This is the website to the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID).  It contains a multiude of information regarding GAID activities, ICT development projects, and publications regarding relevant ICT and development issues.  There are various articles on the use of Open Source Software in development projects, which I will use as examples in this paper. 

The GAID is an organization launched by the United Nations in 2006 to address the use of ICT in acheieving the Millenium Development Goals, particularly for reducing poverty in the developing world.  It formed from the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), during which a need for a global ICT and development policy forum was established.  The GAID serves to facilitate collaborative development projects between the private and public sectors, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups.

As stated on the website, the Objectives of the GAID are as follows:

"The Alliance will seek to contribute to:

(1) Mainstreaming of the global ICT agenda into the broader United Nations development agenda

(2) Bringing together key organizations involved in ICT for development (ICT4D) to enhance their collaboration and effectiveness for achieving the internationally agreed development goals

(3) Raising awareness of policy makers on ICT4D policy issues;

(4) Facilitating identification of technological solutions for specific development goals and pertinent partnerships

(5) Creating an enabling environment and innovative business models for pro-poor investment and growth and for empowering people living in poverty

(6) Acting as a "think-tank" on ICT4D-related issues and as an advisory group to the Secretary-General."

Haddad, Wadi D. 2000, ‘Is the divide digital?’, Techknowlogia, March/April 2000,

pps. 5 – 6, viewed 23 July 2009,

<http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_active_pages2/CurrentArticles/main.asp?Fi leType=HTML&ArticleID=85>.

This article will inform my discussion on the Global Digital Divide and its relevance to development issues.  The Global Digital Divide, as defined in this article, is the gap between the ICT "haves" and "have nots."  However, this gap cannot only be defined by physical access to ICT tools, the concept must be broadened to include the gap between human knowledge and skills necessary to use these tools.  Thus Haddad focuses on the human capital side of the divide in addition to the technical disparities.

The importance of ICT in the global economy is also discussed in this piece. Today’s economy is global, high speed, knowledge-driven, and competitive. Without the proper ICT skills and knowledge to participate in economic endeavors, whole countries and groups within countries become marginalized.  This economic marginalization limits the possibilities for impoverished communities in the developing world to improve their situation in the age of globalization.  I will use this article to inform my discussion about the disadvantages that are created and/or exacerbated by lack of ICT tools and technical literacy.  Solving these problems pose significant challenges to development policy makers and local communities.

Inveneo 2008, Inveneo, San Francisco, CA, viewed 23 July 2009, .

Inveneo is a California-based Non-Profit working to bridge the Global Digital Divide (GDD) in Africa. This website has some concrete examples of ICT development projects that have been completed in Africa. It also has various links to information about the digital divide and actual technological information about Inveneo's products and processes. This website can inform various parts of my paper including: a general discussion of the GDD, specific tactics that have been used in the developing world, and specifically the use of Open Source Software.  Inveneo has designed computing and networking systems built upon Open Source Software. This is a specific example of how OSS can be used effectively for development purposes.

The social mission of Inveneo is "to get the tools of information communications technology (ICT), such as computers, telephony, and Internet access to those who need it most — people and organizations in rural and highly underserved communities of the developing world." Inveneo’s approach is to work with local groups to train individuals to use ICT to improve lives within communities. Inveneo’s clients include other NGOs, local governments and local private enterprises. The computing and communications systems developed by Iveneo are low power, wireless and uses open-source software to reduce licensing costs. Their work began in Uganda in 2005 and now they have 25 projects in seven African nations. Inveneo’s goal is to match relevant technology to local organizations that provide education, healthcare, economic development, microfinance and relief services. The products and solutions offered by Inveneo include the Inveneo Computing Station, the Inveneo Communication Station, the Inveneo Hub Server and the Inveneo Desktop Linux. All of these systems require ultra-low power and are designed to perform in conditions of high dust and humidity, and these systems are compatible with Open Source Software programs. Inveneo systems are designed for beginner level users and are equipped with multi-lingual word processing capabilities. Inveneo also provides on-going training and support for its clients.

Block, W. 2004, "The "Digital Divide" Is Not a Problem in Need of Rectifying", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 393-406.

