1

New Frontiers in the Digital Divide:

Revisiting Policy for Digital Inclusion

July 4, 2012

Professor Birgit Jæger

Roskilde University, Department of Society and Globalisation

Universitetsvej 1, building 25.2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

birgit@ruc.dk

2

Introduction When laying out a new strategy for e-government, the Danish government set the goal

that by 2015 all contacts between citizens and public authorities must be conducted

electronically (Government et al., 2011). For some years the public discussion

concerning the digital divide was almost absent in Denmark but the introduction of

this new strategy placed it back on the political agenda. According to the EU’s strategy

for e-government, every citizen ought to have equal access to public services, this

raises the question of how a policy for digital inclusion where nobody is left behind can

be formed.

The new strategy for e-government marks a profound shift in the interaction between

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and society. Until now it has been

voluntary as to whether or not citizens want to use ICT and a lot of citizens, especially

senior citizens, have chosen not to use the technology. But the new e-government

strategy rules out this choice. It is now a duty for all Danish citizens to know how to

handle a computer in order to get access to public e-services. This situation has upset

the biggest association for older people in Denmark: the DanAge Association who, in

January 2012, arranged a meeting to discuss the consequences of the new strategy for

e-government. The interest was overwhelming and at the meeting several speakers

expressed the desire for the right to reject ICT and protested against being forced `to

go digital’.

However, senior citizens are not the only group affected of the e-government strategy.

New frontiers in the digital divide are opening and a new group is emerging as being

excluded – the youngsters. Just after the presentation of the e-government strategy

one of the leading Danish newspapers ran the headline: “The Municipalities’ Websites

are Nonsense for Young People”1. The article reported that young people were

queuing up in town halls to get help to fill out forms which are already available on the

internet. And a survey, sponsored by the newspaper, showed that more adult people

found it easy to use public e-services that young people.

The e-government strategy does not only affect citizens it also puts a responsibility on

the public authorities. Until now it has mostly been regarded as the responsibility of

the individual citizens to gain the necessary computer skills but the EU policy of giving

equal access to public e-services suggests that the public authorities now have an

obligation to up skill the citizens to serve themselves through the public e-services.

Hence, policies and actions for digital inclusion become a central theme for the

implementation of the e-government strategy. In this article I will investigate how the

Danish policies and actions for digital inclusion are formed and, based on the

knowledge we have about the digital divide, analyze if these policies and actions are

sufficient to solve the problem.

3

Denmark is regarded as being in front of ICT developments due to its high scores on

international ranking lists concerning digital readiness in the form of access to

computers, broadband connections to the internet, use of mobile phones, and the

development of e-government (e.g. OECD, 2005 & 2010; UN, 2010). In this way, the

digital gap in Denmark “is much smaller than in nearly every other country” (OECD,

2005: 57). Hence, we must assume that other countries have similar or even bigger

problems in overcoming the digital divide and in this way it seems feasible to use

Denmark as a case for studying how to solve the problem.

The analysis presented here is based on a multidisciplinary theoretical approach

drawing on theories of the digital divide, theories of domestication of technology, and

theories about the interplay between users and technology developed in the field of

STS (Science and Technology Studies). In continuation of this theoretical framework,

the analysis is conducted based on mixed methods research. In accordance with a

pragmatic approach to social science research methodology (Morgan, 2007), the

analysis draws on quantitative research as well as qualitative research. Hence, I draw

on statistics developed by Statistics Denmark – the national agency for statistic – as

well as a comprehensive study of senior citizens’ usage of ICT conducted some years

ago2. For the analysis of the policy I draw on a literature study of policy papers (Jæger

and Löfgren, 2010) as well as six qualitative interviews with key politicians – including

the Minister of Science and Technology – and key civil servants3.

The article is structured as follows: Firstly, I will present a theoretical discussion of the

concept of the digital divide. This discussion ends up with a definition of the concept as

well as an identification of six barriers to overcoming the digital divide. This will serve

as a framework for the analysis of the actual policies and actions. Secondly, I will

present an empirical description of the Danish digital divide. Thirdly, I will present an

analysis of the Danish policies and actions needed to overcome the digital divide. This

analysis takes its point of departure in a discussion of the digital divide as a political

problem followed by a short description of the government’s policies and actions and

finally an analysis which is structured by the identified barriers. Fourthly, I will

conclude and make some recommendations for a policy for digital inclusion based on

the analysis.

Defining and Understanding the Digital Divide In 2001 the digital divide was defined as “the gap between individuals, households,

businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to

their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and

to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities.” (OECD, 2001: 5). This

definition is often referred to as a divide between those who do and those who do not

4

have access to the technology. In accordance with this definition, the usual way to

describe the digital divide is based on quantitative surveys which measure the number

of individuals with or without computers and access to the internet (the so-called

‘readiness indicators’). These are related to socio-economic parameters such as

gender, age, race, disability, income, level of education, family structure, and

geography. In this way the digital divide is studied at the level of aggregated individual

behavior. This definition, and way to measure the digital divide, is widespread and

applied in a huge body of literature (e.g. Ferro et al., 2010).

However, this early definition has been criticized for being too simplistic. The

argument is that the digital divide is not just a question of having or not having access

to the technology. Norris (2001) argues that we are not dealing with one but three

different digital divides: A global divide (between developed and developing

countries), a social divide (between individuals within a nation), and a political divide

(between those who use the technology to be a part of the political processes and

those who do not). In the following I will solely focus on the social divide between

individuals.

Other authors (e.g. Brants and Frissen, 2005) argue that the concept of the digital

divide calls for an approach that takes into account its multi-dimensionality.

Furthermore, they argue that the policy debate on digital exclusion often only reflects

the economic dimension. They argue that other dimensions of everyday life, such as

the political, the cultural, and the social ones, also should be taken into account and

that these different dimensions relate to each other in very complex ways.

