when communication innovations lead to social exclusion

Mgr. Petr Lupač, Ph.D.

Charles University in Prague

World Internet Project

The Czech Republic

Financed due to Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA13-21024S)„World Internet Project –The Czech Republic II“

“An unequal Internet access is a new, stand-alone source of social inequality requiring an intervention.”

Method:

„Data“ gathered in 2006-2013

I. Preliminary bibliographic search

II. Books and reports

III. Systematic bibliographic search of articles via ISI Web of ScienceI. 1995-2011, „DIGITAL DIVIDE“ in topic or title

II. Filtering irrelevant research areas

III. 914 articles processed

IV. Updates

Result: Patterns, logical structure of the argument

System of

social

inequality

Unequal

Internet access

Unequal

gains/losses

“Those at the ‘wrong’ end of the digital divide will become second-class or third-class citizens, or no citizens at all.”

J. van Dijk (2005: 17)

Is digital divide closing?

Securing a

connection

Securing a

broadband

connection

Improving

digital

skills

?

0. Presumption of the new social structure (information society)

1. Reduction of ICTs to the Internet

2. Ubiquitous influence (all aspects of life/society)1. Homogeneous relevance (all societies, all parts of society, all contexts)

2. (Linear) positive influence

3. Pro-innovation bias1. Presumption of inevitable digitization/informatisation

2. Presumption of possibility to close the digital divide

4. The construction of universal need to use the Internet

5. Individual-blame bias

Rich-get-richer effect (benefits dependent on offlineresources)

Resources are and will be unequally distributed Excessive use can lead to negative effects

For certain people in certain situations, in certain contexts, the Internet is irrelevant or detrimental

The Internet rather transforms than increase (->new conditions)

Supplement hypothesis:

People… “ are organizing their communications based on the context of their contact. People use multiple media to communicate and can choose the one that is most suitable for the moment.”

Rainie, Wellman (2012: 97)

“ (…) an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system, that it should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation should be neither reinvented nor rejected.”

Rogers (1983: 92)

Perfectly connected digital society

where each individual owns several ICTs

and sacrifices enough time to maintain

both his/her digital skills and

knowledge of ICT innovations

⇣

Digital divide policies as cultural project

“Why are you not using the Internet?”

“I do not need it” explanations◦ irrational, sour grapes reasoning, cognitive dissonance

◦ Rational now but not in the near future

Purgation◦ Focus on old, unsuccessful, deprived nonusers

◦ Who are the young, successful, rich nonusers? How do they navigate through today’s world and why?

Psychologizing nonusers as deviations◦ Computer anxiety, technophobia

“Neither man was interested in making a purchase online. They told me that there is nothing like going to the local store, chatting with the regulars and browsing in person.”

Kvasny (2006: 174)

In the Great Britain, only 14 % of ex-users and 6 % of nonusers agree with “I could perform daily tasks better if I used the Internet” and half of ex-users claim they are better off by not using the Internet.

Dutton, Blank, Groselj (2013: 57)

App. 3/4 of Czech nonusers claim that that they are neither better or worse by not using the Internet (in 11 areas of life).

Lupac, Chrobakova, Sladek (2015)

“the tendency to hold an individual responsible for his or her problems, rather than the system of which the individual is a part (Caplan and Nelson, 1973)”

(Rogers, 1983: 103)

Individual factors of adoption (scdmg, attitudes, motivation, …)

ICT use as an individual, isolated activity (x cultures of sharing)

Outcomes derived from individual skills and online activities

„Usage gap“ overlooks the content of „communication activities“

Nonusers are not isolated entities

69 % of Czech nonusers know anyone who could send an email, fill an online form or find something online for them (67 % for ordering something online for them)

◦31 % of nonusers asked someone to do so at least several times (2014)

72 % of British nonusers and 89 % of ex-users know someone who… (2013)… and over half has asked for help already (2009)

44 % of US nonusers “have ever asked a friend or family member to look something up or complete a task on the internet for them” (2013)

45 % of British users “use” family or friends to help them use the Internet (2013 data, 62 % in 2007)

Sources: WIP-CZ, WIP-GB, PIP

Metcalf’s Law >

“the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system”

The Flip Side (Tongia & Wilson, 2011)>

“as a network grows in size and value, those outside the network face growing disparities. (…) The increasing costs of not being in the network can spread to the “included”.

Examples:

- Car transportation and sidewalk, public transport

- Health care system and uninsured

- Taxi driving system nowadays and nonusers

- Broadband Internet and those with slow connection

“The more exclusive are ICTs as a communication infrastructure and an information access point, the more disadvantaged are nonusers and “weak” users.”

nonuser user

Digital divide

…depends on

The embeddedness of ICT in his/her area of qualification (job market)

The institutional pressure to use the Internet (schools, public offices, massmedia)

The share of Internet users and intensity of use in his/her social network (close and weak ties)

The Internet penetration in broader social environment and among people with similar interests

In the given situation, actuality and seriousness of digital divide depends on

Availability of alternative communication channels

The costs differences (incl. translation points)

Ratio of communication networks size

Situational digital divide(Situational information society !)

Granting the variability of available communication channels ◦ Massmedia, governmental agencies, schools …

Regulation of cost differences

Establishing and/or mantaining “translation points”

(intermediary institutions) to support delegated or assisted access

Priority of the individual and/or local needs over the vague scheme of the “benefits for all from spreading ICT”

Mgr. Petr Lupač, Ph.D.

PETR.LUPAC@FF.CUNI.CZ

@PetrLupac

Department of Sociology

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts

Celetna 13, Prague

The Czech Republic