Copyright 1987 Guardian Newspapers Limited

The Guardian (London)

November 5, 1987

LENGTH: 752 words

HEADLINE: Computer Guardian: The why before the wherefore - Conflicting views over computer literacy

BYLINE: By RAY THOMAS

BODY:

The government believes that computer literacy will contribute to the development of an internationally competitive information technology (IT) industry in Britain. The Labour Party favours computer training in the belief that it will help reduce unemployment.

Others favour computer literacy as giving power to people to control their own destiny in an era of rapidly developing technology. But some observers on both right and left of the political spectrum see computer literacy as something imposed on the population because of governmental obsession with economic growth.

Frank Webster of Oxford Polytechnic and Kevin Robins are leaders of the impositionists. Webster and Robins have described policies favouring computer literacy as 'intellectual self-mutilation,' and have provided supporting arguments in articles in the Socialist Register, and in the most comprehensive book yet published on IT's social implications, Information Technology - A Luddite Analysis (Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986).

Webster and colleagues attack the concept of computer literacy saying 'Few of us feel pressure to be electricity literate, radio literate .. why is it so different with computer-communications?' They argue that computer literacy will increase inequalities at the national and international scales, and that it is likely to increase unemployment.

They question whether use of the new technology requires high skills and point instead to the deskilling effects on most jobs. Webster and Robins argue specifically that the diversion of educational resources to the achievement of computer literacy is at the expense of other more valuable forms of education.

A rationale for computer literacy is contained in proposals for the Open University T102 foundation course in technology to be presented in 1989. The computer content of T102 corresponds closely to the typical computer literacy course as attacked by Webster. But the T102 course team emphasise that the course will not be about how computer's work or about programming, but about how students can use computers - with word processors, spreadsheets, databases, and outliners.

The team claims that use of a computer system will improve other parts of the course. The students' time-budget will allow for 40 hours to be spent on learning to use the computer, but one consequence will be a reduction of a third in the time needed for acquiring numeracy skills - from 60 to 40 hours. The time budgeted for exercises and assignments will also be reduced by 20 hours, and it is claimed that this reduction is achieved through use of the computer. In terms of student time, in other words, the benefits within the course of achieving computer literacy are expected to match the costs.

The Vice Chancellor of the Open University, himself an engineer, expressed scepticism that the professional engineer needed to have the practical computer skills which constituted a major part of the T102 proposals. But the argument which may have won the day was that in the 1990s, computer literacy for the technologist would be like having a licence to drive a car.

It is not necessary to have a driving licence to survive or to lead a civilised life, but the majority of the population find one convenient for getting them to get where they want to go. So will the majority of technologists find computer literacy a valued skill in the 1990s.

The arguments of the T102 team and the Vice Chancellor can both be labelled as inegalitarian. The Vice Chancellor's position could be labelled as elitist. The parallel position is that the rich man does not need a driving licence because he can pay someone else to drive.

Those who become computer literate can also be regarded as relatively privileged. As car ownership has increased so have the transport facilities available to those without cars deteriorated. Just as the growth of car ownership has been socially divisive, so would the spread of computer literacy.

Most educationalists would argue that computer literacy is no more divisive than other forms of education. Many would also agree with Steve Shirley of F International and others in the computing profession, who argue that computer literacy is necessary in order that people can be involved in the design of information systems. But the participation argument has yet to be expressed with vigour by any prominent educationalist or politician.

Ray Thomas is Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Open University.