Upload
petr-lupac
View
246
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
@PetrLupac
Department of Sociology
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts
Celetna 13, Prague
The Czech Republic