This article provides a starkly different perspective on the digital divide than most of my other sources. As the title clearly suggests, Block does not believe that the digital divide is a problem at all. He challenges claims that limited access to ICT is detrimental to individuals and populations and posits that these claims suffer from the fallacy of proportionality, egocentricism, and economic illiteracy.

In terms of the proportionality argument against the digital divide, Block says that proportional representation is a utopian goal of egalitarians. Simply put, different segments of a given population have different interests, skills and goals and therefore achieving proportional representation in any human activity, including the use of computers, is impossible. He compares the digital divide to other "product" divides such as yachts. Block asks if wealthy individuals have more yachts than low-income individuals, shouldn’t we be concerned with the "yacht divide?" I find this to be a faulty comparison, because as I have seen in my other sources, ICTs are no longer considered luxury goods in today’s world. Technical literacy has become a necessity to participate in society at large. Block uses similar comparisons to challenge the global digital divide, as well as divides based on race, gender, etc.

Block takes a very libertarian approach to the digital divide. From this article, it is clear that he believes a "hands off" approach to the spread of ICT is the right one. I disagree with this view, but I find it a valuable perspective to discuss in order to have a balanced research paper. I believe the evidence is strong to counter Blocks claims, and the potential value of ICT to developing nations is clear.

Wagner, D. A.2005, ‘Pro-equity approaches to monitoring and evaluation: gender,

marginalized groups and special needs populations’, Monitoring and evaluation of

ICT in education projects: a handbook for developing countries, pps. 55 – 63, viewed 23 July 2009 <http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.288.html>.

 

This work is a critique of the methods used to evaluate the progress of ICT development projects. It is specifically geared towards projects associated with the Millennium Development Goals. In this work Wagner presents some poverty, literacy and ICT statistics that may be useful to my project.  This work calls for more sophistacted techniques in analyzing data regarding development.  Wagner specifically calls for a "Pro-equity" approach to monitoring and evaluating development projects.  This method requires analysts to expand data used for project evaluation to accurately reflect marginalized groups within a society instead of focussing on macro-level data.  Focussing on high level summarized statistics often masks underlying structural problems and inequalities. 

This work will be particularly useful when discussing the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID). I will be able to look at some of GAID’s publications and evaluate them using some of Wagner’s perspectives outlined here. For example, he discusses multiple biases that currently exist in the monitoring and evaluation of ICT projects. These include various exclusion factors and demographic classifications such as: rural vs. urban, male vs. female, somewhat poor vs. very poor, young vs. old. Looking at data through these lenses may at times provide different results than focusing strictly on macro-level population data.

Wagner, D. A. 2001, ‘IT and education for the poorest of the poor: constraints,

possibilities and principles’, Techknowlogia, July/August 2001, pps. 48 – 50,

viewed 23 July 2009, <http://www.literacy.org/products/WagnerTechKnowLogiaArticle.pdf>.

 

I will use this source to inform my discussion of the Global Digital Divide. In this piece Wagner is discussing the implications that information and communications technologies can have on the lives of poverty stricken populations. He outlines the challenges for poor communities in the developing world and stresses the interconnectedness of literacy and ICT tools and skills. He discusses the role that ICT can play in overcoming poverty in these areas.  Wagner states that between two and three billion people, roughly half the world's total population, are in need of these skills.

Additionally this piece focuses on the digital divide as a broad development gap including social and cultural factors as well as technical needs in poor areas. This relates to my paper by setting up the context for what the digital divide is, why it is relevant to international and national policy makers, and what the potential benefits may result from closing the gap.  Wagner outlines some core principles that are necessary in closing the digital divide.  First, today ICT tools are too cheap to ignore and may offer more cost effective solutions to poor areas than ever before possible.  Additionally, he stresses the interconnectedness of literacy and technology in today's world, and the need for culturally-sensitive ICT tools.  Finally, he places emphasis on the collaboration of the private, public, and civil society sectors in bridging the digital divide.  Due to the complexity of the issues, no one sector will be successful if acting alone.  I will be able to use these core principles to evaluate some of the GAID projects I will discuss in my research paper.

 The GAID is an initiative launched by the UN in 2006 to address the use of ICT in achieving the MDGs.  This book outlines the purpose, goals, and operations of the GAID.  It is organized into three parts: 1) principles and structure of the GAID; 2) summary and outcomes from the organization's first meeting; and 3) the business plan of the GAID.  It is published by the UN/GAID so it is somewhat of a manifesto rather than a critique or analysis of the organization's operations.  It will give a concise view of the GAID stated goals and objectives and how the organization plans to promote the Millenium Development Goals through the effective use and proliferation of ICT.

