?3-7-4
i-?
cG
0
.W
<$-
a39"'
-wEQ0
4'1.u
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
rnla#b?npapsas effects 123
Communication potential
INFORMATION GAPS AS EFFECTS
. - -- - - -. -- - .--- -------.-.. ----.. -- A Swedish researchgroup has bililt adiscilssion around ttre tern1
'Communication potential' (see Nowak etal. 1976 and Fig. 45.1).
In corlsiclering long-term effects of rnass commi~nicationit is The term stands for those characteristics and reso~~rceswliicl~
itnporta~itto take into account the disci~ssionof so-calle enable the individual to give and take information, arid which
edge or informatioli gaps. A background to this disc facilitate the communication ptocess for him. In this discussion,
fornleci by tlic steadily increasing flow of information, to a la ttie communication poteritial is regardedas a means of obtairl'ing
clegtee made possible by mass media. This increaseought, th certain values in life, The size and shape of the communication
retically speaking, to benefit everyone ih society since eve potential depends on three main types of characteristics or
inclividual gets a possibility of finding their bearin resources:
around them and may, perhaps, more easily enla 1, Personal characteristics. We have both certain basic, oftcri
zons. However, several researchers have lately pointe native faculties, like seeing and speaking, and acquired abil-
the increased flow of information often has the negativ ities, like speaking different languages and typewriting. Be-
Increasing knowledge within certain groups far more than sides, we have a potential for communication, kr\owledge,
otliers, and that 'inforn-ralion gaps' will occur and increase, i attitudes, and traits of personality.
the distance between one social group and another in knowled 2. Characteristicsdependent on the individ~ial'ssocial posilion.
about a given subject. This position is defined by variables like income, education,
age, and sex.
3, Characteristics of the social structure in which the individual
is found. An important factor is the functioning of the individ-
The knowledge gap hypothesis
ual's primary groups (e.g.family, working group), and histher
secondary groups (e.g,clubs, associations, school, organiza-
An c!arly contribution in tl~isfield is the knowledge gap ticrns) when it c ~ m e sto communication. 111this context,
sis ~ . fTichenor et 01. (1970). It claims that whe society as a communication system is also relevant.
infolmation in a social system is increased, the be
Oh/~et\vfls/
those with a higher socio-economicstatus, will be able V~IIJ.?S
the information better than less educated peop 1
F)FIE> :status. Iricreased information thus results in widening t
edge gap instead of diminishing it.
~haraaterisllcs con~rnunicetion but "Ot a'wayeRogers (1976)points out that information reshlts n sufficierit to obtainpotentla1
iricreasi~lgkr~owledgegaps, but also in gaps concern certain values
viour and attitudes. Accordingly, he changes the te n
communication effects gap', He also rematks that ma
nication is not the only cause of the gaps, Conimunic Tlle comniunication potehtialdecideswhether or not an icldivirlualwill
ly between individuals may also have similar effect attaiti certain values. (Nowak eta/. 1976).
underlines tlle fact that the gaps need not be caused
The potential may lead to the indiviclual's obtaining certain11y different levels of education -other factors may
ilte to the creation of such gaps. vdlues and reaching certain objectives. As examples of sucli
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
Určenopouzeprostudijníúčely
..i Effects of mass communication on culture and society 127
w vary, depending on the complexity or content of the subject. The quicker to accept new medical discoveries than doctors who
i!
communication potential mentioned above should, however, be were more isolated.
a decisive factor, according to Nowak et a/. (19761,This is espeb It is an interesting question whether different media teqcl to . I
cially relevant to subjects about which it is 'profitable' to be create different types of gaps.There is some evidence that televi-
well-informed. If we are to regard the iriformation yaps in a sion has a greater potential for closing gaps than has the press.
/!
sociological light, the important thing is not the amount of infor- This may be due to the fact that TV usually is a more hornoge- II
mation as such, but what information one is able to absorb (and neous and limited source, whereas in the case of the press, each
transmit). paper reaches different publics with a more differentiated con-
tent. Probably more significant is the fact that television is a ,;
Access lo
~ ~ ~ t o r n i a l ~ o n
allrl
knowletlge
------c-----
widely trusted source and tends to reach a higher proportiori of !i
the public, in many countries, with public affairs information,
Prcvlleged ,*" Empirical research designed to test the relationship between j
media and informationgaps has had mixed resultsand produced
little unequivocal evidence of an independent mass media effect. I i
I
Gaziano (1983) concluded, for instance, from a review of 58
studies that, over time, 'increasing levels of media publicity may
reduce gaps, but several other factors may be eqcrally or more
I
> *
Tirne
I.
influential in narrowing gaps'. . ,I
4.5,3 hon-closinginformationgap (Thunbery eta/,1982). New media such as various forms of talevised data transmis- :i
sion,where information is individually consulted (see8.3below),
may also have a tendency to widen information gaps since their
The actual development of different informatiorl gaps depends
1use will depend on the individual's interests, niotivation and
I
on many factors. Donohue eta/, (1975) proposed, for example, previousknowledge andsuch media are more availat~leto bctter-
the following hypotheses which received support:
:I
educated and higher-status groups.
!f
1. Where an issue arouses general concern for a community a Moddsof information gaps may, among othor things, be seen
1I
i
a whole, knowledge about that issue is more likely to becorn as a reaction against a naive and exaggerated liberal belief in the
more evenly distributed. ability of mass media to create a homogeneously well-informed
.i
2. This equalization is more likely to ocaur when the issu mass of citizens.The discussion of this subjeot is not least impor- .*!
emerges in a climate of social conflict. tant when it comes to the role of communicqtion in the devel- ) I/ i
3. Such equalization in knowledge is more likely to occur in oping countries. The insights conferred by the models may
I
small, homogeneous community than in a large, pluralisti decisively affect the planning of information work in such areas. '1r !
one. The discussion about information gaps may be seen in relation
The opinion of Rogers (1976)cited above that mass media ar
r!j
to other models and areas in mass communication research, ;;
not the only creators of information gaps, is relevant here, I most obviously to diffusion research, from which we have
,' I
many cases, such gaps may appear because communicatio derived Rogers and Shoemaker's model in Section 3.4, and
11
L
between individualsworks better with some categories of people which also deals with the diffusion of new$. It is also possible to i1 1r
than with others. In one well-known American investigation, f relate the discussion to ideas concerning the so-called two-step I Ii3 -
instance, it was found that doctors who had good contact wi flow of information hypothesis (3.2)and to the dependency mod- !i
their colleagues and frequently communicated with them, we
!
el (4.3). 1:
1 I
.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
new media & society
Copyright D 2004 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi
V016(3):341-362 DOI:10.1177/1461444804042519
ARTICLE
Reconsidering pelitica
and popular
understandings of the
digital divide "" .....6..............................." .............................
NEIL SELWYN J: i
Abstract
This article presents a theoretical esanlination of rhe digiral
divide, tracing its origins in [he centre-Left social ilicl~~sion
policy agenda of the 1980s and 1990s ro its current status
of political 'hor topic'. It then llloves on to outline f o ~ ~ r
coilceptual liinitations to convenrional dichotoi~lous
notions of the digital divide and individuals' 'access' ro
inforrnatioil and c o i ~ ~ i ~ ~ u ~ ~ i c a t i o ~ l stechi~ology(ICT): what
is llleant by ICT; what is meant by 'access'; the
relationship bemeen 'access to ICT' and 'use of ICT'; and
a lack of consideration of the consequences of eilgngzillrllt
with ICT. The article ourlines a inore soplGsticared,
hieruzllical nlodel of the digital divide based ai-ound these
conceptual 'stages' wide recognizing the il~ediatingrole of
econolluc, cultural and social fornls of capital in sllaping
individuals' eilgagenlents with ICT. It concludes by
developing a set of research themes and questions for
f ~ ~ t u r eesanlination of ineclualities in individuals' use of
ICT.