Furthermore Warschauer (2003) argues that even though access to computers and the

internet is necessary for digital inclusion, it is not enough. Instead he identifies four

different kinds of resources which are required to overcome the digital divide: Physical

resources (access to computers and telecommunication connections), digital resources

(including websites and different kinds of digital material), human resources (including

digital literacy and education), and social resources (including the community,

institutional, and societal structures that support use of ICTs).

In line with this understanding of the digital divide, van Dijk and Hacker (2003) shows

that the digital divide is a complex phenomenon consisting of many layers, hence they

talk about several divides. At the same time the digital divide is dynamic in the way

that it changes over time in accordance with technological development. For example

in the 1990s people with access to the internet were defined as included in the

information society, whereas in the 2000s they needed a broadband connection to be

considered fully included.

5

Van Dijk (2005) developed his ideas and redefined the concept of digital divide by

forming a Model of Digital Technology Access (Figure 2.3: 24). The model includes four

different kinds of access: motivational access, material (or physical) access, skills

access, and usage access. In accordance with Warschauer, van Dijk describes how

different kinds of resources are required to get access on each of these levels. He

understands it as a cumulative process where the end goal is the actually usage of ICT

and the other levels are necessities to get to that point. Given a comprehensive

analysis of each of these kinds of access, van Dijk concludes that some dimensions of

the digital divide (physical access) are declining at the same time as other dimensions

(usage access) are increasing.

As a consequence of the redefinition of the digital divide as a dynamic and multi-

layered concept, several authors have started to avoid the dichotomy by describing

people as either digitally included or excluded and describe the digital divide as a

spectrum (Warschauer, 2003; van Dijk, 2005). Similarly, a study of children and young

people’s usage of ICT (Livingstone and Helsper, 2007) finds a usage which is more or

less developed. This finding makes the authors purpose a continuum of digital

inclusion instead of the idea of a binary divide.

In the redefinition of the concept of the digital divide, van Dijk (2005: 25-26) offered a

critique of the existing research in the field. First of all he criticized the research for

being too descriptive and suffering from a lack of theory. Most of the research consists

of quantitative studies describing the large picture in the form of aggregated behavior

of individuals without any theoretical hypothesis about the causes of individual

behavior. A second problem is a lack of interdisciplinary research which would make it

possible to include e.g. psychological explanations. A third problem with the existing

research is the lack of qualitative research which would make it possible to explain

some of the mechanisms behind the appropriation of ICT. A fourth problem is the lack

of a dynamic approach which is able to catch up with the rapid technological

developments. Finally, he finds the existing research lacking conceptual elaboration

and definition.

A part of this critique is taken up in a study of the psycho-social barriers to computer

literacy (Stanley, 2003). Based on an empirical study, Stanley finds three barriers: The

first is the lack of relevance or need. The second psycho-social barrier is the challenge

to peoples’ comfort zone. To overcome the obstacles of “difficulty of use, presumed

lack of technical competence, and computer-related anxiety” (Stanley, 2003: 411), the

coming users will have to challenge their existing physical or psychological comfort

zones. The third psycho-social barrier she suggests is that of the self-concept. The non-

users in her study did not regard themselves as potential computer-users as “their self-

6

concept or subcultural identity did not include ‘computer user’ as being among their

‘possible selves’.” (Stanley, 2003: 412).

The, above mentioned, Danish study of senior citizens’ usage of ICT (Jæger, 2005a)

deals with several aspects of van Dijk’s critique. At least this study is theory driven,

based on an interdisciplinary approach, and carried out with qualitative methods.

Obviously both van Dijk (2005) and Jæger (2005a) are inspired by Warschauer (2003)

when they describe the process of overcoming the obstacles for becoming digitally

included as a process that requires extra resources. They use, however, different

theories to explain the process of becoming digitally included. While van Dijk draws on

sociological theories to explain the process by a relational analysis of the individual

societal position determined by personal and positional categories, Jæger draws on

theories of domestication and situated learning.

The theory of domestication is developed within cultural studies of media and

communication and focuses on the emergence of users (e.g. Silverstone et al., 1992;

Silverstone and Haddon, 1996; Berg and Aune, 1994; Lie and Sørensen, 1996).

According to Silverstone et al. (1992), users are constructed through a process in which

the technology transcends the distinction between being a product available for

purchase on the market to being an object that is incorporated in everyday life in

private households.

Silverstone et al. (1992) describe how the household is engaged in an exchange with

the surrounding society. Outside the household, technology is a product – a

commodity to be purchased in a market. When the technology transcends the

boundary of the home, it becomes transformed into a cultural product and the family

attributes their values and norms to it. By doing so, it simultaneously becomes a

symbol of the family. That the family even got the idea to acquire such technology,

that they can afford it, how they use it, and the meaning they attribute to it, are all

cultural symbols that can be employed in the family’s interaction with the surrounding

society.

However, before the family can begin to use the technology as a symbol in relation to

neighbors, family, and friends, they must first undergo a process in which the

technology is integrated into the everyday life of the family. Silverstone et al. (1992:

15-31) have developed the concept of domestication to describe the processes in

which a specific meaning is attributed to the new technology, and how relations are

constituted between the technology and the members of the household, through

various forms of negotiations. In this way, the domestication of technology has

practical, symbolic, and cognitive dimensions. The practical dimension of the process

refers to the acquisition and application of the technology. The symbolic dimension

7

concerns the creation of meaning with the technology and the relation between this

meaning and the identity of the users and the presentation of oneself in relation to the

outside world. Finally, the cognitive dimension relates to the learning processes

surrounding the technology and its intellectual application and the construction of new

knowledge about it (Williams et al., 2005).

The cognitive dimension of the domestication process was further elaborated in the

Danish study of seniors’ usage of ICT (Jæger, 2005a: 133-171). Based on situated

learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), the cognitive dimension of becoming a user of

a given technology is described as a role in which one becomes socialized through a

learning process. In the course of the learning process, wherein a person acquires the

role of ICT-user, there is a shift in the person’s identity. From perceiving him/herself as

someone who does not use ICT, the identity shifts in the direction of a person who

comes to regard him/herself as someone who does use ICT.