The GAID originated as a result of the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).  During this summit, representatives from the UN, civil society groups, and non-governemental organizations (NGO) determined a need for a global open forum within which ICT policy dialogue could take place.  It is from this need that the GAID was concieved and launched in 2006.  In pursuit of this goal the GAID "will contribute to transforming the spirit and vision of the WSIS into action and promote the use of ICT for the acheivement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millenium Development Goals (pp. 2)."  The organization acts a facilitator and a spring board for colaborative partnerships aimed at tackling development issues using ICT.  This is the main focus of my research and thus this book will be helpful in understanding the vision and operations of this organization. 

Murelli, E. 2002, Breaking the digital divide: implications for developing countries, 1st edn, Commonwealth Secretariat: SFI Pub.

 

This book discusses the nature of the global digital divide (GDD) and the potential benefits that can be achieved by closing the ICT gap. According to Murelli, the digital divide can be defined as "the relative differential in access to information and communications technologies between and within regional groupings, markets, countries, sectors, communities, together with the consequential relative effects and impacts of the differential access (pg. x)." In her view, the potential benefits of ICT to developing nations are immense. First, they can be instruments of reform in the process of government and public sector management. Second, the private sector can achieve significant competitive advantage by implementing ICT into its operations and organizational management processes. Finally, individual citizens can be empowered through the use of ICT by debating public issues, communicating new ideas with broader audiences, and taking advantage of new opportunities for self-expression.

Other potential benefits to be reaped from the effective proliferation of ICTs are: poverty reduction, improved health care, easier access to public services, new employment opportunities, entrepreneurship, innovation, among others. This book also outlines the significant challenges that face governments seeking to expand the use and knowledge of ICTs in developing nations. In many areas of Africa, for example, the physical infrastructure to support computing and communications systems simply does not exist. In addition to the lack of physical infrastructure, the human resources necessary to install, use and maintain these systems is also lacking. Adding to these significant obstacles, other social and cultural barriers may exist in some areas. Murelli focuses on the role of government as the catalyst to overcoming these obstacles and facilitating the spread of ICT through effective policymaking and positive relations with civil society and the private sector. This book gives a good overview of the global digital divide and the issues surrounding this complex issue. I will use this work to inform much of my discussion of the GDD and its impact on development policy.

 

 

 This is a very extensive text that covers a wide range of internet policy issues.  I will focus on two chapters specifically for this paper: Chapter 26 "Globalizing the logic of openess: open source software and the global governance of intellectual property" and Chapter 30 "Internet diffusion and the digital divide: the role of policy making and political institutions."

Chapter 26 will inform my discussion of the use of and debate surrounding open source software.  The author argues that the global economy dictates the dissemination of information and skills necessary to complete in the era of globalization. Thus corporate powers such as Microsoft, and national powers such as the US and Western Europe are dominating the spread of information and communication technologies to the disadvantage of developing nations.  Liscensing costs and copyright laws serve to protect the interests of wealthy elites and international finanical organizations, while those without access to relevant knowledge and skills fall farther behind.  It is argued here that open source software is a kew way, possibly the key way, to counteract these forces of globalization that contribute to the global digital divide.  Specifically the use of free and open source software in Africa is discussed as is the support for open source software offered by the United Nations and many non-governmental organizations.  This will be a key text for my analysis of the use of open source software.

Chapter 30 focuses on issues surrounding the digital divide and policies that impact it.  It focuses on four countries as case studies: Brazil, Estonia, Singapore and the US.  The aim of this chapter is to discuss what role political policy and institutions may have in addressing the digital divide.  The conclusion is that policy and leadership in a society can in fact impact the diffusion of ICT.  Additionally, as I have seen in my other sources, civil society groups and non-governmental organizations are also key players in addressing issues of ICT disparity.

 This work focuses on policy issues surrounding the implementation and use of ICT in development. It touches on various challenges facing policymakers in this arena, namely in terms of infrastructure investment, human capital development, and corporate policy in the context of economic globalization. It also discusses issues of sustainability and urbanization which affect the spread and use of ICT.  For my paper, I will focus on Chapter 15 "Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Markets: Venture Capital and Electronic Commerce for Development?".