Key words
access cultural capital digital divide a ICT * inequalities
social capital
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
INTRODUCTION
The inforillatio~lage does not have to be the age of stepped-up inequality,
polarisation and social exclusion. BLKfor the nloillent it is. (Castells, 1999:
103)
The use of information and con1111~1nicationstechnology (ICT) is seen by
illally coilunentators as underpinning the social and econoinic progressioil of
nation-states throughout the first stages of the 21st century. A whole host of
allalysts have presented coi~vincingarg~zmentsover the past two decades as
to how new computer and teleconu~mnicadonstech~~ologieswlll trailsfor~ll
cou~ltriesinto 'knowledge economies' and 'network societies' (Castells,
1996, 1997, 1998; Reich, 1991).This often evangelical zeal has beell taken
up with equal deterinination by goverillllents of (over)developed couilti-ies
around the world. The ability to use ICT has been heralded by politicia~lsto
be 'the iildispeilsable graminai- of modern life' and adfundamental aspect of
citizenship in the prevailing inforlxlatioil age (Wills,',1999: 10). Indeed, Illany
goverim~entsill ii~dustrializedcountries have been spurred 011 by the
apparent inevitability of the i~lforlllationsociety and have initiated ICT-
based programmes which aim to ensure that their citizens do not get 'left
behlnd' and are able to 'win' in the new global era (Central Ofice of
Information, 1998; Illforillation Infiastructure Task Force, 1993).
In the usually less hyperbolic confines of academe, the trailsforillative
nature of ICT has been welcol~ledalso as offering an uilprecedented
opport~ulityto overcoine existing social divisions and inequalities. It is
assuillecl by illally acadellzic colninentators that ICT call 'empower'
iildividuals (D'Allesandro and Dosa, 2001), increase levels of social
interaction and civic involveilleilt (Katz et al., 2001) as well as facilitate easy
and widespread access to education and other public and govel-i~ment
services. As Servon and Nelson (21101: 279) s~zrinise:'[Ajccess to
information technology and the ability to use it increasingly [have] become
part of the toolkt necessary to participate and prosper in an information-
based society.'
However such 'techno-enthnsiasi~~'has been tempered of late by coilcerns
over the potentially divisive aspects of the inforillation age. In particular,
issues of illequalities of access to both technology and iilforillatioil have
beg111to proillpt coilceril about elnerging 'digital divides' between social
groups. It is argued that if iildividuals or gi-oups of individuals are excluded
fi-om using ICT, they will be excluded fi-om inany of the benefits that ICT
call bring. As the the11 UK Minister for Learning and Technolo~gy;Michael
Wills, reasoned:
The very technology that has the power to empo\ver us all also has the
potential to increase [he problems of social exclusion u~llesswe acr: to bridge
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
tile dgital divide . . .The Goverlll~~elltis determined ro help bxlng us ,111 into
the i~lfor~llauollage. (DEE, 2000)
Therefore, general concerns about 'illforinatioil inequalities' have conle to
the fore in public and political debate over the last decade (e.g. Hansard,
1997; Thomas, 1996). Questions concei-ning ~.vl~ois 'connected' to
i~lfornlationand technolog-y have gl-own in pl-ominence and now fornl an
inlportant elenlent to the inforillation age policy agenda in ind~zstrialized,
'technologically advanced' countries such as the US and UK. As such, the
notion of the digital divide has been proinoted furiously by an unusual
alliance of academics, IT industry executives. politicians and social welfare
orgaizizations, all pm:suiilg the ideal of widespread use of ICT - albeit for
very different reasons (Strover, 2003). Yet, while substantial policies are being
put into place to coinbat the digital divide, nluch of the surroundiilg debate
remains conceptually oversinlplified and theoretically underdeveloped. As Ba
(2001: 4) concluded: '[Llittle has been done . . . to deyelop coi~~prel~ensive
theoretical fianleworlis and to research evaluation ageridas aimed at
uilderstanding the nature of quality access [to ICT].'
Fro111 this background, this article presents a theoretical esan~i~latioilof
the digital divide, tracing its origins in the centre-Lefi social incl~zsion
policy agenda of the 1980s and 1990s to its current status of political hot
topic. It then nloves on to consider four theoretical and conceptuai
liiilltations to conveiltional notions of the digital divide in tern~sof
individuals with and without 'access' to ICT. Having established a more
sophisticated hierarchical inode1 of ~11edigital divide, it collcludes by
developing a set of research theilles and questions for the future exaini~~ation
of inequalities in people's access to, and use of, ICT.
POPULAR AND POLITICAL DEFINITIONS OF THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE
In illany ways the digital divide can be seen as a practical enlbodinleilt of
the wider tllenle of social inclusion, which was recently pronlineilt in
policy-malung throughout centre-Left governments in western nations.
Tln-oughout the 199Os, coui~triessuch as the UK, France and the Clinton/
Gore-era US witnessed a subtle shift towards a socially-inclusive policy
agenda. Indeed, the issue of conlbating social exclusio~land establishing an
'inclusive society' now forins a bedroclc of acadeillic and political discourse
in inany countries.Yet, one of the il~ostintriguing aspects of recent social
policy forillation ill couiltries such as the UK has been the convergeilce of
the infornlation society and inclusive society discourses into ongoing
popular and political debates over the potential of ICTs to either exacerbate
01-alleviate social exclusioil (see Sell.-n, 2002).
Thus, in recent years concerns wit11 social exclusion have been
augmented by vocal coilcerns fiom all sides of the polirical spectrunl over
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
'digital exclusion' and the digital divide. Although the notion of digital
exclusion first einerged with regard to the technological disparity between
developed and developing nations, within western advanced capitalist
societies the supranatio~lalfocus of these debates quickly gravitated tow~rds
the issue of technological inequalities ~uitlzi~indirridual countries. The 1990s
therefore saw the initiation of mainstream political discussion over
'information haves' and 'information have-nots' presch, 1996),
'information and conulzunication poverty' (Ualnaves et al., 1991) and, most
popularly, the digital divide (BECTa, 2001; Jurich, 2000; Parker, 20C)O).In
so doing, the prevailing political view broadly settled on coinbating a
perceived dichotonlous divide between those citizens who are 'connectcd'
and those citizens who reizzailz '&sconnected' froin technology, iiilfornlatio~l
and, it follows, inoder~lor postinodern society. As the US Departnlent of
Commerce (2000) has outlined, these divisions are siinple and stark:
[Some individuals] have rhe 111ost powe~iulcomputF~s;[he best telephone
service and fastest Interne[ service, as well as a wealth of content and trailling
rele\iant to their lives . . .Another group of people don't have access to the
newest and best computers, the mas[ reliable telepllone service or the Castest or
~llostcoilrrellie~ltInterilet services. The cliff&-ence between these two groups is
. . . the Digital Divide.
This diclzotoiz~o~~sportrayal of 'haves' and 'have-nots' has been reinforced
by ;a host of otilcial statistics and acadenzic studies over the last decade.