Given a qualitative analysis of senior citizens appropriation of ICT, the Danish study

concludes that becoming a user of ICT is a complex process in which the user has to go

through a learning process in order to be digitally included. At the same time, the user

depends on the surrounding society both in the way that the technology has to be

customized to the needs of the user, and in the way that the surrounding society has

to make resources available to go through the learning process, and in the end accepts

the change of the person into an ICT-user. In this way many different mechanisms are

in play when a senior becomes digitally included and starts to use the technology in

the everyday life (Jæger, 2005a).

The study also shows that there is a great difference in how the seniors use ICT. Some

of them are satisfied with a simple use of e-mail and Skype to get in contact with

children and grandchildren while others use the computer in very advanced ways e.g.

to make virtual art or to gain political influence on parliamentary decisions (Jæger,

2004). In this way the study shows that it is difficult to make a sharp distinction

between digitally included and excluded. This finding is very much in line with the

above mentioned suggestion of understanding the digital divide as a continuum of

digital inclusion instead of a binary divide.

Another important finding in the Danish study (which is in line with van Dijk, 2005) is

that digitally inclusion is not a static condition. The individual is not included onetime

and for all. If some of the conditions, necessary for the process of domestication, are

changing, the status as (more or less) included can change (Jæger, 2005a). For instance

due to the rapid changes in the technology, the skills for usage are also changing which

can make a person change from less included to excluded. This also points to the fact

that just because a person has used computers in his or her working life it does not

8

mean that this person will be digitally included for the rest of his or her life. As the

technology changes (and so far this has been the rule), the person has to develop new

skills to master the new version of the technology.

Given this theoretical framework I will define the digital divide as: different usage of

ICT in the everyday life among individuals and groups of individuals. In continuation of

this definition, an analysis of the digital divide has to include that it is:

a multidimensional phenomenon including economic, social, and cultural

factors

a dynamic phenomenon which is changing over time

a continuum in which individuals are more or less digitally included/excluded

a complex process in which the individual becomes digitally included/excluded

Hence, a policy aimed at overcoming the digital divide has to take into account that

resources are at disposal to overcome the barriers in the complex process of becoming

digitally included. Based on Warschauer (2003), Stanley (2003), van Dijk (2005), and

Jæger (2005a) the following barriers are identified:

Lack of motivation often experienced as a lack of need

Lack of relevance or meaning often leading to rejection of the technology

Lack of physical/material resources (including economic)

Lack of skills

Lack of relevant content

Lack of social resources (including institutional and societal structures)

Guided by this theoretical framework I will now turn to the Danish case. However,

before I turn to the analysis of how policies and actions for digital inclusion are carried

out in practice, I will describe the size and form of the Danish digital divide.

The Danish Digital Divide As already mentioned, Denmark is ranked in the absolute top of the world with

regards to the ‘readiness indicators’ in the ranking lists from United Nations and OECD.

This is also the picture one finds when looking at the annual statistics from Statistics

Denmark (S.D.) which also includes a comparison between Denmark and the other

European countries.

According to the newest published statistics from S.D. (the 2010 survey), the

penetration of computers in Danish families is very high, 88 % of Danish households

have access to a computer. This number is only exceeded by The Netherlands (92 %),

9

Norway (91 %), and Sweden (90 %). By comparison 74 % of EU’s households have

access to a computer (S.D., 2011: fig. 1: 7). Most of the household computers also have

access to the internet. In this way 86 % of the Danish households have access to the

internet compared with an average of 70 % of the European households (fig. 6: 10).

These numbers are high, but looking at the other way 30 % of the European

households and 13 % of the Danish households are without access to the internet (S.D.,

2011: 10).

When it comes to individuals’ use of computers, Denmark is also in front. 78 % of the

Danish population between 16 and 74 years uses a computer every day. This is only

exceeded by Norway where 83 % of the population uses computers every day. In

comparison, the number is 57 % for the entire European population (S.D., 2011, fig. 15:

15). On the contrary 7 % of the Danish population has never used a computer. 5 % of

the Swedes and 4 % of the Norwegian have never used a computer. In EU the number

is 22 % (S.D., 2011, fig. 16: 16).

In terms of daily use of the internet, Denmark is in front with 76 % only exceeded by

Norway where 81 % use the internet on a daily basis. In Europe as a whole the figure is

53 % (S.D., 2011, fig. 18: 17). In Denmark 9 % of the population has never used the

internet. The same is the case for 8 % in The Netherlands, 7 % in Sweden, 5 % in

Norway, and 26 % in EU (S.D., 2011, fig. 19: 17). All these numbers show that Denmark

is in the front in Europe when it comes to both access and use of computers as well as

internet. However, the numbers also show that there is a digital divide in the Danish

population – not as big as in many other European countries, but it exists.

Numbers of households with access to computers and the internet is, however, not the

only way to measure the digital divide. In 2007 the Danish National ICT and Telecom

Agency conducted a survey aiming at giving a more nuanced picture of the digital

divide by measuring ICT-skills. Based on the answers the population was divided into

four levels of ICT-skills: Level 1: Has never used a computer, level 2: Weak ICT-skills,

level 3: Average ICT-skills, and level 4: Strong ICT-skills.

Table 1: ICT-skills and Age

Age Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total

16-29 2 % 6 % 44 % 48 % 100 %

30-39 4 % 15 % 38 % 44 % 100 %

40-49 8 % 20 % 41 % 31 % 100 %

50-59 16 % 25 % 34 % 25 % 100 %

60-69 40 % 24 % 21 % 15 % 100 %

70 up 74 % 14 % 11 % 1 % 100 %

10

Source: Teknologisk Institut 2007: 31

The results of this survey clearly show that measured on ICT-skills the digital gap is

much bigger than measured only on access to computers and the internet. The survey

also shows very clearly that the oldest members of the population are the least skilled.

