History and habit in the mobilization of ICT resources

Evidence demonstrates that the digital divide is deepening despite strategies mobilized worldwide to reduce it. In disadvantaged communities, beyond training and infrastructural issues, there often lies a range of cultural and historically formed relationships that affect people's adoption of ICTs. This article presents an analysis of local resident's engagement with their council's pilot project to develop a computer facility in their community center. We ask, to what extent can people in poor urban communities, once trained, be expected to volunteer to work on furthering community education and development in ICTs in their local area? Findings indicate four patterns of individual engagement with the computer project: reflexive, utilitarian, distributive, and nonparticipatory. It is argued that local people engaged with the intervention in historically patterned and locally distinctive ways that served immediate personal and pragmatic ends. They did not adopt the long-term strategic goals of the council or university.

Wired communities in the city: Sydney, Australia

Questions relating to the ability of particular groups in society to access information and communications technologies (ICTs) have become a growing part of the academic and policy literature. The issues raised in this literature have revolved around a number of themes, many of which can be subsumed under concerns about a growing digital divide whereby society is being divided into information rich and information poor sectors. This differentiation can be between particular social groups irrespective of place, or between people in particular places be these large regional areas (e.g. metropolitan versus non-metropolitan) or localities and communities within an urban area. This paper focuses on the existence of a 'digital divide' across the Sydney metropolitan area. Using ABS 2001 census data the paper presents an analysis of computer and internet access and use for clusters of local communities and focuses on how usage differs across communities as differentiated by socio-economic status, household and family status and ethnic background