Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender, and the Digital Divide in Austin

Citation

Note, M. (2012), "Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender, and the Digital Divide in Austin", Library Review, Vol. 61 No. 8/9, pp. 669-670. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531211292169

In Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender, and the Digital Divide in Austin, editors Joseph Straubhaar, Jeremiah Spence (both from University of Texas at Austin), Zeynep Tufekci (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Roberta G. Lentz (McGill University) examine the impact of national and statewide digital inclusion programs created in the 1990s and downsized after 2000. They analyze specifically how Austin, Texas persisted in its efforts to bridge the digital divide by working with its public libraries and local nonprofits, and the influence those programs had on disadvantaged groups. While grants were abundant for computer access and training during the tech boom, federal and state funding waned after 2000. The editors found that local organizations and grassroots movements were better able to survive reductions in support than programs that began in response to government funding opportunities.

Austin transformed itself from a political capital and university town in the 1960s to a technopolis, becoming the home of Dell and various tech companies in the 1990s. As early as 1957, the city recruited computer and related industries and built the university's capabilities. While Austin has been a model of a technology center with a high quality of life, its development has excluded African‐American and Latino residents. As the editors note, the creation of a technopolis is a deliberate economic development strategy that “necessarily results in some being left behind by techno‐cultural change” (p. 66). The division stems from Austin's “consciously engineered […] racial segregation that seemed to be at the heart of the income and opportunity differences between East Austin and the rest of the area” (p. 95). Residential and school segregation created inequality structures that are still very much present.

In its commercial and affluent areas Austin is one of the most wireless cities in the USA. Chapter 8, “Bridging the broadband gap or recreating digital inequalities? The social shaping of public Wi‐Fi in Austin” by Martha Fuentes‐Bautista and Nobuya Inagaki, assesses scarce public Wi‐Fi access in the city's minority and low‐income areas. The contributors note:

In order to use Wi‐Fi, one must enter a space originally designed for other purposes. This a priori access requirement – encompassing physical, social, cultural, and economic access – may privilege or prejudice segments of existing and future users (p. 209).

This chapter was interesting in light of homeless people outfitted with mobile Wi‐Fi devices, offering internet access for donations, at 2012s South by Southwest conference in Austin. Although the “Homeless Hotspots” project occurred after the book's publication, the national discussion it generated about whether it was an exploitive gimmick or an employment opportunity illustrated the contributors' arguments perfectly.

Developed from two related University of Texas studies during 1999‐2000 and 2009, the research project that is the crux of the book examined three concepts affecting low income and minority individuals: techno‐disposition (attitudes towards technology), techno‐capital (acquired knowledge and skills to use technology), and techno‐habitus (patterns of usage of technology). Techno‐dispositions are delineated by a number of factors, including economic, cultural, and linguistic capital; ethnicity; age; gender; social practices; education; technology awareness; desire for information; job requirements; community interactions; and geographic location. The principal research question for both studies was whether poor minority youth were forming resilient techno‐habitus against information and communications technology (ICT), even though public access centers, internet connected schools and libraries, and computer‐skills training were available.

Chapter 9, “Communities, cultural capital, and digital inclusion: ten years of tracking techno‐dispositions and techno‐capital”, documents research efforts to understand social and cultural barriers to information literacy. The first study showed that teens did not see technology as occupying a central part their lives, even though they owned video game systems and were knowledgeable about other forms of household technology. Vivana Rojas et al. writes:

The most immediate boundary preventing the poorest of these teens from acquiring techno‐capital or a positive techno‐disposition was economic class and the formation of a demotivating class habitus that reinforced their social standing (p. 235).

For example, a Latino boy stated that using computers was “women's work”, because female relatives utilized computers in office jobs, while male role models were manual laborers. An African‐American boy thought that using information technology was not cool and cited a billboard for a local internet service provider as an example, because it advertised to passersby to call “1‐800‐BE‐A‐GEEK”.

Researchers conducting the 2009 study found evidence to conclude that:

[…] young people are more likely to resemble each other in their techno‐capital, techno‐disposition, and group habitus than they are to follow in a family‐based class habitus received from their parents (p. 258).

A critical mass effect of social capital has narrowed the digital divide as disadvantaged youth use ICT more freely than ever before.

Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender, and the Digital Divide in Austin is a masterful book recommended for library professionals as it examines the extensive, complex issues of digital inclusion, while placing it in a geographical, cultural, and social context. In time, the digital divide will be alleviated by technology training in schools, new venues for community participation, and revitalization of neighborhoods through local training and information resources.