Computers as Barrier to or Vehicle for Equity - Factors Affecting Equity of Access to Computers -The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Marianne LaFrance and Anne Meyer

2. Factors Affecting Equity of Access to Computers

Among the many factors contributing to inequitable distribution of computer resources, we propose three central areas: availability of technology, appropriateness of fit between technology and user, and social context of computing.

2.1 Availability of Information Technology

An important factor affecting computer access is availability. This means quite literally whether the machines are available to those who could make good use of them. Are they available in the sense of being obtainable and nearby? Obviously, if there are not sufficient financial resources with which to procure computers then access is denied. Computers may also be unavailable in the sense that even if a computing machine is on hand, access to it may be denied because the machine is incomplete, outmoded, or out-of-order. Again economics is implicated here.

But computer availability goes beyond literal access. For if computers are theoretically available but practically unavailable because of priorities, then access is also denied. This latter meaning of availability means that even if a count of existing computers within a given school or organization indicated that there were enough to go around, they still might be inaccessible, if one has to scale sizable real and/or rule barriers to get to them. In other words, despite appearances, computers may not be available if there are restrictions on who can use them. The problem with restrictions on computer use is that they often appear so uncontroversial. Take the example of a school system which gives its computers first to gifted children and only later to less precocious students or students with disabilities, if resources permit. Or take the case of a teacher allowing males more time with computers than females because they ask for it or because the teacher feels that that is appropriate. Another pervasive prejudice is the concept that computers should be made available first to those who appear to have “more going for them.” Once this need is satisfied, the logic goes, one might be willing to consider providing machines for those who appear to be incapacitated in some way. In other words, when some people are regarded as more computer worthy than others then inequitable access seems entirely reasonable.

Once a priority list like this and the values it represents are granted, it no longer makes sense to require everyone to have equal right of access because individual inequalities have been accepted. The values which give rise to these priorities are tacit and represent the customary way of doing things. In other words, differential computer access does not represent a brand new issue; as Maner observes, it is merely another manifestation of how resources are typically distributed within society.

2.2 Appropriateness of Fit Between Technology and User

Even if computers are available, individuals may be denied access if there is a mismatch between their needs and the hardware or software. An obvious example is that computers are inaccessible if their interface attributes restrict access only to those who are mobile, who can see, and who can use their hands. Despite concerted efforts in a number of quarters to build computer systems in such a way that they can be used by people with physical disabilities, incorporation of physical access options into standard designs lags far behind need.

A more subtle barrier to access is the unavailability of appropriate and useful software for various users. It goes without saying that computers are gratuitous without software, but the issue of access is often talked about as though hardware and user-friendliness were the defining issues. If the available software cannot be used by various populations because it presumes a level of prior knowledge or physical ability or cognitive style or work orientation that does not exist for some users, then there is no access for them, even if on the surface it appears that the technology is available.

Similarly, the design of software should, but often does not, accommodate a range of styles and interests in users. Computer programs are usually written with images of end-users in mind. If these images were heterogeneous and encompassed a substantial range of possible users then accessibility might be at hand rather than at issue. But too often images of users are homogeneous and narrow, mirroring images of the programmers themselves, that is, people who are computer literate and academically experienced as well as more likely male, white, middle-class, able-bodied and likely English speaking. That excludes a lot of people and builds in a lot of inflexibility. The world encompasses a broad range of abilities, styles, preferences, and conventions. To the extent to which software is developed without recognition of this variation, then availability of computers will probably act to exacerbate group differences and thus form the basis for differential access.