Studies inforill us, for exainple, that individual citizens' access to ICT is
distributed unevenly both social and spatially (Waif, 2001), \vit11 inequalities
in ternls of access to ICT strongly patterned along the lines of socio-
econoinlic status, incolne, gendel, level of ed~~cation,age, geography and
ethilicity (e.g. BKMB, 1999; DTI, 2000; MOKI, 1999; National Statistics.
2001, 2002; IISGB, 2001). Although the magnitude of these figures vary,
the enlerging trends are that even within 'technologically developed' regions
such as the US, western Europe and South-East Asia, specific social groups
are significantly less likely to have ready access to ICT (e.g. Bonfadelli,
2002; Dickinson and Sciadas, 1999; Jung et al., 2001; Loges and Jung, 3002;
NTIA, '1995, 1999, 2000; Keddick, 2000; UCLA, 2000). For example, ill
ternzs of socio-economic status, such inequalities of opportunity appear
marked and enduring with nlore 'deprived' individuals who are siglificantly
less likely to have access to a range of tecl~nologies.As well as differences in
terms of socio-economic status and income, access to tech~lologiessuch as
hoizze conzputers, the internet and digital television appears to be patterned
in terms of gender (with higher proportioils of nzales than feillale reportiilg
access to ICTs such as the internet), age (with access to all t1zl:ee
technologies inversely correlated to age) and conzposition of household
(with hvo adult and one or two child households ilzost likely to have
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
access).Access to ICT also appears to be spatially diEferentiated within
couiltries towards more econoillically prospel-ousregions. It would appear
that the dgital divide is a marl<edfeature of any inforination society.
(RE)CONSIDERING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
This portrayal of the digital divide appears to be a siinple prenlise. Political
and popular coi~ceptualizationsof the digital divide have tended to be
strictly dichotomo~zs- you either have access to ICT olr you do not, you
are either co~lilectedor not connected. Froill this perspective the digital
divide is easily defined and, as a result, easily closed, bridged and overcome,
given a political will to provide for those 'without' (Devine, 2001; Edwards-
Johnson, 2000). Thus the benefits of the information age that are elljoyed by
those segynents of the pop~llationwho have access to ICT and the ~:equisite
shlls to use it can be augmented by providing public and subsidized access
to ICT for those social groups that are otherwise lacking. For example, tllis
<logic underpins the UK government's current drive to,widen access to ICT
which has been coilstructed around the pledge to achieve both 'universal
service' and 'universal access' to the iilterilet by 2005. In pi-actice,the
goverillllent's Policy Action Teaill on Information Technology have set the
ainbitious target that 'by 2004, 75 percent of people living in deprived
ileighboui-hoodswill have the capabilities to access electroilically delivered
public services and skills to do so, if they wish and 100 percent by 2008'
(DTI, 2000: 59).This is to be achieved by establishiilg networks of
coinillu~lityICT centres and points of access in a variety of existing sites
such 3s scllools and coininuility centres, thus providiilg flexible access to
new techi~ologiesfor those without ICT facilities at hoine or at work. Such
initiatives are being compleineilted by subsidies for the cost of 110111e
technology purchases and basic IT shlls ti-ainiilgfor those on low incomes.
In this way, countries such as the UK call progress towards becomi~~g
iilforinatioil societies, safe in the lalowledge that most, if not all, citizens
will be on board.
The short-term practical and political allure of this siinplified inodel of
the digital divide is obvious.Yet in the lollgel- term, as we shall ilow outline,
to base our conceptualizatioil of inequalities in che illforillation age solely in
terins of a poleillic set of technologically 'rich' and 'poor' iildividuals is too
liinited and rudimeiltary ail analysis. Even fi-0111this brief descriptioil we can
see how coilcepts such as 'universal access' and the digital divide, grounded
as they are in primarily ecoiloiflicjudgements, are 'siillplistic, formalistic and
thus idealistic' (U~zrgelinan,2000: 56). As Webster continues:
[T]o distillguish between the 'il?formation rich' and 'information poor' both
voids ~recisedelilleatioll of who these are and fails to collsider the mlze of
diEerent positiolls . . . 111sl-iort the nlodel lacks suE~cie~lr:sociological
sopl~stication.(1995: 97)
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
Therefore, it would seen1 reasonable that we attempt to nlove beyond the
prevailing ilonoi~sof a dichotolllous digital divide and 'access to ICT',
towards a inore elaborate and realistic understanding of inequalities in the
i~lforillatioilage. In doing so, four proilGlent areas of the digiral divide
debate need to be reconsidered and, indeed, are beginning to be
reconsidered by social scientists:
(1) what is meailt by ICT;
(2) what is nleailt by 'access';
(3) what is the relationship between 'access to ICT' and 'use of
ICT'; and
(4) how call we best consider the coilsequences of engagelllent \vith
ICT.
These are no~vdiscussed in turil in the follo\ving sections.
$
Reconsidering what is meant by ICT
Ail obvious, but often overlooked, coilsideration is to w11.at the 'digir;allin
digiral divide actually refers. I11 particular there is a need to construct ail
adequate and realistic noti011 of what we i~leanby 'information and
comnl~~nicationstecl~nology'when discussing the digital divide. Much social
science research, let alone policy-making, in chis area has been liinited by
the rapid develop~lleiltof new- technologies - utiliziilg either too narrow a
dcfinitioll of ICT in terills of specific technologies, or too broad a
definition in terms of ICT as a hoilzogenous concept. A recent esalllple of
this lattcr tr~ldencywas evident in the Ecorro~rrist'sassestioil that 'ICT is
spreading faster than any other technology in the whole of huillan history
[and] . . . the poor are catching up' (the Ecorionrist, 2001: 10).
Even w11e11 they are not treating ICT as a hoi~logeileousconcept, many
politicians and other coilmlelltators have beell extremely l i ~ ~ ~ i t e din their
definition of terllls - coilteilt to define ICT ~raguelyin terllls of COIII~IIICI.
hardware and softtvare or, latterly, exclusively in ternis of access to the
internet (e.g. Norris, 3001). However, we know that people's use of
technology extends far beyoild the realin of the colnputer through
tccl~ilologiessuch as digital television, lllobile telephoily and games consoles,
all constitutiilg ill~portantbut disparate elell-ieilts of contemporary
technoculture (see Choi, 2003; ICatz and Aakhus, 2002). Indeed, the tern1
ICT lllore accurately refers to an updating of the conventional 'informatioi-~
technolog-' to encolllpass the rapid convergence of technologies such as
coinputers, telecoi~u~~~~nicatioi~sand broadcasting technologiss, as well as
stressing the coilul~u~licativeand networlcing capacity of modern-day
infoi-i~~atioi~technologies. Thus, the tern1 ICT is best seen as an unlbrella
tern1 for a ranse of technological applicatioils such as conlp~zterhardware
and sofhval-e,cligital broadcast tecfinologies, telecoilul~~~nications
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
techilologies such as nlobile phones, as well as electroilic inforlllatioil
resources such as the world wide web and CDlioms. In theory, therefore,
any notion of a digital divide inust run separately (and even differently)
through all these technologies.
This plurality of technologies is coinplicated further by the use of the
tern1 'digital' to refer to the content that is provided via such teclxlolo,'oies -
the 'soft-ware rather than the 'hardy-ware. In other words, the digital divide
can be seen also in ternls of the information, resources, applications and
services that indviduals are accessing via new technologies. In one respect, a
focus on contenr: rather than tecl~nologicalplatform is a illore accurate and
useful point of reference for the digital divide debate. For example, world
wide web resources are accessible through a variety of platforills - &om
computers to digital television to 3G (third generation) nlobile telephones.
