Digital Inclusion in Brazil: a Social Informatics epistemological problematique

Brazil is currently the world’s fifth largest country, both by geographical area and by population. It is the world’s eighth largest economy by nominal GDP with one of the world’s fastest growing major economies (World Bank, 2011). With such outstanding macro indexes, it is a shame to look into a close up reality of the Brazilian society, which is characterized by its abysmal gap between the rich and the poor. The marginalized poor people are not only deprived from decent services to their basic needs, but also to the access of technology. About 47% of the Brazilian population never used a computer, and 66% of the population never had access to the Internet. 64% of the people that had/have some sort of access to the Internet, never had a formal training on how to use the internet (CGI, 2006), which highlights the need of critical education and consciousness of its use.

The Brazilian government has been trying to fight such digital divide by introducing digital inclusion programs in order to socially include the marginalized population. Before moving on, I would like to revisit such terms since they have different meanings but often times are used as the if they were the same. Digital divide refers to inequalities between any groups in terms of access and use of digital technologies. Digital divide is usually concerned with statistics of access and can help us by acknowledging where the problem is situated. Digital inclusion refers to the process of democratizing the access to digital technologies in a way that the digitally marginalized is inserted in the information society.  For digital inclusion, access is not enough; the process should be worried about empowering the marginalized and teach them how to appropriate the digital technologies.

Digital Inclusion policies in Brazil have a technological deterministic approach, in which policymakers are mainly concerned about giving access to technology to the poor classes. Issues such as empowerment and appropriation of technology don’t seem to be on their priorities. In 2005 the Brazilian government invested over $400 million in various programs, equipment, infra-structure and tools to afford the poor population to access to technology. The Brazilian government was mostly concerned about lowering the price of computers and pushing them into the people’s homes instead of providing social programs that would involve technology. (Rebelo, 2005; “Info Plantao” 2007).

Currently, the Brazilian government has two main strategies to promote digital inclusion: LAN houses and Telecentros. LAN houses are establishments where, like a cyber cafe, people can pay to use a computer with Internet access and a local network (LAN). According to the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil, LAN houses are responsible for almost 50% of Internet access in Brazil and in poor areas it is responsible for 82% of the accesses (“O GLOBO”, 2009). Although LAN houses are privately owned business, the government provides several credit lines and loans with low interest rate in order to spread the number of facilities, especially in poor areas. Telecentros are facilities where the general public can access the computers for free. The computers are equipped with a variety of software and connected to the Internet. Several computer lectures are offered to the population throughout the year in order to fight the digital divide. Some Telecentro programs are owned by the government and some others by the private sector. Telecentros are usually implemented in areas where the populations with low income reside.

Because of the relative nuance of the Digital Inclusion programs in Brazil and even in the rest of the world, little substantive research/theory literature exists on the effective ways to measure change brought about by providing access to ICTs (O’Neil, 2002). The reason for such inefficiency is due to the erroneous methodological approach by policymakers whom are mostly strung up on hard numbers and statistics. The “problematique” of Digital Inclusion should be approached by qualitative methods which work well for exploratory studies in new fields as monitoring their progress and offers a holistic view of a dynamic situation (Patton, 1990). In this way, Digital inclusion research can build on Social Informatics research that considers social factors influencing ICT use. Social Informatics provides theoretical tools that can assist researchers in considering and understanding the social factors influencing ICT utilization (Kling, 2000).

The topic of digital inclusion hasn’t been fully explored in the eyes of Social Informatics. A lot of analyses have been done on policies regarding the topic, but a proper study that researches the users’ behavior, culture and attitude towards digital technology is almost nonexistent. No one can argue whether digital inclusion leads to social inclusion or not, because the previous studies try to tackle such question in terms of numbers, and as I already mentioned, it can’t be answered quantitatively. Digital Inclusion has been my main research interest, and as a Social Informatics PhD student, my goal is to ethnographically explore the actual digital inclusion units (LAN houses and telecentros), talk to people and understand their culture in order to properly answer some questions.

References

World Bank (2011, April 15). World Development Indicators database. Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/I358WVLTT0

CGI (2006, May 30). Survey on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil: e-Government Indicators – Households and Enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.cetic.br/palestras

Info Plantao. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/082007/08082007-17.shl

Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: the contribution of social informatics. The Information Society. 16(3), 217-232.

O Globo. Retrieved December 7, 2011, from http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/cat/posts/2009/06/19/lan-houses-caminho-da-responsabilidade-social-197174.asp

O’Neil, D. (2002). Assessing community informatics: a review of methodological approaches for evaluating community networks and community technology centers. Internet Research, 12(1), 76-102.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rebelo, P. (2005, May 12). Inclusão digital: o que é e a quem se destina? Webinsider. Retrieved from http://webinsider.uol.com.br/2005/05/12/inclusao-digital-o-que-e-e-a-quem-se-destina/

Advertisements

About davidnemer

Assistant Professor in the School of Information Science at the University of Kentucky.

Posted on March 13, 2012, in Digital Inclusion. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. There is a great deal, even overwhelming, research on the digital divide in developing countries (although Brazil no longer qualifies as a “developing country”). I think it all depends on the question that is being asked rather than methodology that is used. Each methodology brings with it a different set of assumptions, of course, and, indeed, it is theory that we want to drive methodology and how data are collected. For ongoing work on the “digital divide” that tries to answer some of the questions that David raises in his post, I suggest starting with van Dijk’s work. A search of google scholar will turn up his books and articles. Finally, most DD work on developing countries takes a “deterministic” view because research and data collection are driven by a development model (dating from the 1960s). David’s description sounds very much like what was being produced by the U.S. government series of publications during the 1990s into early 2000s; this work has been superseded by a DD 2.0 and maybe 3.0 that tries to respond to the issues that David raises in his post.

  1. Pingback: The “Brazilianization” Effect By: Jazmin Ridley | Digital Divide and Globalization

  2. Pingback: Brazil: the future of social media marketers | Communicating around the world

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: