The document discusses the participation gap in participatory culture identified by Jenkins, which is unequal access to opportunities, experiences, skills and knowledge needed for full participation in the future. It explores who is likely to experience this gap by examining statistics on access to technology based on location (urban vs. rural), income, ethnicity, age, and disability. The key groups who are less likely to have access and be involved in participatory culture are those living in rural areas, on lower incomes, who are non-white, over 50 years old, or disabled.

1. Participatory Culture and The Participation Gap

2. The Participation GapJenkins defines the participation gap as “the unequal access to the opportunities, experiences, skills, and knowledge that will prepare youth for full participation in the world of tomorrow” (3). Jenkins provides a relevant illustration that demonstrates the gravity of this gap.What a person can accomplish with an outdated machine in a public library with mandatory filtering software and no opportunity for storage or transmission pales in comparison to what a person can accomplish with a home computer with unfettered Internet access, high band-width, and continuous connectivity (13).

3. What knowledge is left out? How does a certain lack of voice hinder or skew participatory culture? What norms and beliefs are upheld with these voices missing? I explore who this “person” without ICT access might be to demonstrate who is actually likely to be a player in participatory culture and thus whose voice(s) are being promoted and heard in this culture.

4. I will explore, in order, statistical access to ICT according to urban/rural settlement, class (based on family income), ethnicity, age and disability.

5. The number of citizens without high-speed internet is higher in rural areas which lag behind urban areas by ten percentage points.In certain states the rural population with high-speed internet is as low as 45 per cent (Mississippi and Tennessee are examples).25 per cent of urban youth have remixed while rural youth are at 15 per cent involvement.

6. Computer Ownership (Income)

7. Internet Access (Income)Remixing is equal for both high and low income users with access

8. EthnicityWhites and Asian-Americans were approximately 10 per cent more likely to post/share content online than Blacks or Hispanics and almost 20 per cent more likely than Native Americans to share content

9. AgeIn 2010, only 48 per cent of Americans over the age of 65 had a desktop computer and only 30 per cent had a laptop, and the numbers dwindle with those over the age of 75.Internet access was also divided according to age. 18-24 year olds continued to show the highest rate of broadband use, while the lowest adoption rate was among persons ages 55 and older.

11. Age Those who are aged 65 and over, only 35 per cent are likely to pursue any social networking. Furthermore, video uploading is more common among internet users under age 50 than is it among older internet users. 20% of internet users age 18-49 have uploaded a video online, while the same is true of just 10% of internet users age 50 and older

12. Disability

13. Some Global StatisticsIn the Americas (other than North America) internet usage is between 23 and 40 per cent. In Africa, the usage is just under 11 per cent. China has just over 31 per cent access Pakistan and India are below 10 per cent access.Only 58 countries have an internet penetration rate above 50 per cent.

14. In America, Henry Jenkin’s person caught in the participation gap may live in a rural area, may be in a low income bracket, may be non-white, may be over the age of 50 or may be disabled (or may fall into any number of these categories in combination). In other words, it is an upper class, white, young individual who is the most likely to have the best access to ICT and is most likely to be involved in participatory culture

15. “the bulk of online content is geared to White, middle-class Americans – which means that the Internet’s vast yet homogenized content is not as relevant and usable to the entire population as it should be” – Kuttan & Peters

16. “Other”participantsmay encounter a language barrier or cultural barriers as English is the dominant language online and content is a white upper-middle-class experience. Even if some demographics make some progress online, a little representation is not inclusive. As research showing Latino progress demonstrates:Latino communities differ considerably. A tenth-generation Spanish family in New Mexico, a third-generation Cuban-American family in Tampa, and a first-generation family of Guatamalan migrant workers in the Pacific Northwest will all have different content needs and expectations. (EDUCAUSE Review)

17. Will those who were left behind always be playing “catch up” to those who have had access longer? How will the minority voices “speak” online in an environment saturated with a particular, dominant voice? How can we give value to everyone’s contributions online?

18. Carvin, Andy. (2000). “More than just Access: Fitting Literacy and Content into the Digital Divide Equation.” EDUCAUSE Review. November/December 2000. (pp. 38 – 47). (accessed March 2011).de Dios, Benjamin V. et al (2007). UNESCO ICT in Education Programme. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO. Available online at http://www2.unescobkk.org/elib/publications/brochures/ict_in_education.pdf (accessed March 2011)Friedman, Thomas L. (2007). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Hargitti, Eszter & Walejko, Gina. (2008). “The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age.” Information, Communication & Society. 11 (2): 239 – 256.Hui, Stephen. (2010). B.C. Government Lowers Targets for First Nations Broadband Internet Access. Available online at http://www.straight.com/article-295672/vancouver/bc-government-lowers-targets-first-nations-broadband-internet-access (accessed March 2011)Ito, Mizuko. et al. (2009). Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available online at http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/full_pdfs/Living_and_Learning.pdf (accessed March 2011)Jansen, Jim (2010). The Better-Off Online for Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project. Available online at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1809/internet-usage-higher-income-americans November 24, 2010. (accessed March 2011).Jenkins, Henry. et al. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available online at http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/full_pdfs/Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf (accessed March 2011)Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Menlo Park, California: Available online at http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm (accessed March 2011)Khan, Sarbuland. (2007). “Digital Revolution: Opportunity or a New Divide?” in Humanizing the Digital Age. Ed. UnerKirdar. New York, NY: United Nations Publications.Kuttan, Appu & Peters, Lawrence. (2003). From Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lenhart, Amanda & Madden, Mary (2005). Teen Content Creators and Consumers for PEW Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teen-Content-Creators-and-Consumers.aspx pp. 1-29. (accessed March 2011)Livingston, Gretchen. (2011). Latinos and Digital Technology, 2010. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/134.pdf pp 1 -34. (accessed March 2011.)National Telecommunications & Information Administration. (2011). Digital Nation: Expanding Internet Usage. Available online at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2011/NTIA_Internet_Use_Report_February_2011.pdf pp 1-28. (accessed March 2011)Prabhudesai, Arun. (2010). 52 Million Active Internet Users in India. Available online at http://trak.in/tags/business/2010/04/07/internet-usage-india-report-2010/ (accessed March 2011). Purcell, Kristen. (2010). The State of Online Video for PEW Internet & American Life Project. Available online at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-The-State-of-Online-Video.pdf (accessed March 2011)Rice, Donal. (2010). ICT for Inclusion: Reaching More Students More Effectively. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. Available online at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001904/190431e.pdf (accessed March 2011)Ronchi, Alfredo M. (2009). eCulture: Cultural Content in the Digital Age. New York, NY: SpringerSelinger, Michelle. (2009). “ICT in Education: catalyst for development” in ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development. Ed. Tim Unwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Twist, Kade (2002). A Nation Online, But Where Are the Indians? Available online at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/402.html (accessed March 2011).van Oort, Frank G. et al. (2009). The Urban Knowledge Economy and Employment Growth: A Spatial Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Available online at Springerlink.com (accessed March 2011)Women’s Careers and ICT: Frequently Asked Questions (2007). Last retrieved March 27, 2011 from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/95&forma Zickuhr, Kathryn. (2010). Generations Online in 2010 for Pew Internet & American Life ProjectAvailable online at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1831/generations-online-2010 (accessed March 2011) Zickuhr, Kathryn. (2011). Generations and Their Gadgets for Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available online at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Generations-and-gadgets.aspx pp 1-20. (accessed March 2011)