Yet here as well we are referring to a wide range of'information' and
services. Thus, it is clear that belleat11 the uillbrella terp of ICT we are
concerned with a heterogeneous range of technologie,~,types of information
and resources - of which all are not necessarily analogous to each other.
Recol-rsidering w h a t is m e a n t by 'access'
These points lead us to a second area of contention - what is meant by
'access'. As it stands in collteillporary debate, access is a woefully ill-defined
tern1 in relation to technology aild inforll~ation.As Wise (1997) observes, in
policy terills access tends to refer to illaking ICTs available to all citizens -
it is used solely to refer to the provision of physical artefacts. Yet this notioil
of access in terills of whether technology is 'available' or not obscures illore
subtle disparities in the coiltcxt of ICT access. For example, accessing online
infoi-mation and resources fi-0111 a home-based conlputer 01- dgital television
set is not necessarily equitable to accessing the same nlaterials via an open-
access workstation in a public library or other co11~11~1nity-basedICT centre.
Issues of time, cost, quality of the techaology and the eilvisonment in which
it is used, as well as inore 'qualitative' concerns of privacy and 'ease of use'
are all crucial illediating factors in people's access to ICT (Davis, 1993;
Selwyn et al., 2000).
It is inlportant here to aclulo~vledgethe illlportailce of an individual's
perceived (or effective) access in practice over theoretical (or formal) access
to ICT (Wilso~l,2000). Indeed, ally realistic notion of access to ICT must
be defined fi-om the individual's perspective. Although in theory the fornlal
pi-ovision of ICT facilities in conlillullity sites ineans that all individuals
living locally have pl~ysicalaccess to that technology, such access is
nleaningless unless people actually feel able 10 illake use of such
opportunities. The logic of this arg~mentcall be seen in the increasing
nuillbers of public payphones in UK toxvns and cities that are being
converted currently to offer elnail facilities alongside coilr~entionaltelephony.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
Despite this forinal provision it would be a nonsense to claiin that every
individual in these towns and cities now has effecnve and meaninc&ll access
to elnail or, indeed, equitable access to elnail when conlpared to individuals
who use elnail fiom their home or place of work.
Instead of either 'l~aving'or 'not having' access to these illally different
teclzilologies in inany different contests, it follows that access to ICT and
the digital divide are hierarchical rather than dichotoinous concepts. Indeed,
as Toulouse (1997) observes, there are two distinct types of access: whether
people have access at all and the hierarchy of access aillongst those that do.
Thus, beyond the siinple issue of access/no access to ICT colne lllore
coinplex questions of levels of connectivity in terms of the capability and
distribution of the access concerned. For example, on a practical level,
access to a pel-sonal coinputer does not guai-an~eea coilnection to the
internet, any lnoi-e than 'access' to the internet is a guarantee of effectively
accessing every available website and online resource. Sinularly, lnaterial
T .
access to a technology is useless without the requisita.skllls, lcnowledge and
support to use ir effectively (van Uijk, 1999).These issues have led soi-zle
authors to refer to an 'access rainbow' of physical devices, soft\.vare tools,
content, services, social iilfras~ructureand goverilance (Clelllent and Shade,
2000), or 'val-ious shades' of lnargiilality between 'core' access, 'peripheral'
access and non-access (Wilhelm, 2009). As we can see already, the digital
divide is not solely about purchasing power and physical access.
Reconsidering the relationship between access to, and
use of, ICT
It is important, therefore, not to conflate 'access to ICT' with 'use of ICT'.
This presulllption is at the heal-t of conventional notions of the digital
divide and is reinforced by the deterlni~listbelief that access to ICT
inevitably leads to use. This can be seen in the popular ai-gumeilt that
pi-eseilt ICT-related inequalities are p1:imarily due to the s-curve of
expansioil of technology use in society fiom present groups of 'early
adopters' through to the majority of the population at a later date. Indeed,
acadelnics have identified phases of the difibsion of inilovations - poindilg
to an 'ii~evitable'pl:ogression fi-0111 'innovators', 'early adopters', 'eal-ly
majority', 'late majority' to 'laggards' in terms of individual citizens (Rogers,
1995), and even 'skaters', 'striders', 'sprinters', 'strollers' and 'starters' in terins
of couiltries and regions (Mendoza, 2001). This 'natural' diff~lsionthesis
leads to the view that widespread illequalities in the use of ICT are only a
passing phase of technological adoption and that, in the long rel:m, the only
people not using ICTs will be 'information ~ v a ~ z t/lots' - refuseniks who
chose not to engage with ICT for ideological reasons, despite being able to
in practice (see Selwyn, 2003). From this perspective the digital divide is
merely a tenlporary stage of societal adoption of ICTs, as T L I O I ~ ~infers:
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
If we study available evidence, the digital divide is closing rapidly. During the
last decade nlillions of people have gained access to computers every year. Never
in the hu~llanIistory have [here been so Illany people 1vit1-iaccess to computers,
digital networks and electronic conmllunicatioll technologies. (2000: 1)
The danger of this determinist disnlissal of the digital divide's significance
ill the long-term is that it ignores the complex relationship between access
to ICT and use of ICT. Yet in inaking the crucial disnnctioil between access
to, and use of, ICT we should recognize that access to ICT does not denote
use of ICT. Sinularly, use of ICT does not necessal-ily-entail 'l1leaningi5111 use
of ICT' or what could be ternled as 'engagement' rather than merely use
where the 'user' exerts a degree of control and choice over the technology
and its content, thus leading to a meaning, significance and utility for the
individual concerned (Bonfadelli, 2002; Silverstoile, 1996). Having nlade
these distinctions, we should see that once an individual has gained suitable
conditions of access to different technologies, a laclc of llleailill&l use of
thenl is not necessarily due to technological factors (skch as a lack of
physical access, skills or operational abilities), or even psychological L~ctors
(such as a 'reticence' or anxiety about using technology), as is generally
claimed by tecl~nologists.Instead, as a range of studies have shown,
irtdividuals' engagelllent with ICTs is based around a conlplex illixture of
social, psychological, ecoilonlic and, above all, prap~aticreasons.
E~lgagellleiltwith ICT is therefore less concerned with issues of access and
o~vnershipbut illore about how people develop relatioi~shipswith ICTs and
how they are capable of malung use of the social resources which nlalce
access useable (Garnl~am,1997;lung et al., 2001). As Heller (1987) .I-,c rmues,
at best. technology offei-s a nunlber of 'options', or 'choices based on
particular contingencies', which deternllile the variable illipact of
technology on people. Th~zsindividuals' interactions with ICTs are not as
simple as the user/non-user dichotoi~~ycoilstructed by 111uch of the previous
literature, and certainly they are not deceriluned solely by issues of pllysical
access to technology.