This chapter focuses on the economic factors that impact the spread of ICT in developing countries.  The authors argue that the digital divide is real, and it is reinforced my may global economic factors, specifically those of free-market capitalism.  The authors argue that developing nations will not "leap frog" to economic development because of advancements in ICT, as has been assumed by many in recent years.  Due to various economic, social and cultural forces, development in these nations will be a long, slow and challenging road.  One major impediment to rapid development is a lack of physical and informational infrastructure in developing nations.  Without the adequate infrustructure to support long-term development projects, the process will be quite complicated.  This is a realistic view of development from an economic perspective.  I can use this piece to evaluate some of the GAID projects that I will be discussing in my paper, specifically those with large-scale corporate involvement.

This research paper will focus on the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in achieving the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The specific issue I will focus on is the debate regarding Open Source Software (OSS) and its potential for spreading ICT's to developing nations at lower costs than proprietary software. I will investigate the UN's Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Also I will look at some development projects that have benefitted from the use of OSS and present arguments in opposition to OSS. The first part of this paper will analyze the concept of the Global Digital Divide and how it impacts other social problems such as poverty, literacy disparities, etc. Next, I will discuss efforts by the UN to use ICT in the achievement of the MDGs. Specifically I will focus on the creation of the GAID as a forum for addressing issues surrounding the digital divide and international development policy. Finally, I will discuss the specific issue of Open Source Software. This is one area of ICT development that may have potential for bringing low cost and efficient technologies to impoverished communities to improve lives. Some development projects have been successful in their use of Open Source Software, such as the non-profit organization Inveneo. However, Open Source Software does have is critics, and I will discuss these views as well.

This 2007 study focuses on the economic, social, and quality-of-life disparities between black students who attend Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and black students who attend Traditionally White Institutions (TWIs). Most important to my paper is the data regarding wage disparity between these groups of students. The study looks at two generations of students -- those who graduated in 1972, and those who graduated in 1997. By eliminating the variable of race, the study is able to look at the quantitative difference in the average earned wage between black students who attended both HBCUs and TWIs. It does not speculate as to why the disparity exists; only that it does.

According to the study, in 1972, a black graduate of a HBCU earned an average of 14.46 per hour, whereas a black graduate of a TWI earned only 11.38. By 1997, however, this wage disparity had reversed itself -- the average black student at a HBCU earned 7.68 an hour, whereas the average black student at a TWI earned 9.12 a hour. There are two main points here. First, and most obvious, is the clear reversal of fortunes. Almost as important, however, is that the earning potential for all black students fell, no matter what kind of institution they attended.

This study is relevant to my paper in that it clearly demonstrated a drop in wage-earning potential for students who attended HBCUs between 1972 and 1997, and that the drop was even more severe in contrast to black students who opted to attend TWIs. The greatest difference in campus culture and resources over those twenty-five years, across all institutions of higher learning, was the influx of technology and computing resources (both institutional and personal). Clearly, cooberated with the data from the other studies I have looked at, HBCUs have not been able to keep up with an appropriate technology influx, and this has hurt the learning (and earning) potential of their students. By not having access to the technological resources that their peers at TWIs enjoy, they not only fail to gain access to these resources, but become unattractive to employers who desire their employees to have extensive(or even, in some cases, any) facility and experience with computing facilities and resources.

This project is intended to collect the digital bibliography for my final paper in Peter Decherney's Internet Policy and Culture class. The paper will focus on the disparity in technological resources between Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and their more affluent, traditionally white-majority counterparts. In addition to examining this disparity, the paper will examine what is being done to bridge this gap, including administrative actions, public advocacy, and government intervention. The paper will take a particular interest in the pending renewal and evolution of the Higher Education Act, first passed in 1965, whose recently proposed amendments aim to reduce this electronic disparity. The topic of the paper is "Bridging The Digital Divide in Higher Education."

The current text of the proposed renewal of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as proposed and agreed to by both houses of the US Congress, dated November 9, 2007.

It is important to note that this version does not include the additional funding for the HBCU Capital Financing Program or the funding ceiling proposals of the US House of Representatives, to which, at this date, the US Senate has not agreed to.

This bill has been due for renewal since 2003 (the law requires that it must be updated, or that effort must be made to renew it every five years).

