Myth of the rational voter meets high-speed democracy

Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University, wrote in “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” that elections shouldn’t be decided by the average voter because the average voter is uninformed. (Unfortunately, that’s an observation that seems to be backed by decades of research, in which voters were asked questions about candidates and the political process that they could not answer.)

You can read a review of Caplan’s book by Louise Menand called, “Fractured Franchise: Are the Wrong People Voting?” I highly recommend it.

I was thinking about Caplan while watching Professor Shulman’s September 19 CourseCast video, in particular during this slide about High-Speed Democracy:

When I think about America’s campaign finance rules, our largely rigid two-party system, a reportedly uninformed electorate, the strange impact of the electoral college and how far we’ve moved away from a representative Greek polis, I’m not so sure I even know what democracy is anymore.

I don’t agree with Caplan’s ideas that only the informed should be able to vote, but his idea was so rattling that I haven’t stopped thinking about it for several months. And when I think about throwing high-speed democracy into the mix, I don’t necessarily see the opportunity to create a more engaged electorate.

It seems that technology has created an extra barrier for voters; we have to be aware of the issues, educated about the candidates, and motivated to speak out and/or vote. We now have to understand the technology that will gather the information, track the information, give us access to public debate, and then do the actual voting. It’s hard enough to find the time and energy to do one, much less the other, not to mention the financial barrier to access technology.

I think democracy is getting a lot trickier, even though citizens may have more access to public forums through read/write technology. Citizens have to understand the issues, have access to technology, and know how to use it. Will that really make our democratic system more just? Will the electorate really become more informed, engaged and motivated?

I must really be down today, because I’m finding all kinds of reasons to be cynical. There’s also the 2007 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that found American citizens were less informed about current events than they were in 1989. So, the web is really working for us?

At my most cynical, I find myself thinking that all ICTs have done is to create demand for a new kind of campaign consultant. We’re watching the lines be re-drawn, and only the very nimble seem able to benefit and keep up.

I worry.

Off to a promising start…

I met with Grant Lynch, director of the Community Workshop Series, and will begin training next week. What a great meeting! Grant’s enthusiasm for this kind of work is contagious and I’m looking forward to getting started.

Lisa Norbert, Director of Public Libraries for UNC, started the Community Workshop Series with a SILS graduate student in 2004, and they’ve done an excellent job organizing the program since then. Grant mentioned that the program got the attention of the ALA and received an award from them last year for being an effective, innovative new program.

Community Workshop Series are held at the Carrboro Cybrary (4 computers), the main branch of the Durham Public Library (approximately 10 computers?), the Chapel Hill Public Library (approximately 10 computers) and the Carrboro Public Library at McDougle Middle School (about 4 computers). And a local retirement home, The Cedars at Meadowmont in Chapel Hill, will come to Davis Library on campus for special workshops.

Classes build on prior classes, and start with computer basics, then work up to Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Internet, etc. They’ve been meeting for three weeks, and there are 14 weeks per semester. I’ll be a floater at the Chapel Hill Public Library next week, just to get a feel for how things go, and then will be teaching Wednesday classes from 8:30-9:30am on my own after that. Chapel Hill Public Library opens its doors to workshop participants before opening to the general public, and Grant said the hardest thing about teaching the class was learning how to open the doors.

We talked at length about what the classes are like, and Grant mentioned that some classes will take an hour trying to understand how to right and left click the mouse. I have some prior teaching experience, albeit non-traditional, and feel comfortable standing in front of a group of people, so we decided that I would do best in a group setting at Chapel Hill Public Library. And they’re having trouble finding people for Wednesday mornings, which is a perfect time for me. Win win.

Apparently they struggle with two things: cutting down on no-shows, and finding people to staff the positions each semester. Some undergraduate course professors require service learning, and there’s a program on campus called APPLES that functions as a placement agency. But most of the help comes from the SILS program.

Grant is writing his master’s thesis on the Community Workshop Series and is interested in working in management after graduation. Prior to graduate school, he was an English high school teacher and is one of those people who will be successful no matter what he does. From reading other blogs, I think I’m very fortunate to find such a well-organized and focused program.