Reconsidering the consequences of engagement with
ICT
No~vithstai~dingthese points and caveats, we should consider finally the
fundamental yet often uilvoiced element of the digital divide debate - the
outcome, impact and consequences of accessiilg and usiilg ICT. Indeed,
much contenlporary debate over illequalities and TCT concentrates o111y on
the means, rather than the ends, of engagenleilL of ICT use. As Wise
ack~lowledges:
[Tlhe proMc.111with questions of access 1s that they reify whatever it is [hat we
are to have access LO as sometling central 1.0our lives withouc urluch we
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
would be destitute. They, therefore, 1-edirectdebate away froill the technologies
or services themselves. (1997: 113)
To be of ally lasting significance, any concept~zalizationof the digital
divide ill~lstconlbine questions of access and use of technology with the
iillpact and corrsequences of engagenleilt with ICT for iildividuals. In this
way, we are challenging the policy postulate that the inforn~ationsociety
ilecessarily means an inforilled society for everybody (Bonfadelli, 2002) and,
inscead, exaillining to what extent (and why) the consequences of ~zsing,and
engaging with, ICTs are not automatic for all. For esainple we know that,
by its very nature, seine inforillation is specialist and restricted to a few with
the requisite intellectual and illanagerial skills to nlanipulate and use it
(Lyon, 1996).Thus the effects of accessing information, resources and
services via ICTs cannot be uniforill for all users. As Balnaves and Caputi
reason, it follows that where the inlpact, n~eaningand consequences of ICT
I
use are liinited for individuals, then -we cannot accept susraiiled levels of
engagement:
The collcept of the information age, predicated up011technology and the media,
deals with the trallsformatioll of society. However, without in~lprovementsin
qu"lity of life there would seen1 to be little point in adopting onlille lllultimedia
services. (1997: 92)
I11 particular, this notion of meaning can be seen as being at the heart of
the digital divide debate. For esample, a host of authors have pointed
towards understanding the rit~ratio~iiilI T ~ C V L I I I C ~of access to technolog- and
information froill the indvidual's point of view, and, in particular, the
relevance of the collscquences or potential consequences of engagement
with ICT for people (Balnaves and Caputi, 1997; Rogers and Shoemaker,
1971; Rousseau and Rogers, 1998;Wilson, 1973). In ths sense, the
consequences of engaging meanin@-ully with ICT could be seen ill terins of
the effect on individuals' and conmlunities' 'social quality' - i.e. socio-
econoillic securiry, social inclusion, social col~esionand eillpowerilleilt (i.e.
Uernlail and Phillips, 2001). Perhaps the illost useful fi-ainework to utilize
here is the various dinlensions of participation ill society that call be seen as
constituting 'inclusion' (e.g. 13erghmai1, 1995; Oppenheim, 1998;\Vallier,
1997).These can be grouped as:
p~oductionactivity-- engaging in an econo~nicallyor socially
valued activity, such as paid work, education/trainingg and looking
after a fanlily;
political activity - engaging in some collective effort to ilxprove
or protect the social and pl~ysicaleilvironmen~;
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
a social activity - engaging in significant social iilteractioil with
fanlily or friends and identifying with a c~zlturalgroup or
community;
consuillption activity - being able to consunle at least a liliililllunl
level of the services and goods which are considered nornlal for
thc society; and
a savings activity - accu~llulatingsavings, pensiolzs entitleillents or
o\vning property.
Thus the impact of ICTs could be seen in these terms, which reflect the
extent to which technology use enables individuals to pavticipate and be
part of society-, i.e. the extent to which 'ICTs eidlance our abilities to fulfil
active roles in society, or being without them constitute[s] a barrier to that
end' (Haddon, 2000: 389).
TOWARDS A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DIGIT&
DIVIDE
Stages of the digital divide
With all these factors in 11lindwe can now begin to reconstruct the digital
divide in illore sophisticated terms: as a luerarcl~yof access to various fornls
of technology in various contexts, resulting in diEering levels of engagement
and consequences. On the one hand, we are concerned with inequalities of
opportunity to access and use different forills of ICT. On the other hand,
we are collcerlled also with different inequalities of outcoille resultillg either
directly or indirectly fro111 engagement wit11 these technologies. Tll~ls,it
makes little sense to talk of a single dichotonlous division, as these
inequalities of opportunity and outconle run along nl~zltiplelines. The
different elenlents that need to be talcen into consideration and factors that
nlake up the digital divide are shown in Table 1. Here, the progression fi-om
formal/theoretical access to effective/perceived access is followed by basic
use of ICT which the11 may (or may not) lead to meanii~gfdengagemeac
with ICTs, i~lformationand services.T h s process culininates in the
potential short-term outconles and longer-term consequences of this
engagement with ICTs.
Factors underlying inequalities in the information age
Having mapped out the difi-erent eleillel~tsof the digital divide, albeit in a
crude mannel; it is also necessary to begin to develop an understanding of
the ullderlying reasons and shaping forces behind individuals' and groups of
individuals' eilgagement with ICT. Why do sonle indis~id~zalsengage
successf~~llywith ICTs 60111the initial stages of physical access througl~to
longer-term consequences, ~vl~ereasothers do rzoc?As we have argued, a
whole host of technical ar7il non-technical factors, econonlic arid non-
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
Table 1 Stages in the Digital Divide
Formal/theoretical caccess'to ICTs Formal provision of ICTs in home, community
and content and work settings tl~atis available to individual in
theory.
Effective 'access' to ICTs and l'rovisio~lof iCTs in ho~ne,C O I I ~ I I ~ U I I ~ ~ ~and work
content settitl~sthat iildividual feels able to access.
Use of ICTs Contact wit11 ICTs in ally fornl. I\/I.ayor may not
be 'meaningfi~l'use. May or may not lead tc
i~~edium/longterm consequences.
Engagement with ICTs and
content
'Meanind~~l'use of ICTs. Use where the user
exercises a degree of contl-01 and choice over
technolog and content. Use could be co~lsidrred
to be usef~~l,fruitful, sigilifica~ltaud has relevance
to the itldividual.
Outcomes - actual and perceived Immediate/short ten~~~conse~uenccsof ICT use
Consequences - actual and medium/long ~ e n nc~nsecluencesof ICT use in
percei~ed terms of participating in socieqr. Could be see11 in
terms oE
pro(/~~~.rio~rflcii~:it)~
politicfll ilciivit)~
socin~adivil)~
rn~r.s~ri~~ptio~~activir)~
snvillLqs[activity
econoillic factors are at play. Thus, in atteinpting to construct a fiailleworlc
in order to understaild these mediating factors, perhaps the nlost
conlpreheizsive approach is to distinguish bet\veen the different inediating
forills of capital that underlie differential access to, and use of, ICTs in
society. In adopting this approach, therefore, we are drawing upon
Boui-dieu's concept of different fori11s of capital as:
acculllulated labour which, when appropriated on a private, i.e. exclusive basis
by agents or groups of agents, enables then1 to appropriate social energy in the
forill of reified or living labour . . . It is the principle u~lderlyi~lgthe inln~anent
regularities of the social world. It is what makes the gallles of society
sonlethillg other than silllple gailles of chance. (Bourdieu, 1997: 46)
This notion of capital is po~ve~fulin that it faciliates a coillbination of
theories of structuration and shapiilg of social action by social contests ~ i i i ~ h
theories of self-interested individual action (Coleman, 1997). thus ailowing
the exploration of the nchieveinent of certain ends by individuals and groups
from a nlultilayered approacll. Using this appi-oach, we can atteinpt to
identify the effect of the different forn~sof capital on the ability of
individuals and groups to illake meanin,$i~l use of ICTs.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
Froill this perspective, perhaps the nlost iininediate and obvious forill of
capital undei-lyingindividuals' engageisleilt with ICT is economic. Indeed,
in highlighting the other forms of capital inherent in the digital divide we
are not trying to underplay the importance of economic capital. 011 a day-
to-day basis, the econotlucs of using ICTs are crucial and ongoing
mediating factors (Norris, 2001), wit11 soille coi~u~~entatorsarguing that the
digital divide is primarily about people 'tak[ing] individual respoilsibility for
the ecoilonlics of getting online' (Haywood, 1998: 23). As Murdock et al.
