BKHTALIC.RVW   981108

"High Technology and Low-Income Communities", Donald A. Schon/Bish
Sanyal/William J. Mitchell (eds.), 1999, 0-262-69199-X, U$25.00
%E   Donald A. Schon
%E   Bish Sanyal
%E   William J. Mitchell
%C   55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA   02142-1399
%D   1999
%G   0-262-69199-X
%I   MIT Press
%O   U$25.00 800-356-0343 fax: 617-625-6660 www-mitpress.mit.edu
%P   411 p.
%T   "High Technology and Low-Income Communities"

In the spring of 1996, MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning
held a colloquium to look at potential and actual effects of
information technology on (generally low income) inner city urban
areas.  This was prompted by eagerness to use computer models for
urban planning, concern on the part of the technology community about
access inequities, and increased interest in providing technology
access and training to enhance opportunity for those in low income
situations.  In addition, there was a concern about large numbers of
people from all backgrounds who considered technology irrelevant to
poverty and vice versa.  These are the colloquium papers: transcripts
of the sessions themselves can be found at
http://sap.mit.edu/projects/colloquium/.  The papers come from a
variety of sources and viewpoints but are overall a disappointing lot,
stating that technology is changing society, technology is making new
opportunities, technology is widening disparities, computers have
problems, computers can be fun, and we all need more education.

In chapter one, Manuel Castells makes an important point that social
and economic disadvantage is also arranged spatially within cities,
and that barriers of space and distance are added to the others. 
Technophiles, of course, would immediately dispute this, saying the
net breaks down space.  While Castells' point can be made applicable
to technology, he does not do so in his paper.  Peter Hall certainly
disagrees, in chapter two, but his own reading of statistics makes him
admit that cities are not in decline.  Using his own illustration of
the Model T it is easy to see why: there is a much greater need for
someone to fix the machines when they fail than there is for
"theoretical abstract intelligence" tied to urban centres.  Some
slight knowledge of the technology might be more helpful to his
analysis than his constant references to an army of social scientists. 
The questions and statistics presented by Julian Wolpert show plenty
of poverty but few answers in chapter three.  (Very little relation to
technology, either.)  William Mitchell reiterates his "need for
design" thesis from "City of Bits" (cf. BKCITBIT.RVW) in chapter four,
but the most telling statement is his assertion that "Nobody really
knows what the digital revolution will ultimately mean for towns and
cities."  (In a change of pace, this paper says even less about
poverty than it does about technology.)  From a historical
perspective, Leo Marx finds the rise of information technology
irrelevant, in chapter five.  Viewing the more recent claims for the
educational value of television, and the hideously ironic quality of
offerings on the "500 channel universe" of today, I find it hard to
disagree.

William Mitchell starts off part two, in chapter six, with a
principled statement against the kind of asymmetric information flow
involved in cable modems and ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber
Line), thus using a democratic ideal to negate the need to analyze the
type of information flow needed in work situations today.  The rest of
his chapter is a fairly superficial overview of the Web. Joseph
Ferreira got me all excited by promising to address "the prospective
benefits for service providers and service recipients of decentralized
access to information about populations and their needs, service
systems, and operations" which sounds useful and right on target until
you realize that neither providers nor recipients are going to be
defined and that the chapter is spent formulating SQL queries to find
variant spellings on title deeds.  For no apparent reason.  Various
types of community "nets" and educational technologies used for
collaborative planning are cited by Michael Shiffer in chapter eight. 
This comes closest to addressing the issues raised by the title, with
two provisos.  One is that the experiences cited are anecdotal.  The
other is that while the community systems are said to be accessible
with a low cost PC and a modem, the collaborative programs illustrated
require reasonably high end graphical machines with sound capability. 
Chapter nine is even better, where Amsden and Clark do a first rate
job of exploding the myth that a few computers in the inner city would
catapult the "disadvantaged" population to the heights of software
entrepreneurship.  Jeanne Bamberger's piece in chapter ten is
interesting to an old teacher, but seems to have neither a point
(other than that some kids learn kinesthetically) nor a relation to
the book.  Chapter eleven tells some stories from the Computer
Clubhouse project.  These are apposite, but have few details that
might allow a successful transfer to another location.  A more
detailed account of the Community Computer Street Library Project is
given in chapter twelve.  A look at community nets in chapter thirteen
is limited by its singular account of the Multi-User Sessions In
Community program.  Sherry Turkle says something about personal
empowerment through learning and understanding, but not much about low
income in chapter fourteen.  Anne Beamish, in chapter fifteen, looks
briefly at a number of models for getting computers and computer
access into low income communities.  Again, details are sketchy, but
references, mostly online, are provided.

Chapter sixteen concludes by noting that there was much agreement
between participants in the colloquium, but has to admit that the
agreement was only "implicit" in the discussions.  A number of
motherhood statements are made in regard to public policy on
technology access.

While one cannot doubt the sincerity, intentions, and (within their
fields) scholarship of the authors, it is dismaying to look in vain
for a solid understanding of the technology that might have informed
some possible answers to problems, or even an insightful analysis of
the problems themselves.  While raising some issues for debate, few of
the papers do more than that.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998   BKHTALIC.RVW   981108