I have some nerves about teaching my first class, but I’m going to hang on tight to the idea of “life-long learner” and somehow, this will hopefully help put things in context. Better to instill confidence in students and de-mystify the computer than get in knots about whether or not I’m expert enough to teach. From what Grant said, workshop participants are really looking for the most basic skills.

My teaching experience is a little atypical. For 10 years, I guided ocean kayak trips from British Columbia, Canada to the San Juan Islands in Washington State, plus the Baja Peninsula in Mexico. Maybe it’s ridiculous trying to draw parallels, but I think teaching people to kayak might have some similarities to teaching computer workshops. As a kayak guide, I had to figure out how to explain very, very basic skills to grown adults: how to get into the boat, how to turn it, how to back up, how to stay dry, how to launch and land, and how to go in a straight line.

My most interesting experience was taking blind people on a short, afternoon trip off the north coast of Orcas Island in Washington. I had to throw all of my teaching tricks out the window and think about new ways to teach without using visual cues. Some of the people on the trip had been blind since birth; others were going blind due to disease. And some were legally blind, but could see in very limited ways. The company I worked for offered these trips for free to a state agency that worked with the blind, setting up situations that let them lead regular lives. Many of the participants had limited experience with the outdoors, but they were game to camp, to go kayaking, and to experience something so new.

It really was a service learning experience, because I’m sure I learned more from them than they learned from me. We got away from the shore and one of the clients noticed how quiet it was. I’ll never forget what he said, “I always thought the ocean was noisy. I’ve only ever heard the sounds of waves, and thought the whole ocean sounded like that.” And several times I spotted wildlife, including a Harbor seal and even an Orca in the distance. I was so excited and blurted out, “Look! There’s a seal right behind your boat!” And then spent ten minutes trying to describe what a seal was, how it lived, breathed, what it smelled like.

It was really one of the highlights of my life. Maybe I won’t see an Orca in my computer classes, but I know that teaching can take you places you never knew existed.

Digital Sisters: Service Learning Opportunity

In case anyone is really stuck trying to find a service-learning project, perhaps this link will provide some ideas:

Digital Sisters: A Technology Social Services Agency
You can actually volunteer virtually, or, if you’re really enthusiastic, you could create a volunteer program in your community. They are physically located in Washington, DC.

Here’s a snapshot from their About Us page:

Digital Sisters (DS), Inc. is a 501(C)3 non-profit organization created to promote and provide technology education and enrichment for women and children who are traditioanlly underserved.

If the technology field is any indication of messages sent to women and girls research has shown that women have the least penetration in technology fields. This number decreasing by the inclusion of ethnicity and socio economic factors. Young girls are continuously sent daily messages that technology is “not for them.”

Working through enhance partnerships with community based organizations, corporations, technology centers and local schools, Digital Sisters provides assistance in closing the gender gap in technology that is plaguing single mothers. We have developed and implemented programs that promote needed life skills training and address the impact of the lack of technology skills on families. Our educational philosophy is based on a participatory and interactive learning approach.

By providing support through in and out of school activities, community outreach and professional workshops, Digital Sisters empowers women and girls which further strengthens families.

Our programs focus on the participants’ current goals; talents, abilities and interests, then begin to explore opportunities in technology. Sessions stress acquiring skills and knowledge that enhance self-confidence. Activities include hands-on experiences in the computer lab, speakers, and field trips. All programs are designed to provide technology education, increase awareness of gender equity, develop skills, to assist in personal growth, enhance learning, and to build self-esteem.

Digital Sisters’ programs and services will help participants to gain knowledge that can help to combat the alienation, apathy, discrimination and non-participation in technology related environments for those who are disadvantaged.

We provide innovative programs to assist traditionally underserved communities in creative, expressive and cooperative methods of learning utilizing technology empowerment strategies. Digital Sisters provides opportunities to families and individuals that might not otherwise get assistance every single day!

In addition we provide program planning and technology curriculum development for local schools, community technology and learning centers utilizing our technology empowerment strategies.