(1996) argue, nlaterial resources and econoil-!ic capacity play a central role in
deterinining whether people use ICTs, and then the nature and subsequent
patterns of that use, citing the exainple of the difficulties of usiilg a
wordprocessor without a printer or an adequate monitor. Indeed, as
Bourdieu himself asserts, economic capital is 'always at thc root in [he h s t
analysis' (1993: 33).
Yet ecoiloinic capital callnot account for all stages and levels of
eilgageilzent to ICT. As Murdock (2002) contends, it 2easy to
overen~phasisethe role of iilconle with regard to ICT and overlook the
inlportant social and cultural dynamics that structure participatioil and
exclusion. Therefore, what an individual (or group of individuals) can do
with ICT is also intertwined with their corresponding levels of c~zltural
capital. 111Bourdieu's original analysis, cultural capital denotes the extent to
which individuals have absorbed (often unconsciously) or have been
socialized into the doirLinant cultme over time. Therefore, cultural capital
call be enlbodied (in the for111 of lmowledge), objectified (in the form of
books, paintings, instrunleilts and other artefacts) and institutionalizecl (in
the for111 of qualifications).Bourdieu's original work conceiltrated oil the
effect of cultural capital that individuals possessed in terills of how successf~zl
they w-ould be 111 the educatioilal system.Yet we can also see that there are
specific techilological forills of cultural capital that are useful to the
iilforn~ationage, such as technological skills, 'lno-cv-how' and socialization
into the technoc~zlmrevia fanllly and the household (or, as Jung et al.,
3001: 513 put it, 'attit~zdes:tastes or goals ill the specific contexts of
technology use'). Suc11 forms of cultural capital call be seen. for exanlple, as
the differeilce betwee11having access or ownershp of a technology, and
engaging with and ~nalciilgnleanii~gfi~~luse of t l ~ a ~technology; as Soul-dieu
explains:
To possess the machines, he [sic] only needs ecoilolnic capital; to appropriate
theill aid use theill in accorda~lce\vith their specific purpose he illust have
access to einbodied cultural capital; either in persoil or in pi-oxy. (1997: 50)
Further, the succcss of many people's engagement with ICT is also highly
iilfluenced by their social capital. This can be seen as social obligations or
connections between an individual and networks of other significant
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
individuals (faillily meinbers, friends), organizations and institutions that call
be called upon for illobilization of their own capital. As Bourdieu continues:
Social capical is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are
linked to possession of a durable network o f . . . i~lstitutionalisedrelationships
of nlutual acquaintance and recoglition - or in other words to mcnlbership of
a group - which provides each of its menlbers with the backing of the
collecuvcly-owned capital. (1997: 51)
Therefore, social capital has been recognized as ail iinportant eleilleilt of
indivmduals' and organizations' ability to access and effectively engage with
ICT (Di Maggio and Hargittai, 2001; Fountain, 1997), with the size and
llatui-eof an individual's network of technological coililections and relevant
social contacts developing and sustaining an individual's use of ICT. For
erainple, ICT use is increasingly abo~ztbeing able to draw upon 'expcrt'
sources of advice to help us use ever-poweiful comppter systeills that the
vast imajority of users miill never fully use, let alone Anderstand. As Kitchill
argues:
[W]e are beconling increasingly relianc on the 'computer experts' that each
facility no\v has to enlploy co guide us through the rapid developlllents and
sort out our d d y problems. (1998: 112)
Whereas such expert sources of advice are being nude available
iilci-easiilglyill reinote or virtual forins in the shape of helplines, aher-sales
support and other IT ii~dustryservices, the developilleilt (or not) of
localized face-to-face social capital is also imnportai~t.As Murdock et al.'s
(1996) -\YO&exaillii~iilgthe difilsion of hoine coillputiilg on a UK housing
estate has highlighted, people's ability to foster, ml~aintaiiland draw upon
social capital in terms of iletworks of friends, relatives, neighboms and other
significant local sources of technological expertise and material resourcing
(in terms of 'bol-rotving' equipilleilt or 'sharing/copying' software) was a
critical factor in people's sustained use of ICT:
The nxuntenallce of particular fornls of compucer use \vill depend in large
parts on access co users who can ofi2r advice, encou~-agenlenta11d practical
s~~pport.Conversely users who are isolaced fi-om or marginal to such net\vol-ks
nlay find it difficult to acquire conlpetcncies and sustain interest over time.
(Murdock et al., 1996: 273)
These factors have led somlle authors to point towards the fundamental
iillportailce of ~echilologicalcapital as both a subset of, and an addition to,
Bourdieu's cultural, economic and social forins of capital in the inforillatioil
age (Hesketh and Selwyn, 1999; Howard, 1992). Indeed, illany of the
differences that the digital divide pertains towards call be traced back to
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
Table 2 Different Forms of Technological Capital
Economic capital 'Mater~alexchanges', illaterial resourcing, domes~cspace of ICT use
Econonlic Capacity to purchase ICT hardware 2nd sohvare
Cultural capital Eirlbodicd
Investiilg time illto self in1p1-ovemencof ICT skills, k~lo~vledgesand
conlpeteilcies in the for111of illforn~alIear~ling
Participatioll in ICT education and training - both forn~al
credentialized and infonnd non-credentialized
06jcctifified
Socializatio~lillto technology use and 'techno-culture' via techno-
cultural goods, (e.5 Ex~osureto ICT via nlagazines, books and
other media), family, peers and other agents of socializatioll
Iiisiii~~tior~olired
Formal credentialized ICT tl-aining
Social capital Networks of '~echnologicalcontacts' and support. These can be:
Fnrc-io+cc: family, fiiends, neigl~bours,tu$ors, other 'significant
4,.
others', meillbership of groups/oi-gai~izations
Rcirrotc: o~lli~lehelp facilities, conlnlercial helplines
clear differentiatioilin the technological capital of individuals, organizations
and conul~unities- i.e. fundanlental differences in the cultural, econonlic
and social resources that individuals and c o n u ~ ~ ~ ~ n ities can conmand \vllen
engaging wit11 technology and are able to adopt as part of their strategy of
reproduction (seeTable 2). For example, possession of technological capital
enables iildividuals to becoille producers and distributors of their own
cultural products, rather thail active or passive consuiners of the products of
others (Kenway, 1995).Therefore, it can be seen to be a crucial distinction
between the 'information used' as opposed to 'information users' (Dordick
et al., 1988) and is reflected also in the 'three Cs' of competence, concepts
and coilnections that soixe see as underpinning the ability to thrive in the
global econonly (Kantel-,1995).
