I feel that the most important element by far is Economic Sustainability since this is a solution for much of the other domains. If an individual has more economic stability they have the option to access better healthcare systems, the ability to choose where they live, and the type of food they can afford. I would say that the follow up to economic stability is something that is adjacent to it which is education. Education is a determinant for financial outcomes, but also covers issues related to the ability to use technology. Someone can be in an economically sustainable situation, but not having an understanding of technology due to limited experience or understanding means that they can have access to these tools and not use them. So education of various different kinds and methods can lead to better economic outcomes or higher levels of usage of resources. While all of the domains can be identified as solutions for other areas in this framework, I feel that those two have the greatest amount of leverage to change the other domains.
While it is a very competent framework, it doesn’t really offer anything new in my opinion. Low income and rural areas lacking digital access is not a new phenomenon, nor is the gap in usage difficulties by particular groups in our communities such as older individuals. While I do understand that they have offered some pretty wide stroke recommendations, I feel like “partner with a library” has been exhausted. I think that there are more pragmatic ways to encourage healthcare systems to partner with educational systems or even technology providers. For example, anyone can stop by the fire department to get assistance with proper installation of a car seat. Why can’t a program like that be expanded to help individuals set up healthcare programs through digital devices, or encourage public wifi access points to have areas that are reserved for these kinds of visits. Additionally, the article does not really touch on some of the domains that they have listed in the figure 1. To me it is not clear if the domains they are referring to are the ones listed in the center or the circles in orbit around that center. So, for me the short answer to the question is this a good framework would be- Kind of. It identifies issues that have previously been identified but does not offer any new pragmatic solutions.
The most impactful portion of this article would have to be the discussion around government involvement in closing the digital divide. Government involvement in regulating anything is always a tricky subject as our particular brand of governing is not known for its efficiency or, especially as of late, its consistency. We are in an era of executive orders and subsequent rescinding of those orders. With this in mind I appreciated the discussion of public-private partnerships within the context of state and local governments partnering with private entities as I feel that would be the effective and long lasting way to ensure connectivity. Additionally, I think that technological advancements such as starlink and other non-wired or traditional means of connectivity will soon be filling in the gaps of connectivity in rural and tribal areas. When the cost of connecting an area is lowered so substantially because the installation and maintenance of a satellite is far less than paying many work crews for thousands of miles of digging trenches, installation or millions of miles of very expensive wire, and the many junction boxes required for service transmission the economic incentive to reach those previously cost inhibited areas will be high enough that someone will make it happen. There is also the idea that someone will see the gap in these areas and fill in services to unserved areas which would help break the iron grip that a few telecommunications companies have on the market as a whole. The article had some persuasive arguments, but did have a bit of a skew to their examples of programs that would work considering they cited projects in states notorious for running a deficit of billions and making promises that are seldom delivered on.
On the other hand the idea of using current infrastructure that is out of date as the starting point for upgrade is pretty brilliant. Every public phone becoming a wifi hotspot would be an excellent and cost effective way of ensuring urban wifi coverage. It would not solve the rural issue, but gains must be made where they can be. This idea does stand on the shoulders of hanging telephone lines on poles originally meant for telegraph and early electrical lines, so there is precedent that this is a worthwhile venture that can work.
The focus on affirmational care seemed to be the recurring theme of this article. This seems like something that is universal in creating better outcomes with clients regardless of their identity(s) or challenges. The main connection to the other two articles would be a lack of high speed internet access could make some of the tools or activities such as use of the zoom whiteboard not feasible. Without sufficient bandwidth even having a camera function would be not possible let alone allow for screen sharing, and this issue would only be further compounded if these activities or tools were used in the context of a group setting.
I really liked how you broke this down. I agree that economic sustainability and education are at the core of almost every other domain in Sieck et al.’s framework. Just like you mentioned, having a stable income really opens up opportunities for better healthcare, housing, and food. However, without digital or technological literacy, people might still feel disconnected, even if they technically “have access.” I truly appreciated the point you brought up about someone being financially stable but struggling to navigate technology. It’s a common situation we often see, especially with older adults or clients who haven’t had much exposure to tech.
I also thought your critique of the framework was really fair. It’s solid, but I agree it doesn’t necessarily bring anything new to the table. I liked your idea about expanding community-based solutions, especially comparing it to the car seat programs at fire departments. That’s such a creative and practical example of how accessibility could actually look in real life.
Sam,
Nice job on this post. /economic sustainability does seem to be at the root of about every;thing else, for sure. That’s why all these articles are trying to address the ways and reasons those disparities exist. I love your discussion of how the model tells us what we already know. For folks more involved in technology (and perhaps in social justice) that is true. But many of your colleagues might have know these things, that hadn’t considered the ways they presented barriers.
I think your discussion of treating tech support like car seat lessons is brilliant. Having worked tech support for older adults I would absolutely love that idea. I agree that the library isn’t our resources any more, but we will still build on what is present – simply because it is sometimes easier than starting from scratch.
Your discussion of the public sector’s failures is a fair point, but I would push back that the private sector has exactly been the epitome of equity. There is a ginormous income inequality problem for a reason. And while I agree that the type of technology starlynk brings to this discussion is the direction we need to go in, there are other policy related issues that need to be on the table as well, right? If I don’t like your policies, I’ll cut off your service?
I agree that public and private partnerships are the answer to this divide. But also, as someone who teaches public policy, I will always advocate for policies that mandate that equity, not trust that everyone has everyone’s best interests at heart. At least I know how to make government accountable (at least I used to, before autocracy and the possible elimination of the free press).
This was a fascinating post, your ideas were really good ones and I enjoyed reading it. I have a feeling you may have even more to say about our discussion of AI. And BTW, just one last thing. A population that is being systematically erased always needs affirmations, no matter what else they might be dealing with.
Dr P