claude Steel, a Stanford psychology, some students might suffer from what they call “stereotype threat.” “According to their research, a student who feels he is part of a group that has been negatively stereotyped is likely to perform less well in a situation in which he thinks that people might evaluate him through that stereotype than in a situation in which he feels no such pressure” (Frontline). This “stereotype threat” affects how students perform academically, on standardized tests, and how they engage in their education; additionally, although it is created by the perception of a negative stereotype, it also creates behavior that is viewed negatively thus perpetuating the stereotype, which impacts how teachers and peers view these students. This addresses the idea that participation within an institutionalized organization has many, often conflicting, factors to consider. It is not enough to have a sincere desire to help people; it is not enough to buy computers, “but fail to develop coherent plans for implementation, support, and professional development of teachers to integrate technology into the classroom” (Valdez 33). Librarians and educators must address the underlying reasons why users do not participate and do not engage with technology. Using technology should always be used to enhance existing systems of education—and not replace it because a complete transition will inadvertently alienate those who are not proficient users of technology.

While the introduction of WBI [Web Based Instruction]…has played a significant part in the expansion of its student base, it has at the same time, inadvertently of course, brought about the exclusion of certain students. These students could, in principle, quite easily gain access to a computer and the Internet but apparently they have reservations when it comes to using the modern technologies for study purposes or have not acquired the necessary skills to use them. (Enoch 107) 
In order to create more access, educational institutions, including libraries, must address these cultural factors to ensure technology is not leaving people behind—people who, often, are those who have been historically marginalized within our society. According to NTIA:
Race or ethnic origin is a likely factor in determining who has access to computers and the Internet…many race or origin groups are losing ground in computer and Internet connectivity when compared to the progress of Whites and those of Asian/Pacific Island descent. When holding income constant, Black and Hispanic households are still far less likely to have Internet access. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/factsheets/racial-divide.htm) 
Students that are unguided and untrained on using technology, some who feel a “stereotype threat,” fall into this participation gap. The continuation of this gap will continuously manifest itself in their lives in countless ways and with greater social implications hindering future opportunities for these students.

Siva Vaidhyanathan recently wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Generational Myth.” In it, Vaidhyanathan makes the blunt statement, “There is no such thing as a ‘digital generation.’” He goes on to debunk the idea of a generation of “born digital” or “digital natives” who are fundamentally skilled at operating digital technology. Meanwhile, Dan Cohen, Mills Kelly, and Tom Scheinfeldt offered up their slightly differing perspectives on the issue on Digital Campus #32.

I found Vaidhyanathan’s article fascinating, and made me think quite a bit about the issue. I agree with his premise, that it is preposterous to think that your age somehow makes you either inherently competent or incompetent at using technology. I hate the term digital “native” or “immigrant,” as they carry a phenomenal amount of baggage, and there are far too many exceptions to the rule to make it worthwhile. It’s a simple generalization that people latch onto because it is such an attractive analogy at first glance. But unfortunately, a closer examination causes the analogy to break down.

Having said this, it is useless to simply dismiss any talk of a generational divide. While there are plenty of 60 year-olds out there who know more about computers than I do, and plenty of college students who can barely send an email, there is oftentimes an overarching difference between the two. Someone who has grown up with regular access to the internet, cell phones, and portable music players, generally has an attitude or perspective on technology that reflects this experience. For one, they might have fewer reservations about personal privacy, and be more willing to post information or pictures about themselves online. Some may not be able to remember the time they opened up a phone book or an encyclopedia. Many expect songs, movies, and TV shows to be freely (or at least readily) accessible over the internet. Does every person under the age of 20 share these views? No. Do a greater percentage of young people share these views than their parents? Probably.

Much of the discussion of a generational divide views the issue entirely through the lens of a privileged socioeconomic class. As many people have pointed out, there are a lot of 18 year-olds who don’t have regular access to a computer or the internet. Henry Jenkins has written about this extensively, and also presented a talk at UC Berkley titled “Combating the Participation Gap.” To assume that every young person is tech-savvy is a mistake. To assume that every young person even has the resources or ability to be tech-savvy is an even graver mistake. The churning wave of technological trends and forces are not only seen as intimidatingly complex, but is more importantly seen as irrelevant and inaccessible to a significant portion of the American (much less the world) population. The teenager whose family is struggling to put food on the table is probably just hoping to someday get a computer with high-speed internet, much less understand what the “long tail” is.

Examining the field of digital history requires a strong understanding of these issues of participation. Who’s currently at the party? Who’s been invited to the party? Who doesn’t even know the party is going on? Of course, digital history is compounded even further by the demographics of its umbrella discipline: by sheer numbers, the majority of history PhD’s are white and/or male. And that, in and of itself, deserves a separate, more thorough discussion…