Pages 198-209 specifically pertain to matters concerning Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), referred in the text of the bill as Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI).

To qualify as a PBI under the Higher Education Act, a college or university must have no less than 1,000 undergraduate students, have at least 40 percent of such students be US Citizens of African-American decent, and have at least fifty (50) percent of all undergraduates enrolled at the institution be either low-income individuals ( details pending), or first-generation college students.

This bill is relevant to my paper in that it demonstrates an active attempt to provide funding for HBCUs through increased federal grants.  While this is not a long-term solution, it is very likely that the bill will be passed in the near future -- for this reason, it is important that I examine the primary text as part of my research.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (term taken from article), or HBCUs, have often struggled to close the Digital Divide in their institutions. Certain schools, such as Elizabeth City State University, and Norfolk State University, have been able to bridge the gap in technology commonly found between HBCUs and their historically White peers through grants and infrastructural changes.

Financial support from outside entities, both private and public, has been critical in raising funds for technology integration on these campuses. Elizabeth City State University has found the greatest success with governmental partnerships, raising nearly 10 Million dollars (US) from entities such as the US Navy and NASA. Norfolk State, which, as a whole has been financially "stagnant or slightly declining," was able to free up additional funding by laying off 20 percent of their IT support personnel and redirecting the funds formerly used to pay those employees' salaries towards the technological infrastructure of the university. While this adds a needed jolt to the system, it is not a viable long-term development strategy.

Administrators at HBCUs are optimistic about the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Recently proposed changes to the act include a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) Technology Grant Program, specifically designed to provide upgrades to technological infrastucture, hardware, software, and both traditional and wireless networking capabilities. The current version of the reauthorization bill recommends 250 million dollars (US) in annual funding for the technological needs of MSIs. While passage of the renewal is promised in the near future, there is currently disagreement as to what governmental entity will manage the program. Currently, the US Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and the US Department of Education are all vying for the administrative duties.

It is clear that there is a great need for infrastructral investment, as well as subsidies for student ownership of computer resources. ; in a report written by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) in 2000 (prepared for the US Department of Commerce), fewer than 25 percent of students at HBCUs were found to own their own computer. As a result, students were often found having to wait hours to gain access to university-owned computers (at the library, or in a lab). In a 2007 NAFEO study, 22.5 percent were found to have a "technology loan program" for their students, and only 15 percent were found to offer "subsidies, discounts or other financial incentives to assist students with computer purchases."

Ultimately, it will require a symbiotic relationship between HBCUs and the Federal Government to develop the needed resources fto bridge the Digital Divide. Some examples of this have already florished -- in 2006, Hampton University received funding from the Department of Homeland Security to develop their information technology infrastructure. In turn, they developed "a software visualization program that enables emergency responders to gain access to a visual rendering of large building interiors."

According to the author, these sorts of parnerships will help provide a level of sustainable growth for HBCUs, while ensuring that the governmental coffers that provide these needed technology grants will not run dry.

This article is relevant to my paper in that it provides two specific solutions towards narrowing the digital divide betwen HBCUs and their traditionally white counterparts.  In particular, Hampton University's program is interesting to me, as it opens the door for that institution to eligible for Bayh/Dole Act-related contracts in the future.

Outlines the specific proposals in the current version of the proposed 2008 Higher Education Act renewal (orig. passed 1968, last renewed in 1998).

There are two different versions of the bill, one in the US House of Representatives, and one in the US Senate.

The Senate bill was passed in that chamber in 2007 and proposes an annual grant of 250 million dollars (US) for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) for technology development, to be administrated by the US Department of Education. The second version of the bill, currently in session at in the House of Representatives, also proposes an annual stipend of 250 million dollars (US), but requests that the administrative duties be taken care of by the US Department of Commerce. Negotiations are ongoing between the two chambers to decide this sticking point, although members of both chambers are optimistic that a compromise can be achieved.

In addition to providing funding specifically aimed at technological improvement, the House bill provides additional funding for overall infrastructural investment, through the HBCU Capital Financing Program. This program, which offers governmental loans to the administrations of HBCUs, is instrumental in developing the overall resources of these universities, as these schools often struggle to develop their endowments and have smaller yields from their capital campaigns. The House bill proposes increasing the annual funding of the CFP from 375 million dollars (US) to 1.1 billion dollars (US).