Self-perpetuating Digital Divide

For the most part, we’ve been looking at the digital divide as something to bridge. But I was reading an article called Cyberkids: Exploring Children’s Identities and Social Networks in Online and Offline Worlds (Valentine, Holloway, 2002), and I realized that there can also be a self-perpetuating digital divide.

In Holloway and Valentine’s study, they study “primary, empirical material demonstrating how online spaces are used, encountered, and interpreted within the context of young people’s offline everyday lives.” Their study isn’t about the digital divide, per se, although they recognize how it influences children’s offline and online usages, and note that attitudes differ depending on offline circumstances, namely socio-economic status.

Holloway and Valentine note that working-class attitudes toward computer technology varied from affluent attitudes. The children living in more working-class towns were less likely to get online at home because their parents either lacked the means to buy a computer, or didn’t want to pay for Internet access unless it was necessary. (Apparently local calls aren’t free in Britian, at least during the time the article was written). But what was interesting was that the more affluent kids perceived the use of Internet-connected PCs as something conjoined with sociality and communication. Less affluent kids viewed Internet-connected PCs as being negatively conjoined with “too academic,” or “too geeky.” All of these kids had access to the Internet at school, based on British attempts to bridge the digital divide through the school system. And yet, social attitudes to that access was conceived in very different ways.

“ICTs positions these [technoenthusiastic] children very differently, recontextualizing their off-line identities in negative ways. For example, boys who are technologically competent and interested in PCs generally have poor social standing within [non-affluent] schools. In popular culture, “techies” are commonly represented as being physically unattractive, wearing glasses, and having bad skin and poor fashion sense. In other words, their bodies are regarded as a product of their obsession with computers–of too much time spent staring at a screen.”

I would call this a self-perpetuating digital divide, although the article doesn’t delve into the nature of these attitudes so much as compare the differences between their affluent peers. Is this a common problem within the digital divide? And if so, how pervasive is it among lower socio-economic groups? We assume that underserved groups want and need access to computer technology, but what happens when we encounter cultures that perceive association with technology in a negative way?

Get 1, Give 1

Nicholas Negroponte, Chairman Emeritus for One Laptop Per Child, was in the news with the announcement that the Give 1, Get 1 program officially launched.

Writes author Steve Lohr in Buy a Laptop for a Child, Get Another One Free:

“One Laptop Per Child, an ambitious project to bring computing to the developing world’s children, has considerable momentum. Years of work by engineers and scientists have paid off in a pioneering low-cost machine that is light, rugged and surprisingly versatile. The early reviews have been glowing, and mass production is set to start next month.”

The program allows Americans and Canadians to buy two laptops for $399, with the intention that the second one goes to a child in a developing nation. The donated computer is tax deductible.

No mention of “digital divide” in the article, but that’s essentially what these computers address. Negroponte is quoted as saying he’s disappointed with the initial response, although governments across the globe are beginning to order them.

Perhaps there’s a way they could be tied in with Kiva.org, an online micro-lending program that helps entrepreneurs around the world.

(Too much jet-lag for a lengthy post, but was glad to see this program take off and wanted to capture the link.)

Service Learning: Some Examples

Since it will be at least a week before I get started on my own service learning experience, I decided to troll around for examples of people bridging the digital divide. I came across an article on the Digital Divide Network about teens helping seniors with computers and was impressed. Sixteen-year-old Angie Groh decided to teach computer literacy to seniors in her small town (population 400) in rural Iowa.

Teens Teaching Seniors: The Digital Divide on a Local Level

I gathered from her story that Groh had difficulty getting the word out about her free classes, which is a similar challenge facing Fight Against the Digital Divide, the group at UNC’s Campus Y that I may work with. Because Community Workshop Series, the other group I’ve contacted, has an ongoing relationship with four local public libraries, they seem able to focus on staffing instead of marketing.