Key research questions
The ~llultifacetedand graduated illode1 of ICT use outlined in this article
has sigllificant illlplications for fumi-eresearch in this area. With governments
and other policy-orientated funding bodies responsible for the
colllnlissioning and f~xndingof digital divide research, there is a danger that
the faults of the naive political dicl~oto~llousconsti-uctiollal-e replicated by
the enlpirical research designed to exainiile it. Yet, as Murdock co~ltends:
[Olne has collie to expect short-terlllism fi-om politicia~~sseeking to make a
splash in the polls and entrepreneurs looking to lnake a killing 011 the
exchanges, but scholars have a responsibility to disregard the 'frothy surface'
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media ei Society 6(3)
thrown up by con~n~ercialand political hype and to focus on the deeper
dynanics of change and inertia. (2001: 385)
Thus, in seeking to exailine the digital divide, researchers should be
interested in a host of 'post-adoption' issues (Tung et al., 2001), such as the
levels and contested nature of individuals' access to technology (in particular
their effective access, as opposed to what is forlnally available to them in
theory), their actual cr7g~1geri1aztmith, and use of, this technology and,
ilnportantly, the short-term outcoines and longer-term consequences of this
use. Although this article has atteillpted to identify the &Eerent stages and
elements of the digital divide, there is still a need to explore a~ldclarify
further the relationships between them. Indeed, in atteinpting to develop a
inore sophisticated understanding of the digital divide, this article has
succeeded in raising Inore questions than answers. Froin this perspective, and
in light of the recent political efforts to coinbat the digital divide, the
following questions need to be addressed in detail. , "
What types of formal/theoretical access to what ~echnologiesdo
people have at home, at work and in conlinunity settings?
What types of effective/practical access to what tech~lologiesdo
people have at home, at work and in coinmunity settings?
* What is the nature and extent of the use of technologies
facilitated by this access? Under what circuillstances does
meanin,&l use/engagement arise?What factors contribute to
people continuing to be users of ICT and others to revert to
beconling aon-users?
What types of social, economic, cultural and technological capital
are people able to draw upon when using technology?
What are the short-term outcomes of this engagenlent with
technology for people and colnnlunities?
What are the longer-term consequences of this engagenlent with
technology in terms of individuals' participation in society?
How are people's ICT access, engagelllent and outcoi~~es
patterned according to individual factors such as age, gender, class,
geography, ethnicity and disability?
What other nutigating factors and circunlstances can be identified
as having an iinpact on different social groups' propensity and
inotivatioils to engage with ICT? E.g. the 'capitalist driven' and
state-driven developlnent of ICT (Hoar and Hope, 2002), such as
the developlnent of software and online content by coilunercial
and non-colnmercial interests; the inarketing of ICT by corporate
and public interests; and the content and delivery of ICT
education and training by public and private bodies.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
CONCLUSIONS
In all likelihood, the flawed and oversiiliplified notion of a dichotoil-ious
digital divide of 'haves' and 'have-nots' wlll continue in its popularity as a
means of fi-a-amingpolitical discussion of social issues in the infornlation age.
Despite the recent econoinic downturns and displacement of centre-Left
ad~nlnistrationsin countries such as the US which have led sonle
conunentators to consign the digical divide to political 'history' (Wilhelm,
2002),the coiltiiluing rhetorical appeal of the digital divide lies in its neat
pacckaglng of complex social issues in a forin of social exclusion that
governments can be seen to do soillething about, unlike more longstailding
and fulldanlental 'non-digital' divides. Moreovel-, despite its weaknesses the
notion of a dicl-iotomous digital divide also has a value in bringing the issue
of infornlation inequalities to the fore in contenlporary social debate. As
Silvesscone contends:
Thc theoretically unsubtle has its value. It focuses the p i n d on the dyi~anlicsof
structural change. It illakes us question. But it lllissesthe llual~cesof agency
and meaning, of the huma~lexercise of power and of our resistance. It ~llisses,
too, other sources of change: factors that aKect the creation of technologies
themselves and factors that nlediate our responses to them. Society, econonly,
politics, culmre. Technologies, ir: nlust be said, are enabling (and dsablii~g)
rather than decernliiling. (1999: 21)
But now that the realities of an ICT-based society are beconling 11101-e
apparent than they were a decade ago, we need to il-iove the debate
onmiards. These needs to be a political recognition that the crucial issues of
the digital divide are not just technological - they are social, economic,
cultural and political. The 'cyber-guru' Nicholas Negroponte co~zldnot have
been moi-e nlisguided in asserting that in tlle inforlnation age, 'all that is
solid nlelts into bits'. Indeed, to iillagine a digital woi-ld free frolll the
i~leq~zalitiesof the offline tvorld is again indicative of tecl~~~ologicalnaivety
ratller than foresight. Fro111 this perspective it is of utmost importance that
academics, politicians, practitioners and all other stakeholders in the
iilfoi-n-iationage adopt a more sophisticated and realistic view of the digital
divide and the range of inequalities that c~zrrentlyexist in ICT-based
opport~znities,uptake, engagement and outcomes.
Yet in proposing this reconceptualizatioll of the digital divide, and
therefore eschewing the more 'techno-utopian' positions outlincd at the
begiillling of the ai-ticle, we il-iust be caref~zlnot to fall instead into what
Mendoza refers to as the 'fatalist instrulllentalist approach' of assuming that it
is inevitable that 'social structures will ren-iain unaltered and digital
inforlllatioil technologies wlll be another factor to strengthen the existing
structure of social stratification' (Mendoza, 2001: 30). As Golding has argued
on many occasions, although the patterns of uptake and use of new
technologies do appear to be falling into existing and deep-rooted patterns
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
of social and econonlic inequalities and 'the abiding fault lines of modernity'
(Golding, 2000: 179),there is still the potential for change:
We are no\v wih~essiilgthe 'mediadzation' of the new technologies, as they
follow past scenarios of coinmercialisatioi~,differentiated access, exclusion of
the poor, privatisation, deregulatioll and globalisacion. None of this is
inevitable. We find ourselves staring at the arrival of a cool thac could nourish
and enhance the p~iblicsphere, or could equally provide another vehicle for
the incorporatioll of progressive politics and ideals into [he grubby raw maw of
market rapacity. (Golding, 1996: 85)
Whether or not such changes a1.e talung place, as politicians, technologists
and other enthusiastic commentators believe, illust now forill the basis of
cai-efullyconceptualized and executed research. We need to i~loveresearch
away horn the c~zrrentpredonlinance of 'pundit suppositions, travellers tales
and laboratory studies' (Wellman, 2001: 2031) towards robust survey-based
and in-depth qualirative work wl~ichbegins to ~znpa~kthe col~~plexitiesof
the digital divide as set out in this article (DMaggio et al., 2001). Hopefully
it has pi-ovided an initial starting point for suc11 work to take place.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a project funded by the Econo~llicand Social Research Council
[R000239518].The author would like to c11alIk the other melnbers of the Ad~lts
Leariling@Home project, iilcluding John Furlong, Stephen Gorard and Louise Madden.
The author would also like to thank the three anonymous referees for their coi~u~~ents
on earlier drafts of the article.
References
Ba, H. (2001) 'What is the Digital Divide?', Earhir~?to Cliargc L4 2, UPJ, (consulted
11 February 2004): l~ttp://\v~v~v.ccla.gseis.~icla.ed~~/divide/po~tics/ba.l~ti~d
Balnavcs, M. and E Caputi (1997) 'Technological Wealth and the Evaluation of
Inforil~ationPoverty', llkdia Irrterrratiorralilr~strflliil83: 92-102.
Balnaves, M., P. Caputi and I(.Williamson (1991), 'The Developillellt of a Methodology
for AssessiilgTelecollulmi~icatioilNeeds: P~lii~li~llnarySteps Towards an Index of
Illfornlatioll and Conllllunicatioil Poverty', Allstr~~liail][~lll'ilt7/ of C~riiri~ririicati~ri18(3):
99-1 18.
BECTa (2001) Tlrc Diqihll Dirlidc: n Discrlssiorr R~pcr:Coventry: British Educational
Cornlll~illicatioi~sand Technology Agency.