Additional proposals in the House bill include an increase in the general federal HBCU undergraduate and graduate funding ceiling, which determines the limit that the government may allocate to these programs (an appropriations process determines the actual funds provided). Proponents of these two additional attachments point to the fact that the Bush administration has signaled that they will cut the net funding for HBCUs in the 2009 budget. These attachments are designed to block the administration from implementing that plan.

The bill is not exclusively aimed at HBCUs. Some parts, in fact, are aimed specifically at monitoring the activities of particularly affluent schools. Some points already agreed upon by both chambers in regards to this include an annual report from all US accredited universities in regards to their endowments, and in regards to what measures they are taking to reduce the cost of tuition and other fees to their student bodies. An earlier version of the bill would have required universities to spend at least five (5) percent of their endowments, per annum, towards alleviating the burden of costs to their students, but this was removed after strenuous objection from several major universities.

In addition, the bill requires any university that raises the price of its tuition to provide a detailed report to the Department of Education providing the details and need for such an increase. It is the hope, realistic or not, of the Congress at large that this will help dissuade universities from implementing unneccesary tuition hikes upon their students.

This article is relevant to my paper in that it outlines one specific approach towards solving the digital divide between HBCUs and their white counterparts. While the proposed changes to the bill do not create a permanent solution to lessen the disparity between these institutions (for instance, it does not contain plans to create a self-generating stream of revenue for these colleges and universities), it does provide a much needed injection of funds into the HBCU community, and could potentially provide the seed money to jump-start more long-term programs.

This 2003 article was penned by Dr. Teresa Redd, a member of Howard University’s English department, in the hopes of describing the successes and failures she has experienced using the Internet and other technological resources in her curriculum.  She quotes several relevant studies, including a 2000 United Negro College Fund (UNCF) study showing that that average endowment at a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) is less than one-third the average for their white counterparts (who, are, at the surface, structured the same; that is to say, private, four-year, accredited colleges and/or Universities).  Additionally, she notes that alumni giving only accounts for 6 percent of private, voluntary support, at HBCUs as opposed to 33 percent at their white counterparts, while the proportion of alumni who give money is almost equal at both schools.

Howard University holds an advantage over many of these schools – in 2003, when this article was published, their endowment stood at 312 million dollars (US), a figure that puts them far above the range of what the US Government considers the economic limits for HBCU status (as per the Higher Education Act of 1965).  For this reason, Howard’s struggles are all the more stark.  Howard invested 10 million dollars (US) into their technological infrastructure, allowing all students and faculty to have high-speed internet access, through public spaces, dormitories, and wireless signals.  Despite this “theoretical access,” there are still many problems with the system – while most classrooms have internet jacks for students to plug in laptops into, the vast majority don’t own computers.  By the same token, the wireless capability invested in by the University is similarly useless.  Faculty computer ownership is minimal at best, and, while there are, again, “theoretically,” laptops for rental through the university for faculty, there are only two laptops owned by the university for rental – for more than 350 faculty members.   There is additional relevant data within the article, but I have ommitted it here for length.

This article is relevant to my paper in that it demonstrates yet another approach to solving the "digital divide" between HBCUs and their traditionally white counterparts.  Unfortunately, as the article shows, additional funding (in this case, through the endowment of the University) is not a catch-all, nor a perfect solution, as large gaps remain, even with a sizeable (and certainly, greater than the US federal government can give) influx of cash applied to the problem.  Howard does, however, seem on the right path, primarily investing what funds they do have for computer and technology access towards students in the "hard sciences," rather than the liberal arts -- a choice that may allow them to compete for Bayh/Dole Act contracts in the future.

Report from the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), prepared for the US Department of Commerce. This study is, quite possibly, the largest and most comprehensive study to date on the use of technology at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). It is a clearinghouse of irrefutable statistics that demonstrate the digital divide between HBCUs and their white counterparts.   An HBCU is dfined by the NAFEO as "[a] post-secondary institution founded prior to the the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the primary objective of educatiing blacks."  This differs from the US Government definition, as found within the Higher Education Act of 1965.  It is notable that the NAFEO study claims 118 HBCUs by this definition (as opposed to the estimated 80 schools that fall under the US Gov't definition).

