Project Overview:The idea of the “digital divide” has appealed to me since the late 1990s when computer manufacturers freely distributed computer equipment and telecommunications corporations started wiring public schools. The “digital divide” is the concept that of the” haves” and “have
nots” in reference to access to computer technology; with a particular focus on comparing people based on ethnicity, income, education and location. Research during this era revealed that low income people, people from rural areas and non white people did not have access to computers and the
internet as readily as higher income people, people from suburban areas and white people.
I decided to create my analytical data representation for
internet access based on ethnicity, income, education and location between the years 1998 and 2000. My goal is to show a connections between income, education, location and ethnicity as it relates to
internet access.
Process:I began with the idea of looking at trends in broadband access using the demo graphical information from above. The more research I did on analytical data displays, I realized in order to tell a more compelling story, I needed to not only look at trends among demographics but also compare spans of time. Early research on
internet access focused on dial-up not broadband. In an effort preserve the integrity of my analysis, I choose to use a set of data that provided a one to one match.
During my brainstorming activity it became clear to me that since I had four variables I wanted the data display to be as clean as possible; therefore I used graphics instead of words to portray the data. My sketches show the progression from using lines and symbols to full blown graphics.
(Click image for larger view)
Brainstorm sketches.The Data:This table lists the data used in my graph.
(Click image for larger view)
I used Tuft’s fundamental principles of design to prepare and display my data (Reference A).
Fundamental Principles of Analytical Design:1) Comparisons: show comparisons, contrasts and differences between data. For my data set, I am comparing
internet access of certain groups of people. The contrast and differences are evidenced in the gaps between populations based on demo graphical information.
2) Causality, Mechanism, Structure and Explanation: show the cause and effect. Based on the data I have provided, these relationships can be made:
- people with higher income levels have greater access than people with lower income
- college graduates have greater access than non college graduates
It has been reported that on average college graduates earn more money than non college graduates. Therefore, the conclusion could be drawn that the higher income people are college graduates, in which the cause is they graduated from college and the effect being they earn more income and therefore larger numbers of this group have
internet access.
3) Multivariate Analysis: show more than 1 or 2 variables. My data set contains four variables: income, location, education and ethnicity. Here are the data set definitions:
- Income - greater than $75K a year, lower than $35K a year
- Location - Urban, central city and rural
- Education - college graduate, high school graduate, and no high school degree
- Ethnicity - Caucasian, Latin, and African American
4) Integration of Evidence: completely integrate words, numbers, images and diagrams. The integration principle has been demonstrated by using a graph structure to display the data. I have used graphical illustrations, combined with words and numbers to communicate the data.
5) Documentation: thoroughly describe the evidence. I used a data set compiled by the
NTIA and
ESA. This information is clearly displayed on the diagram.
6) Content: provide content of quality, relevance and integrity. The content provided can be used to track the trends in
internet access between 1998 and 2000.
(Click image for larger view)
Conclusion:
The major trends in internet access between 1998 and 2000 are:
- In 1998 there was a huge difference in access based on income. In 2000 this gap has been narrowed.
- Location is still a major factor in access. Rural and central city populations continue to lag behind urban populations. Research has show that in some rural areas the internet has not been available.
- The gaps between education levels are significantly higher in 2000 than 1998. By 2000 the more educated people have larger numbers with access to the internet.
- The gaps between ethnicity did not change much between 1998 and 2000. Non white people had major lags in internet access.
Have intentionally not drawn cross relational conclusions on the data sets. For example, stating that there is a connection between leaving in a rural area and being low income or having no high school education and being low income, etc. I do not feel as if I have enough information to draw these types of conclusions.
Reference:A)
Tufte, R. Edward. Beautiful Evidence. Cheshire: Graphic press, 2006.