Another really useful article:Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the 21st Century published in November, 2006, by Educause Quarterly. I particularly appreciated the authors’ attempts to define digital literacy. They distinguish digital literacy from visual literacy, and go on to say:

“Weaved throughout the definitions of each term are a host of other subclassifications including information literacy, lateral literacy, and reproduction literacy. Specifically, each term defines skills inherent in a digitally or visually literate individual. The variations in terminology, including redundancies, represent the newness of this phenomenon. The lack of extensive or at least longitudinal research related to digital literacy and, most importantly, to its impact on the learner, also helps explain such variations and redundancies. Nonetheless, a common understanding has emerged—a leitmotif that characterizes a unique environment. Literacy, in any form, advances a person’s ability to effectively and creatively use and communicate information.”

I hadn’t thought about digital literacy in a plural sense, breaking down the different skill sets into information, lateral and reproduction literacies (the authors don’t go into this in much depth in this article). It’s probably not their intention, but the authors made me realize that becoming literate is an ongoing process. Dr. Shulman mentioned in a class that the purpose is to create life-long learners, which for some reason makes this whole experience a lot less intimidating. That takes the focus off the skills and puts it on the process. And I liked how the authors clarified the goal of digital literacy:

“Ironically, while some see the profusion of realities as threatening to us, to our children, and even to democracy, the new media is nothing if not simply another way of viewing our world, of interacting with one another, of opening ourselves to learning in realms of possibility we never conceived of before. In our development as higher-order thinkers, multiple realities are far less important to our survival than our ability to understand what we see, to interpret what we experience, to analyze what we are exposed to, and to evaluate what we conclude against criteria that support critical thinking. In the end, it seems far better to have the skills and competencies to comprehend and discriminate within a common language than to be left out, unable to understand.”

Fight Against the Digital Divide: First Interest Meeting

On Tuesday, September 11, I went to an interest meeting at the Campus Y to find out more about Fight Against the Digital Divide. There were about 10 students, mostly undergraduates, with computer science, information science or political science majors. I thought, If this is what the next generation of leaders is like, then we’re going to be okay!

It was a short meeting, but I learned that FADD is hoping to revitalize its efforts to reach the university community, and wants to organize a planning committee to help promote its services. From what I learned at the meeting, FADD has been up and running for about five years. For security reasons, the tutorials take place on campus only, and in some circumstances, require volunteers to use their own laptops. Campus computer labs are also used. Given that FADD’s primary efforts seem to be focused on finding people to tutor for right now, I looked into alternative service learning possibilities and found another promising organization. It’s possible that I’ll end up working with both if time permits.

UNC students have created an award-winning Community Workshop Series that provides members of the community with basic computer literacy instruction at four local public libraries. I found out about this after my first meeting with FADD and will have to find out if they’re aware of the workshop series. Here’s a link to the Community Workshop Series:

www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/community_workshops/

I looked at the kinds of workshops they offer, and was really impressed. They offer a minimum of 28 workshops, including e-mail, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Web browsing, typing and other skill-specific computer applications. But they also offer targeted workshops, to help people research genealogy, gardening, jobs, crafts, health, etc. There’s also a safe-surfing workshop for parents and a class teaching people how to use library research search engines and databases. I noticed that they offer three Web-based tutorials, so it seems the majority of workshops are for beginning users who want person-to-person instruction.

I’ve sent an e-mail to the organizers and hope to start my service learning by the end of September.

Social Web Bill of Rights

Haven’t had a chance to digest this yet, but immediately I was struck with this idea: People are generating these ideas from the grassroots up. Made me think that the Internet is really in its infancy. Will this ever be something that goes beyond a loose consortium of users? Will the government ever have a hand in creating and implementing something like this?

Digesting the Social Web Bill of Rights

Access to the Internet: Want or Need?

I’ve watched Dr. Shulman’s second class and can’t shake the thought of Michael Powell. As noted in Dr. Shulman’s lecture, Powell took his place as FCC Chairman in 2001, and at his first press conference he made the following, now-famous comment:

“I think there’s a Mercedes divide,” Chairman Mike elaborated. “I’d like to have one, but I can’t afford one…I don’t mean to be completely flip about this. I think it’s an important social issue. But it shouldn’t be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of the deployment of the infrastructure.”

