Technology will Shape Rural Futures. Will it Happen With or To Them?
At Siegel, we recognize the power of narratives to accelerate or hinder the changes we’re trying to make in the world. In our first post in this series, we explored how dominant stories about rural America—namely, that it is monolithic, resistant to change, or peripheral to the innovation economy—actively obscure the creativity, diversity, and ingenuity already thriving in rural communities.
Shifting those narratives isn’t just a communications challenge; it’s a question of power. Across regions and sectors, participants described rural places as sites of tech-driven innovation, experimentation, and deep practical knowledge. What is missing is not ingenuity, but the infrastructure, capital, and power of rural leaders to shape how technology shows up in their communities, and how that work is perceived.
Between April and September 2025, we held three convenings with 18 grantees and field experts working in rural places—many with deep lived experience in the communities they serve. Across all three, we entered with clear guiding questions while remaining open to emergent themes that could challenge our assumptions, sharpen our thinking, and surface new lines of inquiry.
What follows are several key themes that surfaced from the convening on AI and Emerging Technologies. Over the course of the convening, we explored how technology and AI are already reshaping rural work, education, and civic life, where the risks are emerging, and what it would take to build rural innovation ecosystems that are grounded in local assets rather than imported models.
Basic infrastructure remains the biggest barrier
While much of the conversation focused on emerging technologies, participants were clear that basic infrastructure remains the foundation. Broadband access is still uneven, unreliable, or unaffordable in many rural places, including at educational institutions.
“In today’s world, internet is as important as water, electricity and other basic infrastructure,” said Abbi Peters of the PA Wilds Center. “And with communities that are not online or just getting online, there can be a real gap to close in terms of new tools and systems available to them or their businesses or organizations. Extra supports are often needed to help close this gap, especially as AI accelerates everything.”
Participants described how lack of connectivity compounds other challenges, from running small businesses to accessing technical support. “Layers of things happen from not having access to this basic infrastructure,” Peters added. “Among other things, in communities that have been divested in for years, it can fuel a scarcity mindset and make it harder to build trust.”
This matters not just for access, but for sustainability. As Jasmine McNealy of the University of Florida underscored, “Even if the community wants tech, do they have the infrastructure to sustain it?” Without that foundation, she cautioned, investments risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative. “We need to have the infrastructure ready for it to go. Otherwise it’s just telling stories. We need the infrastructure and policy to make those things function as we imagine them to.”
Technology is expanding possibility, but only when it aligns with local context
Communities that have received broadband and other tech infrastructure have made notable progress. Participants shared concrete examples of how technology is opening doors that were effectively closed just a few years ago. Virtual and immersive tools are helping students in rural schools experience places, careers, and learning environments they could not otherwise access. Remote work and virtual professional development have created new exposure pathways for young people and educators, especially in geographically isolated communities.
Participants stressed, however, that access alone is not the end goal. These tools are most powerful when applied through a distinctly rural lens, grounded in local leadership and responsive to the realities of rural economies, health systems, and civic life. Emerging technologies, including AI, must be steered by rural communities themselves and aligned to pressing local questions.
At the same time, there was strong caution against assuming that exposure alone is enough. Technology is most valuable when it helps young people see themselves in a broader set of futures and when opportunities are tied to their interests, not simply to the dominant local industry. Several participants pushed back on the idea that rural workforce strategies should train people only for what already exists nearby, arguing instead for approaches that expand choice and agency.
This tension showed up clearly in conversations about AI. In some places, AI is being positioned as a must-learn skill, echoing earlier pushes around coding and computer science that did not always translate into durable jobs. “We’re repeating the same mistakes, training people to death without getting them a job,” Colby Hall of Craft Philanthropy warned. Others emphasized that while AI tools may lower some technical barriers, they raise new ones. “You may need less traditional tech knowledge, but a greater ability to interrogate the tech,” Betheny Gross of WGU Labs observed.
One size solutions do not work, but the pressure to adopt them is real
Local leaders face intense pressure to believe there is a single right way for AI or technology to enter their community. Participants worried about cookie-cutter narratives that frame rural progress as turning people who work with their hands into coders or chasing the same tech industry models that dominate urban regions.
Several participants also pointed to the growing politicization of technology itself. “There is politicization of Starlink because of certain high profile figures”, one participant noted “Some people now actively want Starlink, while others would never consider it.”
These dynamics make it even harder for rural leaders to plan thoughtfully and locally, especially when large-scale investments like data centers are framed as silver bullets. Participants questioned who ultimately benefits from these developments and whether communities are equipped to negotiate long-term value rather than short-term wins.
Who benefits from productivity gains is still an open question
Several participants raised a fundamental question that too often goes unasked in conversations about AI and productivity: Who actually benefits? “All the benefits typically go to the owners of capital and the owners of those businesses,” Weinstein noted. “You don’t see the question asked: Who gets the productivity benefits of AI?”
Without ownership, rural communities risk seeing productivity gains accrue primarily to external firms and investors. At the same time, participants emphasized that rural places already have strong foundations to create more community centered models. “There’s already an ownership mindset in rural communities,” Gross said. “Tech should strengthen, not displace, that.”
This sparked discussion about alternative models, including worker-owned companies and locally rooted entrepreneurship. “Worker-owned companies and tech don’t often go hand in hand, but it can work,” Maggiolo noted, pointing to examples in Vermont. The challenge, he argued, is helping employers move beyond traditional scarcity mindsets and toward models that keep wealth and decision-making local.
Moving from users to co-creators requires power and presence
Participants challenged the idea that it is enough to have nominal rural representation in national technology conversations. “It’s one thing to say rural folks are represented,” Maggiolo said. “It’s another to get them to the table intentionally and consistently.”
There was also a call to shift accountability upstream. “The key stakeholders making these deals —tech companies, but also governors’ offices, public universities, local politicians—have a broad vision, but not clear answers about what their designs mean for rural communities. [We need to] put the burden of proof on the actors making AI deals now to show how rural is being included,” urged one participant.
Understanding power also requires seeing ecosystems from the inside. “What does the AI ecosystem look like through the eyes of rural community members?” McNealy asked, emphasizing that community perceptions of influence and access often differ sharply from how outsiders map systems. As Tony Pipa of Brookings put it, “One of the areas where AI might really be helpful is using a rural-specific and rural-steered perspective on issues that are really germane to rural community futures—for example, what is the role of AI in enabling the future of rural health infrastructure in an era of declining access to rural hospitals?”
Across the convening, one message was clear: the question is not whether technology will shape rural futures. It already is. The real question is whether this transformation happens to rural communities or with them. Getting that right will require patience, flexible funding, infrastructure investment, and a willingness to value rural knowledge and context, creative ownership models, and trust as much as scale.
This is the second piece in a series. We’ll continue to share insights from past and future convenings as this work evolves and as we shape our learning and priorities for 2026.
Acknowledgements
We are deeply grateful to the participants who generously shared their time, insight, and candid perspectives throughout this consultation. Their lived experience, intellectual rigor, and willingness to challenge assumptions shaped this work in meaningful ways:
- Amanda Weinstein
- Abbi Peters
- Chris Estes
- Betheny Gross
- Chris Maggiolo
- Jasmine McNealy
- Maia Woluchem
- Tony Pipa
- Colby Hall
- Taina Torres
- Tracie Powell
- Swati Ghosh
- Marie Casao