The availability of appropriate software also goes beyond issues of parochialism. It also stems from unequal input into the software development process, especially concerning the purpose for the program. In the typical case, software is developed to satisfy some expressed market need, too often uninformed by input from those who may be the most affected by the resulting program. For example, a piece of educational software may be developed to facilitate an arguable educational objective such as rote memorization of historical facts. A program may be able to handle this kind of activity even better than a teacher, but whether the activity should be done at all is left unexamined. In manufacturing, software is often developed in order to automate processes previously requiring human labor. Automation is not bad by definition, but it may be misguided or even backfire if access to the decision making process is denied to those likely to be most affected by it. Zuboff (1988) in her book, In the age of the smart machine, points out that in pursuit of computer automation, business may ultimately lose by closing out the real potential of computer software to informate; that is, to enhance rather than replace the work that people do. True access thus requires involvement in defining what the computer will do, and towards what ends, by individuals whose goals and needs represent the broad end-user community.

2.3 Social Context of Computing

The third factor affecting access to computers concerns the social and interpersonal contexts that have been built up around them. Despite the phenomenal growth of computers, nearly every indicator of computer practice points to unevenness in their use. As noted previously, part of the reason is economic. But the problem of inaccessibility extends beyond this. As a society we believe people should not be constrained by superfluous characteristics such as class, race, or gender from being able to achieve desired positions or levels of satisfaction; equality of opportunity is one of our deepest held principles. Yet substantial inequalities between class, racial and gender groups exist and computer access represents one more arena in which this occurs. Statistics from everywhere indicate that computers are not evenly distributed in the population.

One disconcerting aspect of these inequities is that they appear to be chosen by the disfranchised themselves. That is, females and people of color as groups can be documented as expressing little interest in having access to computers. So if there is minimal expression of interest then surely one cannot argue that they have been denied access. The problem with this rather neat analysis is that it fails to take account of the culture of computing. In other words, we need to understand the character of the computing environment and the role it plays in blocking computer access. Computers may be one more venue in which nonwhite, non-abled, non-male, and non-middle class experience devaluation.

We begin with the observation that there are people who do not identify with computers. In fact, they may openly express disinterest and antipathy. But we need to ask about causes for this “disidentification.” Some insight can be gleaned from the work of Steele (1988) who has been interested in explaining under-achievement of black college students. His data suggest that people “dis-identify” with those domains of life associated with rejection and prejudice. The prime cause for disidentification is the lack of acceptance on equal terms. With respect to computing, this stems in the case of blacks and Hispanics from the traditionally devalued intellectual status of their groups in American society. This stems in the case of women from the prevailing belief that they are unable and/or uninterested in technical spheres. It stems in the case of the disabled from the belief that they are barely able to cope as is without adding a new claim on scarce resources. All these cases reflect beliefs widely held in society. Moreover, these evaluations are shared by everyone, even to a degree by the devalued themselves.

So how do individuals contend with lack of acceptance on equal terms. Since most people are disposed to maintaining some modicum level of self esteem, that is, an image of oneself as good, competent, integrated, self-directed and so on, one obvious way to maintain self esteem is to distance oneself from an arena in which one is likely to feel devalued. Upon experiencing difficulty with learning to use a computer, all of us may feel that we do not possess the requisite ability or skill. However, as Steele has pointed out, individuals who are devalued because of gender, race, or disability are doubly vulnerable in such a circumstance. When difficulty using a computer fits a stereotype of being computer incapable, the experience may engender anxiety beyond simple concern about skill, threatening the person’s core sense of self esteem and identity. Disidentification with computers arises as a protection against this vulnerability and the dysfunction it causes. Through the operation of this very subtle yet surefire process, certain people appear to have exempted themselves from the technology, but they have been denied access nonetheless.

2.4 Summary of Factors Affecting Access

It is clear that access to computer technology is inequitable in this society, that the inequities are frequently group rather than individually based, and that they parallel general societal inequities in some instances and in other instances are specific to the technology. For example, some access inequities stem from evaluation of some people as basically more computer-worthy. This is manifest in computers being made more available to some than to others, in more attention being brought to developing appropriate software for some more than for others, and in maintaining an environment which assumes that computers are not for everyone.

Back to the top

Go to: 3. Computing Equity in the Context of Education

Home > Research Resources > Adaptive Technology > Equity and Access to Computing Resources > Computers as Barrier to or Vehicle for Equity

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society