In this way the numbers show that age has a tremendous influence and that especially

the two oldest groups lag significantly behind the rest of the population. This is in

accordance with Statistics Denmark which concludes that the group of digitally

excluded people in Denmark consists of mainly older people living alone outside the

capital Copenhagen (S.D., 2011: 14).

Investigating the digital divide in accordance with the usage of public e-services, the

Danes are also in front when we consider European trends. The 2011 survey of Statistic

Denmark (not yet published) shows that 78 % of the population has searched for

information on public websites, 52 % has downloaded forms, and 64 % has submitted

information to a public authority electronically. In table 2 the findings of the 2011

survey are divided into age groups. The table shows how the people, who have

answered that they are users of the internet, used public e-services.

Table 2: Use of Public E-Services and Age

Age 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

Searched for

information

76 % 92 % 92 % 88 % 86 % 77 %

Downloaded

forms

38 % 62 % 64 % 62 % 59 % 53 %

Submitted

information

58 % 77 % 79 % 74 % 69 % 56 %

Source: Statistics Denmark, unpublished. Per cent of internet users 2011.

Table 2 shows a clearly different picture than table 1. Table 2 shows that when it

comes to the usage of public e-services the youngest age group lags behind the rest of

the internet users. Only 38 % of the youngest group has downloaded forms from a

public website which is in sharp contrast to the 53 % of the oldest group. In this way, it

is possible to verify the statement from the newspaper mentioned above. The group of

young people who are raised with computers, internet, and mobile phones within

reach, and deeply digitally included measured with the common indicators, is the

group least included when it comes to using public e-services.

To sum up, these statistics reveal two important facts: First, that there is a digital gap

in Denmark even though it is smaller than in most other European countries.

Especially, when we look at ICT skills it is clear that older people are lagging behind the

11

rest of the Danish population. Second, when it comes to the usage of public e-services

the group of young internet users are lagging behind. In this way it makes sense to

describe this group as changing its position from fully included to less included when it

comes to usage of public e-services.

Policies and Actions for Digital Inclusion I will now turn to the analysis of the policies and actions for digital inclusion. First, I will

discuss the digital divide as a political problem. Second, I will give a short introduction

to the historical development of the policy field. Third, I will present the analysis which

is structured by the barriers identified above and I will investigate the resources which

are at the disposal for overcoming the digital divide.

The Digital Divide as a Political Problem

As we saw in the theoretical discussion, the digital divide is a complex,

multidimensional and dynamic phenomenon. When a phenomenon like this is

regarded as a political problem, and an attempt is made to solve it by a policy, it is

often defined as a wicked problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Wicked problems are

characterized by being very difficult to define and hence very difficult to solve.

Politicians often have the feeling that when they try to solve the problem by taking

action in one place they realize that this action opens up new dimensions of the

problem. In this way the definition of a wicked problem is a part of the solution.

The digital divide has already been declared solved as a political problem several times.

In accordance with the early understanding as a question of having or not having

access to ICT the solution of the problem was thought to be achieved by lowering the

economic barriers. This is achieved by a policy for liberalizing the telecommunications

market, thereby making broadband connections to the internet less expensive, and by

decreasing the price of computers (Jordana, 2002). According to this understanding,

the digital divide will disappear in a few years since this strategy has already been

implemented in most of the Western world, and therefore no further political action is

required (Compaine, 2001). However, the appearance of a new frontier in the digital

gap due to young people’s difficulties in using public e-services indicate that the digital

divide does not disappear by it selves. Instead it continues to be a political problem

that needs actions (see also van Dijk, 2005: 163-180).

Given the understanding of the digital divide as a matter of skills, it is a wide spread

impression that the digital divide will disappear by itself within a decade or two4. If

children learn to use ICT in schools and their parents learn it at their job it is just a

matter of time before the now retired people without digital skills will die out.

However, these expectations have proved not to be realistic. The Danish study of

12

senior’s usage of ICT documents that ICT skills are not static but need continued

updating.

From the public authorities’ perspective, the digital divide becomes a problem with the

introduction of the new strategy for e-government. Over the last 10-15 years the

public authorities in Denmark have spent a huge amount of money to develop digital

solutions for a wide range of public services. According to the government, these e-

services are much more effective than face to face services, which are up to 30 times

as expensive (Government et al., 2011: 5). Thus it is a matter of harvesting the

investments by forcing the citizens and enterprises to use these e-services in their

interaction with the public authorities. If the objectives of the e-government strategy

are fulfilled, the government calculates with savings on public services delivery on DKK

3 bn. every year from 2020 (Government et al., 2011: 4). In this way it is obviously that

seen from the perspective of the public authorities it is a big economic problem if the

citizens do not use public e-services.

From the individual user’s perspective, the Danish study of senior citizen’s usage of ICT

shows that they experienced digitally exclusion to be a big problem before they were

introduced to ICT. After having learned how to use ICT they described the learning

process as having transformed them from being digitally excluded to being included in

contemporary society (Jæger, 2005a).

In interviews, several seniors described how they earlier were mystified by the speaker

on the TV-news, who after a story said: ‘If you want to know more about this issue,

click into our website on www...’ They did not know what it was and they did not know

what kind of information they were excluded from. The interviews also contain several

stories about how the seniors felt excluded in social settings. When younger

generations were talking about websites, YouTube, World of Warcraft, Wikipedia and

the like they did not have a clue about what they were talking about. After having

learned how to use the technology, they felt included in these discussions (Jæger,

2005a). Statements like the following were repeated in many interviews with the

seniors:

It was a jungle for me before I started. I thought I could never find out

before we started. Now I have gained an insight into a whole new world…

I can talk with the grandchildren about it. I am not completely an idiot; I

am more equal to other people now when I’ve got a little sniff at it.