80 HBCUs participated in the NAFEO study.  All demonstrated at least some use of computers on their campus, but, it should be noted, for many schools, this was restricted to only institutionally-owned computers, found in public, time-restricted spaces (library, dorm lounge, etc.).  60 of the responding schools reported the lowest possible response to the survey in terms of student technology ownership, that of "less than 25%" of their students owning a personal computer.  This means that 75%of students at these HBCUs only had access to public computers.  Even at the remaining 20 schools, none reported higher than 49% of their students owning a computer.

50% of the dorms at HBCUs had some connection to the Internet; however, more than 50% of these were institutionally-owned computers, found in a public area, such as a lobby or lounge computer -- not a situation designed for studying. Furthermore, even when an internet connection was available, it was not particularly rapid -- 88% of responding schools stated that they used T-1 speed lines, or lower for internet connection. In comparison, the 2000 United States Census demonstrates that only 38% of black college students (at any and all schools of US-based schools of higher education) have a home computer, as opposed to 70% of white students. Of those 38%, only 40% have internet access. From a comparison of this data, it is clear that the technology gap between white students and black students overall deepens if those black students attend a HBCU.

(NOTE: For general use, educationally related or not, the disparity between white and black internet users is shocking; the Census shows that only 6% of the estimated 58 million internet users are black.)

This is relevant to my paper in that it shows a demonstrable gap between the computing resources available to students at HBCUs and those available to students at traditionally white institutions.  This gap restricts access to information, as well as the means by which access is gained (public vs. private, etc.).  This data is from 2000 -- eight years ago.  As a result, I am a little wary of it.  However, other studies as recent at 2006 continue to cite these statistics, so I trust that the greater academic community at large finds them to still be relevant (or, at the least, that the disparity demonstrated still remains in place).

A 2000 study from the Journal of Black Studies (JBS), examining the conditions of software-based technology use by faculty at one (anonymous) mid-sized, southern Historically Black College and/or University (HBCU). The study also cites data from a study conducted by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) in 2000. The NAFEO study, along with this one, reveals a notable gap between the technological resources available to students at HBCUs and those available to their historically-white counterparts. For specifics regarding the NAFEO's findings, please see my citation "Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Networking and Connectivity"

The JBS study focuses primarily on the use of software applications by faculty, and how they are implemented by those professors into their curriculum. While basic computer competency skills, such as facility with the Windows operating system (90.3% of responders claimed to use it on a regular basis) and use of Microsoft Word (83% of responders), were relatively high, other software, such as Microsoft Excel (43.9% of responders), and PowerPoint (26.9% of responders), seem surprisingly low. In terms of web-based software, e-mail (87.8% of responders) and general internet use (80.5% of responders) were again high, but education-based software such as Blackboard (24.4% of responders) was minimal at best.

The study finds that this is, largely, an infrastructural and financial problem. Over 50% of the faculty members at the university were
working with computers that met just minimal standards, and, therefore, could not run all software applications available to them. In some cases, the technology itself was restricted -- the University had neglected to purchase a "campus-wide" license for the Blackboard software, and, as a result, not all faculty who desired to use it had access. It is telling that while only 24.4% of responders actually used Blackboard, 73.2% claimed to be familiar with and interested in using the software, if and when a functional license for it was granted to them. Another element that slowed the growth of technology at this school was that there was no full-time technology-development personnel on staff at the university to train faculty members software usage. As a result, the faculty members relied on "word-of-mouth" and each other's assistance to learn how to use new software.

(NOTE: Three years after the study was conducted, in 2003, a follow-up was performed. Data relevant to this shall appear in my paper, but has been omitted for length here.)

In terms of the relevance to my paper, having a specific case study, observing the statistics of a single school, is key to helping me focus my research and put it into real-life, applicable terms. The statistics support the evidence of a significant digital divide in terms of infrastructure, and, furthermore, the limitations regarding the faculty's use and familiarity with software and web-based applications, even when proper computing resources are available. I do have one or two concerns. The data that appears in this study was largely collected in 2000 -- because this data is eight years old, and the field of relevance (the development of technological resources on the campuses of HBCUs) is a rapidly changing one, I fear that the actual statistics today, in 2008, may be significantly different. Nevertheless, this journal article was published in 2006, and I have full confidence that, if these researchers found the data still relevant only two years ago, then the accuracy of it (or at least the disparity shown) has not depreciated much in the time that has elapsed.

