Authors

Keichie R. Quimco*
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus, Cebu City, Philippines

Connie B. Ngujo
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus, Cebu City, Philippines

Joselito C. Baritua
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus, Cebu City, Philippines
joselito.baritua001@deped.gov.ph

Dr. Regina P. Galigao
Cebu Technological University-Main Campus, Cebu City, Philippines

Abstract

The paper presents digital divides as a cycle rather than as separate problems. The previous research documented first digital divide that is concerned on unequal access to devices, electricity, broadband, software, and technical support. The second layer focuses on the skills required to use AI productively, including prompt guidelines, source verification, data interpretation, privacy protection, and the ability to understand a system’s limits. Artificial intelligence is transforming how knowledge is produced, assessed, and distributed in education, but access to AI benefits is uneven. This paper examines Digital Divide 2.0, the widening inequality that emerges when communities differ not only in connectivity and hardware but also in AI literacy, data sovereignty, language representation, critical evaluation, and institutional power. Using qualitative content analysis of the academic, policy, and institutional sources assembled in the working paper, the study organizes evidence across seven themes: infrastructural access; digital colonialism and data sovereignty; second-level skills and competency; critical and epistemic inequality; linguistic and cultural exclusion; policy and governance gaps; and intersectional marginalization. The synthesis shows that AI can reproduce educational stratification through several linked mechanisms. Under-resourced schools may lack reliable connectivity, devices, technical support, and trained teachers. Even when access exists, learners may remain excluded from higher-value uses of AI because they lack prompt design, verification, data literacy, or opportunities to participate in system design. This study also argues that AI literacy should be treated as a public educational capability rather than an individualistic skill. Equitable policy therefore requires infrastructure, localized and critical curricula, teacher development, community participation, indigenous data governance, and enforceable accountability mechanisms. Without these measures, AI literacy and education is likely to intensify existing inequalities rather than function as an educational equalizer.

Keywords:  Artificial intelligence, AI literacy, digital divide, educational inequality, marginalized communities, data sovereignty, sociology of education.

*Corresponding author / Email: keichie.quimco@deped.gov.ph
DOI: http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS05031438

Recommended citation:
Quimco, K. R., Ngujo, C. B., Baritua, J. C., & Galigao, R. P. (2026). Digital divide 2.0: AI literacy and the widening stratification in marginalized communities. Pantao (International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences) 5 (3), 2928-2940. http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS05031438

Read the full text

References

Aoun, J. E. (2017). Robot-proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. MIT Press.

Australian Digital Inclusion Index. (2025). ADII 2025 report: Measuring digital inclusion and the GenAI gap in Australia. Swinburne University of Technology; RMIT University.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Charness, G., Ciampaglia, G. L., Drury, J., Epper, A. M., Fehr, E., Fehr, R., Giannetti, M., Gächter, S., Goeree, J. K., Halpern, D. S., Hauser, O. P., . . . van de Ven, J. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policymaking. PNAS Nexus, 3(6), Article pgae191. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191

Centre for Multilateral Affairs. (2025). Beyond access: An integrated, rights-based strategy to close Uganda’s digital participation gap (CfMA Policy Series).

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

De Freitas, M. V. (2025). Digital sovereignty and data colonialism: Shaping a just digital order for the Global South (Policy Paper No. PP_38-25). Policy Center for the New South.

Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Walker, M. E. (2024). The cyclical ethical effects of using artificial intelligence in education. AI & Society, 39(2), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01497-w

Dodick, D. (2025). Localizing AIED: Moving beyond North-South narratives to serve contextual needs. AI & Society, 40(4), 2971–2981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02102-w

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

European Commission, High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission.

Garcia-Lopez, R. (2024). Algorithmic discrimination and credit exclusion in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Digital Studies, 12(2), 88–105.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Khodabin, M., & Arsalani, A. (2025). Artificial intelligence literacy as national strategy: A systematic review of policy, equity, and capacity building across the Global South. Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies, 9(4).

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kukutai, T., & Walter, M. (2021). Indigenous data sovereignty. In S. Gray, J. Bounegru, & L. Chambers (Eds.), The data journalism handbook (pp. 65–73). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1qr6smr.12

Li, T. J.-J., Lu, Y., Clark, J., Chen, M., Cox, V., Jiang, M., Deng, C., & Hong, J. I. (2022). A bottom-up end-user intelligent assistant approach to empower gig workers against AI inequality. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (pp. 1–10). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533406.3533412

Loble, L., & Stephens, K. (2024). Securing digital equity in Australian education. Paul Ramsay Foundation; University of Technology Sydney.

Microsoft Research. (2024). AI and the future of work in Africa [White paper]. Microsoft.

Moshagen, S. N., Antonsen, L., Wiechetek, L., & Trosterud, T. (2024). Indigenous language technology in the age of machine learning. Acta Borealia, 41(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2024.2410124

Mutambara, A. G. (2025). Artificial intelligence: A driver of inclusive development and shared prosperity for the Global South. CRC Press.

Quayson, J. (2021). Digital colonialism in the age of data. New Media & Society, 23(3), 456–472.

Sarkar, R., & Nouskit, S. (2026). Education as an equalizer in the era of digital divides: Redefining equity. In Addressing digital divides in international higher education (pp. 133–166). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Sharma, D. (2026). From digital divide to digital sovereignty: Heutagogy, indigenous knowledge, and sustainable futures in tertiary education. Neliti.

UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for students and teachers. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

United Nations Development Programme. (2025). The next great divergence: Why AI may widen inequality between countries. UNDP Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau.

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? Communication and Information Technologies Annual, 10, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002

van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.

Wang, X.-N. (2023). The utilization of extended reality to facilitate quality education and reduce inequalities (Doctoral dissertation, Trinity College Dublin).

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.