It is obvious that the seniors experienced the exclusion as a problem but not as an

economic problem. Instead they experienced it as a democratic problem of not being a

full member of the contemporary society. Hence, the digital divide is a serious problem

13

– however a wicked problem that looks very different according to the perspective

from which it is regarded.

Development of policies and actions

The policies and actions for digital inclusion is a part of the broader ICT-policy. This

broad ICT-policy consists of many different areas like, for instance, a policy of

telecommunication and broadband delivery, a strategy for the information society

(Jæger, 2005a), and a strategy for e-government (Jæger and Löfgreen, 2010). Broadly

speaking, the ICT-policy is not a part of the usual political fight among the different

political parties in the Parliament. Probably most members of the Danish parliament

agree on a set of key values around the ICT-policy. These values consist of a will to use

the technology for growth in the private sector, efficiency in the public sector,

inclusion of all citizens, and underpinning democracy (Jæger, 2003). However, looking

more closely at the rhetoric and the actually actions taken, it turns out that there are

differences in the way the different values are emphasized among the political parties.

This is in line with the finding of Epstein et al. (2011) who, based on an American study,

describe how political beliefs determine how people understand the problem of the

digital divide and who they consider as responsible for solving the problem.

The awareness of a digital divide was already present in the very first Danish policy

document on the information society (Ministry of Research, 1994), launched by the

center-left government that was in power in 1994. In this strategy the excitement

about the new technology and the expectations to the coming information society are

very clear but it also contains a critical reflection of the danger of a polarization of the

population into an A-part who do have access to the technology and a B-part who do

not have access (Ministry of Research, 1994). Despite this reflection, the report did not

describe any actions to prevent a digital divide from emerging.

In 1997 a new Minister of Research is concerned about the implications of the

information society on democracy. She declares that every citizen has some ICT-rights

such as: easy access to the technology, affordable prices, universal design, and

protection of the private life, among others (Ministry of Research, 1997: 10-11).

Regarding the digital divide, a survey was carried out which clearly shows that the

older part of the population was lagging behind in the usage of ICT. The survey shows

that only 4 % of citizens of the age of 60 years and up have tried to use the internet

(Nielsen and Holst, 1998: 42). Given these findings, the Minister set up a combined

development and research program, running from 1999 to 2004, aimed at producing

both knowledge about senior citizens’ use of ICT and methods to include them in the

information society (see note 1).

14

Simultaneously, the Minister invited the two main associations for senior citizens to

take part in the process. This inspired the associations so that one of them (The Danish

Association of Senior Citizens) started to establish telecentres for seniors and the other

(the DanAge Association) set up a call centre for their members and started to

cooperate with local adult training centers about courses for older ICT users. They

have continued and further elaborated this work ever since and in 2011 the two

associations received a prize as “Best European Telecentre Initiative” by the European

Telecentre Association5.

In 2001 the center-left government lost power and a right wing government came to

power. In contrast to what happened in the U.S. when the Bush administration took

over from the Clinton administration (Epstein et al., 2011), the new Minister of Science

and Technology did not close down ongoing activities. However, the rhetoric changed.

Now the emphasis was on using ICT to create growth in the private sector and a

further stress on efficiency in the public sector. The digital divide was described as a

problem which was almost solved or at least would be solved within the nearest

future. It was also implicit that the responsibility for being included was placed on the

individual and as such not a task for public authorities. In this way the digital divide did

not require further political attention, and no new initiatives were taken.

Meanwhile, the development of e-government has come to a point where it has

become clear that if the economic benefit of all the investment is to be harvested

more citizens have to use the public e-services. This acknowledgment makes it

necessary to get every citizen digitally included and in this way the problem of the

digital divide becomes relevant again.

Due to the development of standardized electronically forms and one-stop-shops in

citizen service centers it is now possible to move the citizen service from the town halls

to the libraries and, at the same time, provide help for using the public e-services.

Concurrently, the National IT and Telecom Agency has established a national network,

called ‘Learn more about ICT’, aiming at improving the ICT skills in the Danish

population6. This network comprises the entire library sector, unions, all

municipalities, adult educational centers, the two above mentioned association for

senior citizens, and associations for non-ethnic Danes. The network provides teaching

material for free use and offers training and supervision of the teachers.

Summing up, the policies and actions concerning digital inclusion started as a general

reflection with a wish to avoid a digital divide. A few years later the issue was taken up

as a democratic problem and especially the group of seniors was pointed to as being

excluded. With the change of governmental power, the digital divide was regarded as a

problem which was almost solved and no special policy for inclusion was necessary7.

15

However, the development of e-government put the issue back on the political agenda

and within the last couples of years new initiatives have been taken. In the following

section I will analyze these policies and actions by means of the six barriers that were

identified in the theoretical section.

Analysis of Policies and Actions

The first barrier that was identified is the lack of motivation often experienced as a lack

of need. Looking into the Danish case we find a group of people who do not experience

any motivation for becoming digitally included. In the recent S.D. survey, people

without internet access are asked why they do not have internet access in their home

(S.D., 2011, fig. 13: 14). The majority (61 %) answered that they do not need it. In the

Danish study of senior citizens’ usage of ICT we often heard the argument that if you

have lived a long life without access to the internet why should you need it in your old

age? The data from the S.D. survey shows that this way of thinking is widespread

among people without internet access.

By contrast, as we saw above the seniors in the Danish study, who actually became

digitally included, defined the digital divide as a democratic problem. In a survey

conducted among the 1,000 participating seniors, they answered that their motivation

for joining the activities was partly a general curiosity (50 %) and partly because it is a

necessity to be a part of contemporary society (10 %) (Jæger, 2005a: 101). Hence, the

stimulation of older people’s curiosity for the opportunities in the usage of ICT and

pointing at the possible democratic benefits of the technology could be a way to

motivate them to be digitally included. However, the new e-government strategy does

not include such initiatives. The democratic aspect of being digitally included is not

mentioned with one word and the main argument is the economic reason for e-

services. In this way, the strategy could improve by applying the knowledge from the

former study.