This article covers a proposal by Morehouse College president Walter Massey that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) should attempt to raise funds for their own technological development by embracing their rights under the 1980 Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (better known as the Bayh/Dole Act).  This law allows the US federal government to engage in exclusive contracts with universities and non-profit businesses, for the purposes of developing and commercializing inventions created under the auspices of federally funded research.  Universities may then gain a financial return on their discoveries by filing a claim of ownership.  Massey desires that more of these contracts be granted to HBCUs, in the hopes that they can become independent, self-funding entities.  He points to the example of Stanford University, and how the research developed there was instrumental to the creation of the Silicon Valley industry.  Both US business and Stanford profited, and continue to profit, from that particular partnership.  Massey admits that there are flaws in his plan -- primarily that the amount of time and initial financial investment required to see a return is out of the reach for many HBCUs.  The administration at other HBCUs, and in particular, by Eric Sheppard, of Hampton University, have proposed a shared "pool" of technological resources, with Bayh/Dole-related profits split between the entities involved.  This requires a smaller initial investment, and allows more research to be done over a shorter amount of time.

This is relevant to my paper in that it demonstrates two proposals for making HBCUs technologically competative, and, more importantly, self-reliant in terms of development and technology funding over a long-term period.  While the plan itself requires federal (or privately granted) funding to begin, it moves beyond a system where these schools are reliant on outside sources of financial support to grow and evolve their technological needs. 

The Bayh/Dole Act gives United States-based colleges and universities, small businesses, and non-profit enterprises control over the intellectual property that arises from inventions created with federal funds. To retain these rights, the institution must file to patent the invention, attempt to commercialize the invention, and reinvest any superfluous income derived from the invention’s entrance into the marketplace into the educational institution (if it is such), or into further research. There is a clause within the bill, however, known as the “march-in” clause, which allows the US Federal Government to grant additional licenses of the Intellectual Property (IP) and the Patent rights therein to other applicants, non-profit, and for-profit, public and private, if the original non-profit and/or small business has failed to: a.) Take steps to commercialize and apply the invention to a proper and defined field of use; b.) Alleviate the health and/or safety needs of the public; c.) Ensure the invention meets the requirements for public use and federal regulations; and d.) At least make a “reasonable” attempt to ensure that the commercial version of the invention shall be “substantially or primarily” manufactured in the United States by a US-based company. (NOTE: As of April, 2008, there has not been a successful “march-in” by a federal agency. Several petitions have been made over the years, but none of them have been successful.)

This is relevant to my paper as some scholars and administrators at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have suggested that, through use of the Bayh/Dole Act, technological advances made and developed by students and researchers at HBCUs might create a self-generating stream of revenue for future research and technological infrastructural investment at such institutions.

The Digital Empowerment Act of 2000 was a bill designed to help level the “digital divide” between white and minority students at the elementary and secondary school level.  It aimed to do so by doubling the overall funding for public school technology to from 425 million Dollars (US) per year to 850 million Dollars (US) per year.  This money would have been divided between infrastructure, teacher training, library modernization, and maintenance/repair.  By placing this investment in the public school system, the bill’s sponsors and co-sponsors hoped to ensure that, in the words of the bill, “every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, income, geography, or disability, is computer literate by the time the child finishes 8th grade.”  (NOTE:  This bill was introduced in 2000, and was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, but was never debated.  Ultimately, the session of Congress ended, and, after two years, the bill was cleared from the books.  One of the two main Senate sponsors, Senator Sarbanes or Maryland, is now retired, and there has been no effort to revive the bill since.)

This bill is relevant to my paper in that it shows proactive attempts by the US Government to eliminate the digital divide between white and minority students at the elementary and secondary school level – the theory being that, if students are exposed to technology at an early age, they will gain greater access to information, become more informed, earn higher grades in school, and become eligible for admission to institutions of higher education (where, they will, undoubtedly, again have access to superior technology, or demand such from the school’s administration).  Unfortunately, while this bill is well-intentioned, it does not allow for the fact that many institutions of higher education (in particular, Historically Black Colleges and Universities), do not have such technological resources, or, for that matter, the economic means to gain them, and, as such, providing early technological resources does not guarantee access to the same later-on in a student’s educational career.