(source: The Village Voice)

Until this class, I hadn’t thought about federal policies and digital infrastructure, and how they applied to the digital divide. My rather narrow view of access had to do with teaching literacy to those in need, and creating services for them at the community level. So to be introduced to this bigger picture of federal responsibility and policy through Powell’s remarks was nothing less than stunning.

In contrast to Powell’s comments, I looked at some comments on the digital divide in British Columbia, Canada:

The B.C. government’s strongest initiative is to bring broadband Internet access to all areas of the province, especially those outside of the heavily populated urban settings, and into more rural locations…for the Internet to reach its largest potential in B.C., there must not only be access to all, but also the most modern, high-speed network possible. Right now, the majority of broadband Internet service is limited to the highly populated urban areas of British Columbia. In all, the situation concerning the digital divide in B.C. is moving in a positive direction, owing mainly to our provincial government’s promotion of the issue.

(source: The Digital Divide in Canada)

The last quote comes from a student at the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia.

I looked at the Industry Canada Web site, which is in charge of national policies for Telecommunications, and found the following:

Telecommunications
Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Pilot Program

The Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Pilot Program was launched in September 2002 to assist communities without broadband access. Priority is given to First Nations, Northern, rural and remote communities. The objectives of the Broadband Pilot Program are:

-to contribute to the Government of Canada’s goal of ensuring that all Canadian communities have access to affordable broadband services

-to assist communities in developing and implementing business plans for broadband connectivity, thereby providing an incentive for private sector deployment

-to increase the number of communities with broadband access

That’s in stark contrast to Powell’s remarks. I haven’t looked into federal and provincial policies on the subject in much depth, but I noticed that the wealthier provinces tend to have a vision for infrastructure and see the connection between the digital divide and economic prosperity more so than the struggling provinces.

The word “socialization” is one of those oddly polarizing words that strikes panic in Americans, even though, as Dr. Shulman pointed out, many of our cherished services are exactly that. I’ll have to compare and contrast on-the-ground differences between Canada and America and the different policies in more detail, but for now, was simply curious how another country might face the digital divide as opposed to our own.

Both sides of the digital divide

I’m in my first year of graduate school at UNC-Chapel Hill and have signed up for three classes. For one of my classes, we are required to interact through Second Life, a first-time experience for me. In another class, we participate in group discussions through Facebook. And in Digital Citizenship, we conduct our discussions through Blackboard and in a wiki. Except for a residency requirement halfway through the semester, Digital Citizenship is also my first distance class, and everything is either located on Blackboard, a wiki, a Web site, or video CourseCast.

It’s the strangest feeling to be at the hub of all these different forms of digital communication. My real-world self is becoming the exception to my online self, with little pieces of identity tucked all over the Internet in different nooks and crannies.

But in terms of the service learning for Digital Citizenship, this variety and novelty with digital literacy is a really important experience. I’ll have the opportunity to learn from people on both sides of the digital divide, from people more expert and those whom are less so.

It’s good to be humbled in the face of a new skill, whether it’s editing a wiki or creating a blog. Especially if you’re going to switch roles and teach digital skills to others. It took me the better part of an hour to figure out how to join my Facebook group, and I was almost too embarrassed to email the professor to ask. I think I *poked* him a dozen times, thinking incorrectly that if one poke didn’t work, maybe more would produce the desired result. This was after a younger student in the class, someone who came of college age with Facebook, said, “I don’t know anyone who isn’t on Facebook.”

And my experience creating, dressing and refining my avator in Second Life was the equivalent of tripping, falling and losing a whole head of hair in front of a crowd of people. Even after a week trying to perfect my avatar, I still seem to have only one shoe and a strange bald patch on my scalp that I can’t fix.

I think it’s natural for people to feel stupid when learning something new, and that will be important to remember when working with people who are intimidated by things that seem second nature to me. Things like surfing the Internet, creating an email account, or even moving around desktop icons. If people feel too frustrated or too stupid, they may give up trying to understand the tools, remaining in the trenches of the digital divide.