The second barrier is a lack of relevance or meaning with the usage of ICT which often

result in a rejection of the technology. We also found examples of rejection in the

Danish study. In an interview a woman defined herself as a non-user. When asked

whether or not she had participated in an ICT-course, she responded:

Yes – just to get a feel for it, right? And I have one at home, but it just

doesn’t interest me … Yes, I have tried it, and I was also easily able to

figure it out. But I must admit that I prefer human contact. I just don’t

feel like sitting there and staring into a screen… I don’t really have any

use for e-mails – we don’t know anyone… in Timbuktu. And so I would

rather talk with the people I am communicating with than sit there and

16

write on a computer… So I write on the computer, but that is just like

writing on a type-writer. I mean – it isn’t really very computer-like.

This quote reveals several things: first and foremost that the question of becoming an

ICT-user is a matter of identity. Elsewhere in the interview, she mentions that she

actually uses the internet as well. Most people would probably identify themselves as

ICT-users if they used a computer in the manner described by this interviewee. But she

does not. She reduces her use of the computer to a typewriter, and is therefore able to

maintain her identity as someone who does not use ICT.

Moreover, the quote demonstrates that she perceives the use of ICT as a contrast to

human contact. Later in the interview she explained that the use of ICT demolishes the

sense of togetherness that she can remember from ‘the old days’ and she therefore

regards ICT as a factor contributing to isolation and solitude. In this way, she interprets

the technology as representing a development of a society she does not want and thus

it makes no sense for her to identify as an ICT-user.

The qualitative data includes other examples on rejection of the technology. To the

question of what the usage of ICT has meant for his everyday life an old man

responded as follows:

Yes, in the past I could read a good book; go to the cinema, the theatre

etc. I haven’t been able to do this since I got the computer in the house,

because I had to learn how to use it. It has taken up a lot of time! Time,

which could have been spent together with the family.

The answer shows how the use of ICT has led to other activities becoming less

prioritized. The usage of ICT has therefore had negative consequences for this person

despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that computer-use has been interesting and

enriching. These negative effects led this man to choose to reject further use of ICT. In

another interview an old women explained how she solved this problem. When she

starts her computer she sets her egg-timer for one hour and when the clock rings she

knows it is time to turn of the computer. Personal experiences like this are important

to diffuse through the training courses like ‘Learn more about ICT’ but this kind of

barrier is not reflected in the strategy.

With the new strategy for e-government, a total rejection of the technology is

becoming a very difficult position to hold but not completely impossible. To avoid that

digitally excluded people also will be excluded from an interaction with public

authorities, the strategy includes a ’cat flab’ saying that: “Citizens, who really are

prohibited in using the digital solutions, will continuously be able to register and apply

the public authorities in other ways.” (Government et al., 2011: 14). This way out has

17

immediately started a discussion about who is going to determine whether or not a

person is ‘really prohibited’ in using the technology.

The third barrier is a lack of physical or material resources. This is in accordance with

the early definition of the digital divide where lack of money was a reason for being

digitally excluded. In the 2010 survey, S.D. asked the households without connection to

the internet about this economic barrier. 7 % of the respondent answered that

computers are too expensive and 5 % answered that internet access is too expensive.

These numbers show that there still is a small group who are digitally excluded for

economic reasons. In general the market has ‘done its work’ and lowered the prizes on

the computers just as the deregulation of the telecommunication market has lowered

the price of internet access. However, the existence of this group of seniors shows that

it is still important that the strategy includes a policy aiming at a further lowering of

prices.

The fourth barrier identified is a lack of skills. In the recent S.D. survey, 15 % answered

that the reason why they do not have internet access is that they are not able to use it.

This reason for not having access also came up in several interviews in the Danish

study. In one interview it became clear that an old man could not use ICT due to a lack

of technical and language skills. He explains:

But… technical stuff – it just doesn’t interest me. It never has. I need to have

someone to do it for me – a technician to do it… I just can’t figure out any of it,

and I can’t understand any of those technical terms… I just don’t have the

background to do it. I don’t have any kind of education, so I have never

touched that kind of thing… that’s just the way it is.

This quote reflects that this person saw himself as someone who cannot solve

technical problems. In his own view, he does not have the basic skills to learn how to

use ICT. Thus he chooses not to have access. To explain this reaction we can draw on

Stanlye’s (2003) study of psycho-social barriers. This old man will have to confront his

comfort zone to overcome the lack of technical skills. At the same time he will have to

change his self-concept as someone who is not able to handle new technologies. This

will probably be difficult to change since he has had this self-concept for a long life. To

overcome this barrier significant training resources will be necessary.

The new strategy for e-government offers two solutions to the lack of skills. One is that

the staff in the local citizens service centers help the digitally excluded to use the

public e-services. The other solution is to authorize somebody, e.g. a family member,

to read the digital mail from the authorities and answer on behalf of the excluded

(Government et al., 2011: 14).

18

The fifth barrier is a lack of relevant content. Also in the Danish study, lack of

appropriate digital content was revealed as a reason for seniors to stay digitally

excluded. At the time the program was running, ICT was mostly regarded as a symbol

of modernity connected to youth, speed, and competition. There were no

advertisements for computers using seniors as models, no adverts for internet services

aiming at the seniors as a target group, and no public e-services for older people. This

picture is still dominant although some public e-services have been developed in the

meantime.

Lack of appropriate content is also a matter of design of websites. In the Danish study

one of the local projects wanted to develop a website for members of Elderly Councils

(Jæger, 2004). In the design process a younger technician drew in the users directly by

making a prototype of the website which she presented to the members of the

councils. It turned out that they had a slightly different understanding of the words she

used in menu. Thus they preferred other words to describe the content under the

different points. This is probably because different generations have different points of

reference. The oldest generation has for instance the WWII as a common point of

reference while the baby boomers have the Vietnam War and rock music as common

points of reference. Hence, websites have to be designed in accordance with the point

of references of the target group.

Even though we do not know much about the exclusion of young people from the

usage of public e-services, the findings about the importance of the digital content and

design of website may serve as an explanation. In a small qualitative study, nine young

people’s use of the Danish tax e-service was observed8. It turned out that the

youngsters were not able to use the e-service because they did not understand the

concepts and were unfamiliar with the logic of the tax system. In this way, young

people are not able to use the tax website, not because they are not able to handle the

technology, but because it does not include points of reference the youngsters are

familiar with in the design of the e-service.

The new strategy does approach the question of the quality of the design of e-services.

Hence, a tight cooperation among public authorities at different levels is aimed at a

higher level of functionality of the public e-services. The aim is to have the same

quality as net banks. However, the strategy does not take into consideration that a

high quality maybe involves differentiated design targeted different groups.

The sixth barrier is a lack of social resources. A main conclusion in the Danish study was

that the program for senior citizen’s usage of ICT was a social resource in itself.

Through this program, the digital divide was put on the political agenda and by means

of the training in the local project a large group of seniors was introduced to ICT. The

19

program also resulted in the mobilizing of other social resources in the form of the

work of the two main associations for seniors. Also training at libraries, now turned

into the network ‘Learn more about ICT’, is to be regarded as social resources helping

to overcome the digital divide. In the end, the existence of policies and actions for

social inclusion is a resource and especially if the policy acknowledges that the public

authorities have a responsibility for solving the problem. In this way, the worst thing to

do is to lean back and expect the problem to solve itself.

Conclusion and Recommendations Given this analysis of the Danish case we can conclude that a lot of efforts to narrow

the digital gap have already been undertaken. Even though this analysis does not aim

at evaluating the effects of these actions it is reasonable to believe that they have

played an important role in bridging the digital gap. However, the digital divide still

exists in Denmark and will not disappear by itself. On the contrary we see it changing

and new frontiers are rising. The strategy for e-government does acknowledge the

existence of the problem but the actions to solve the problem do not reflect the

knowledge we actually have. In this way the proposed actions are not sufficient to

solve the problem of the digital divide, which is necessary to implement the e-

government strategy with success.

Instead of having the issue included in an e-government strategy, I suggest that it is

time to formulate a particular Policy for Digital Inclusion. Such a policy will in itself

serve as an acknowledgement of the problem as a real political problem that needs to

be solved. A policy trying to solve a wicked problem is by definition a difficult task.

Hence, the current policies and actions in the field have to be revisited and renewed as

a coherent Policy for Digital Inclusion based on the current knowledge about the

multilayered, dynamic, and complex phenomenon of the digital divide. Given the

above analysis I will offer the following recommendation for a new Policy for Digital

Inclusion.

In the above discussion concerning theory, lack of motivation was identified as an

important barrier to becoming digitally included. As we saw in the analysis, a strong

motivation for seniors who actually did overcome the gap was a general curiosity and a

wish to find out what possibilities usage of ICT can bring. This knowledge is not

included in the e-government strategy since there are no actions in this field. However,

in a renewed Policy for Digital Inclusion it will be profitable to introduce information

campaigns about the benefits of being digitally included in general, and of using public

e-services in particular, and in this way make it visible how ICT usage can make

everyday life easier.

20

A new Policy for Digital Inclusion could also motivate non-users by using arguments in

which the understanding of the policy problem is a matter of digital citizenship and

democracy, instead of using the argument that the public authorities need to save

money. If non-users are to be motivated to use ICTs and public e-services, the

argument is that by being digitally included they become a full member of

contemporary society. The argument is not that they have to be included as a favor for

the public authorities. In other words, instead of threatening with a stick the policy

should tempt with a carrot.

Lack of skills is a major barrier for people who, for a long life, have identified

themselves as someone who does not have technical skills. A range of actions has

already been carried out in this field: From the program for senior’s usage of ICT, over

the activities arranged by the senior associations, to the courses at libraries, and

further on to the network ‘Learn more about ICT’. All these actions are important but a

new Policy for Digital Inclusion has to ask the question of whether or not these actions

are sufficient to fulfill needs or if further actions are needed. The new initiative of the

‘Learn more about ICT’ network looks promising in the way that the responsibility for

training of the seniors is lifted out of the two senior associations into a network

including more actors – not least public authorities. This action also reflects the

knowledge that skills are dynamic and training is an ongoing activity just as it signals an

acknowledgement of the public sectors’ responsibility in ensuring the necessary skills

to use ICTs and not least the public e-services.

A new Policy for Digital Inclusion also needs to include knowledge about the

importance of relevant content for different user groups. In this way, the policy has to

reflect on how the design of e-services is connected to the usage and the public

authorities must draw on knowledge of the different user groups when they design

public e-services. The example of the young people’s problems in using the tax e-

service demonstrates that designers of public e-services still have a job to do if the

usage of the e-services is to be increased.

Looking at the physical and economic barrier we saw that this barrier is decreasing due

to a range of actions that have already been taken in this area. However, it is still

necessary to have a Policy for Digital Inclusion that pushes the industry to deliver

cheap technology and telecommunication lines just like public access to the

technology is necessary for the most marginalized groups of the population.

Altogether the conclusion is that even though a lot of effort has already been made the

digital divide still exists and it is changing. Hence, the knowledge gathered from the

development of a theoretical framework for understanding the digital divide reveals

21

that the Policy of Digital Inclusion has to be revisited not only as a part of an e-

government strategy but as an independent policy issue.

References Berg, A.-J. and M. Aune, eds. 1994. Domestic Technology and Everyday Life – Mutual

Shaping Processes (Vol. 1). Brussels: EC Directorate General Science, Research and

Development.

Brants, K. and V. Frissen. 2005. Inclusion and Exclusion in the Information Society. In

Media, Technology and Everyday Life in Europe. From Information to Communication,

eds. R. Silverstone. Ashgate.

Compaine, B. M. ed. 2001. The Digital Divide. Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?

Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Eriksen,B. A. 2011. How to Bridge the Digital Divide? Master Thesis, Global Studies,

Roskilde University.

Epstein, D., E.C. Nisbet, and T. Gillespie. 2011. Who’s Responsible for the Digital

Diuvide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications. The Information Society 27: 92-

104.

Ferro, E., Y.K. Dwivedi, J.R. Gil-Garcia, and M.D. Williams, eds. 2010. Handbook of

Research on Overcoming Digital Divides: Construction an Equitable and Competitive

Information Society. Hershey: IGI Global, 2010. Volume I and II.

Fuglsang, L. 2005. IT and Senior Citizens: Using the Internet for Empowering Active

Citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (4): 468-495.

Government, Local authorities, and Regions. 2011. Den digitale vej til fremtiden

velfærd. Den fællesoffentlige digitaliseringsstrategi 2011-2015.

Johansson, S. 2005. Non-users, Users and Ex-users. The Senior Net Project, a Social

Experiment with ICT. In Young Technologies in Old Hands. An International View on

Senior Citizen’s Utilization of ICT, ed. B. Jæger, Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.

Jordana, J. ed. 2002. Governing Telecommunications and the New Information Society

in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Jæger, B. 2003. Kommuner på nettet. Roller i den digitale forvaltning. Copenhagen:

DJØF Publishing.

Jæger, B. 2004. Trapped in the Digital Divide? Old People in the Information Society.

Science Studies 17 (2): 5-22.

Jæger, B. 2005a. Ældre tæmmer teknologien - og bliver borgere i

Informationssamfundet. Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.

Jæger, B. 2005b. The Inclusion of Senior Citizens in the Information Society - What

have we learned? In Young Technologies in Old Hands. An International View on Senior

Citizen's Utilization of ICT, ed. B. Jæger, Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.

22

Jæger, B. and K. Löfgren. 2010. The History of the Future: Changes in Danish E-

Government Strategies 1994-2010. Information Polity Vol. 15, No. 4: 253-269.

Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lie, M. and K.H. Sørensen, eds. 1996. Making Technology Our Own? Domestication

Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Livingstone, S. and E. Helpser. 2007. Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young

people and the digital divide. New Media & Society Vol. 9, No. 4: 671-696.

Ministry of Research. 1994. Info-Society 2000.

Ministry of Research. 1997. Actions Make Changes.

Morgan, D.L. 2007. Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological

Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research 1: 48.

Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet in

Democratic Societies. Harvard University.

Nielsen, E.B. and C. Holst. 1998. Ældre og IT. Del 1. Copenhagen: Dansk Institut for

Ældrepædagogik.

OECD, 2001. Understanding the Digital Divide.

OECD, 2005. Towards Better Digital Service, Increased Efficiency and Stronger

Collaboration. Country review Denmark.

OECD, 2010. Efficient e-Government for Smarter Public Service Delivery. Denmark 2010.

Rittel, H.W.J. and M.M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.

Policy Sciences Vol. 4, No. 2: 155-169.

Silverstone, R., E. Hirsch, and D. Morley. 1992. Information and Communication

Technologies and the Moral Economy of the Household. In Consuming Technologies.

Media and information in domestic spaces, eds. R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch. London:

Routledge.

Silverstone R. and L. Haddon. 1996. Design and the Domestication of Information and

Communication Technologies: Technical Change and Everyday Life. In Communication

by Design, eds. R. Mansell and R. Silverstone.

Stanley, L. D. 2003. Beyond Access: Psycosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy. The

Information Society 19: 407-416.

Statistic Denmark. 2011. Befolkningens brug af internet – 2010.

Teknologisk Institut. 2007. Borgernes IKT-færdigheder i Danmark.

United Nations. 2010. E-Government Survey 2010. New York: UN.

Van Dijk, J. and K. Hacker. 2003. The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic

Phenomenon. The Information Society 19: 315-326.

Van Dijk, J. 2005. The Deepening the Divide. Inequality in the Information Society.

London: SAGE Publications.

23

Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide.

Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Williams, R., J.Stewart, and R. Slack. 2005. Social Learning in Technological Innovation.

Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Cheltenham Glos:

Edward Elgar.

1 Published in Berlinske October 21, 2011

2 The study is based on a combined research- and development program, running from 1999 to 2004,

that aimed to overcome the digital divide based on age. The developmental part of the program

consisted of six local projects which had in common that they had to teach the participants how to use

ICT. Hence, around 1,000 seniors were introduced to personal computers and the usage of the internet.

ICT was, in this program, defined as personal computers with software programs, browsers, and internet

connections. In this article I draw on empirical data from a research project that followed the six local

projects and studied how the participants learned to utilize the technology. Qualitative methods in the

form of interviews were extensively employed. Accordingly, interviews were carried out with the project

managers, participants, and local decision-makers. Altogether, 57 interviews were conducted. In

addition, written sources relating to the projects were also included in the case studies. Finally, the

research study included a survey among all the participants in the six projects. The results of the study

are published in Danish in Jæger (2005a). A presentation in English of the overall results can be found in

Jæger (2005b). Other publications in English from the study include: Fuglsang (2005); Johansson (2005)

and Jæger (2004)

3 These interviews are conducted by Amalie Eriksen in 2010 while working on her master thesis (Eriksen,

2011).

4 This impression was for example expressed by the former Minister of Finance at the above mentioned

meeting arranged by the DanAge Association in January 2012.

5 See the description at: www.aeldremobiliseringen.dk.

6 See the description at: www.lærmereomit.dk/servicemenu/english.

7 In September 2011 a new center-left government came to power but it is not yet possible to show if

this will lead to changes in the policy for inclusion.

24

8 The study was conducted by a cross ministry organization called MindLab. The results are published at:

http://www.mind-lab.dk/cases/vaek-med-boevlet-et-bedre-moede-med-den-offentlige-forvaltning