Berghman, J. (1995) 'Social Esclusio~lin Europe: Policy Context and Analytical
Framework', in G. Room (ed.) Bc)arrd tire Tlrrcslrolil: tlre i\Ieasrrrcrirorr arrd Airalysis of
Social E.~clr~siarr,pp. 19-28. Bristol: Policy Press.
Berman, Xr. 2nd D. P l ~ p s(2001) 'Informadon and Social Quality', paper presented to
the Fifth Europea~~Sociological Associatioil Conference, Universiq7 of Helsinki,
Finland.
BMRB Illterl~atioilal(1999) Is IT-for All? London: Departillent for Trade and Industry.
Boilfadelli, H. (2002) 'The Interllet and Knowledge Gaps: a Theoretical and Empirical
Investigation', Erriopcl~rrJor~virolcf Corrrrrrrrriicnliorr 17(1): 65-84.
Bourdieu, P. (1993) Sociolqi~~~irr Qricstioir. Theory, Culture and Society. London: Sage.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsideringthe digital divide
Bourdieu, I? (1997) 'The Forms of Capid', in A. Halsey, H. Laudel; P. Brown and A.
Smart-Wells (eds) Educatiorr: Qrlt~rrc, Ecorrorrly, Societ~<pp. 46-58. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Burgelman, J. (2000) 'liegulating Access in the Infornlation Society: the Need for
Rethinking Public and Universal Service', Nerrl Adedia arid Society 2(1): 51-66.
Castells, M. (1996) T l ~ cIr!firrilntiorr -4'qe: Ecorrorlly, Society orrd C~rltrrrr.Kll~rrrrcI - /Ire Rise
of tlrc Rictlr!ork Society. Osfbrd: Blackwell.
Casteus, M. (1997) Tire 6!f;,rrlrnriarrAge: Ecc1rro17ly,Society arid Qrltrrre. H~lrrrrrcII - tire
Po'orr~crof Idcrrrity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998) Tire Ir!firrrr~ztiorrA p : Ecorrorrry, Socict)] arid Qrlr~r,r. I.i,lrrrrrc III - Errd of
A4llcr1irrrir. Oxford: Blackwell.
Casteus, M. (1999) 'An Introducdon to the Inforn~ationAge', in H. Mackay and T.
O'Sullivan (eds) Tire ibfedin Reader: Coirtirrrtit)l nrrd ?ii~rr$~rrr~ntiorr,pp. 398-410.
London: Sage.
Central OEce of Information (COI) (1998) Orrr Ir!for171atiolrAge: tlrc Govcrr~~irerrt'sIz'isiorr.
London: Stationery Ofice.
Choi, J. (2002) 'Endxdding Digital Television in an IT Econollly', J~rrrrral of brtcrrrntiorral
Coirlrirrrrricntiorr S(2): 26-45.
Clenlent, A. and L. Shade (2000) 'The Access Rainbow: Conc~pt~~alisingUlliversd
Access to the I n f o r i ~ ~ a d o n / c o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n i c a t i o nInhastructure', in M. Gurstein (ed.)
Corr~rirrrrrityIr!$orrrrntics, pp. 32-51. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing.
Coleman, J. (1997) 'Social Capital in the Creation of Huinan Capital', in A. Halsey, H.
Laudel; I? BI-own and A. Stuart-Wells (eds) Edrrccztiorr: Qrltrrrc, Ecorror71y,Socicrp pp.
80-95. Osford: Osford University Press.
D'Alle~andro~D. and N. Dosa (2001) 'Empowering Clddren and Families with
Intbrnlation Technology', Arclri~lejof Pncdintric GAdolescerrt Aledicirrc 155(10): 1131-6.
Davis, E (1993) 'User Acceptance of Inforillation Technology: Systenl Characteristics,
User Perceptions and Behavioural Inlpacts, Irrtcr~rntior~al_\o~rr~~nlof ~ V I L I I I - A ~ ~ C I I ~ ~ I ~Stirdies
38: 475-87.
Departnlent for Education and Employment (DEE) (2000) 'Closing the UK's Digital
Divide', D j E E Prcu RP/CL~S(>32900. London: DEE.
Devine, K. (2003) 'Bridging the Digital Divide', Scierrtict 15(1):28.
Dickinson, P. and G. Sciadas (1999) 'Cai~adiansConnected', C~~rrudiarrEcc~rrorrricObrovcr
3: 1-22.
DiMaggio, I? and E. Hargittai (2001) 'From the Digitd Divide to Digital Inequality',
working paper, Centre for Arts, C~dturdand Political Studies, Princeton University.
DiMaggio, E, E. Hal-gittai,W. Neuman and J. Robinson (2001) 'Social Inlplications of
the Internet', ,Irrrrrral Rcr~iciuof Socialc~gy27: 307-36.
Dol-dick, H., H. Bradley and B. Nanus (1988) Tire E ~ i ~ e ~ ; $ r ~ qNCIIIJO~X'iVI~7rkctplace.
Norwood, NJ: Ables.
Departme~ltfor Trade and Industry (DTI) (2000) Closirrg tire Diqitnl Divide: b!fi~rr7lntioir
arid Corrrrrrrrrric~ltiorrs?i'clrrrol~~~qicsirr Dcpril,cd Arcaj. London: Deparhllent for Trade and
Industry
Econonlist (2001) 'Getting Better All [he Time: a Survey ofTechnology and
Development', supplenlent, 10 Novenlbe~-,16pp.
Edwards-Johnson, A. (201)O)'Closing the Digital Divide', J~rrrrral of Govcrrrrrrerrt
b!filI'rll~ti[J~l77(6): 898-900.
Fountain, J. (1997) 'Social Capital: a I<ey Enabler of Innovation in Science a11d
Technology', in L. Bransconlb and J. Keller (eds) Irrr,cstir;q irr Irrrror,ntiorr: X~~rarrla
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media 8: Society 6(3)
Corrsors~isSllz1lcg)~jorFedoml ?ilc/~ilo/c~g)~Policy, pp. 85-1 11. Can~bridge,A M : MIT
Press.
Gunllam, N. (1997) 'Amartya Sen's "Capabilides" Approach to [he Evaluation of
Welfm: its Application to Conu-~~u~llcation',]nvrrost-Tlre Prrblic 4(4): 25-34.
Giddens, A. (1998) TIie Tlrird T/T/y: tlre Rerreu~nl(!/Social Dcr~iocrac)~.Canlbridge: Polity.
Golding, P. (1996) 'World Wide Wedge: Division ;u~dContradiction in the Global
Information 111frastructure', ~\/lorrtlilyRcviecr~(Tuly-August): 70-85.
Golding, P. (2000) 'Forthconung Features: Illformation and Co~lu~lunications
Teclmologies and the Sociology of [he Future', Sociol~~gy34(1): 165-S4.
Haddon, L. (2000) 'Social Exclusion and Inforn~atio~land Conlmunication Technologies:
Lessons from Studies of Single Pareilts and the Young Elderly', Ncrrl Adcdirz G Society
2(4): 387-405.
Hansard (1997) Pllrliarllcrlrar) Debates, Friday 11July. Lo~ldon:Her Majesty's Stationary
Office.
Haywood, T. (1998) 'Global Networks and the Myth of Equality', in B.D. Loader (ed)
C)lbcrsp~~cc,Divide: Ei11ralit)cijecrrcy arrd Po/ic)l ill tlrc Ir!fi~rrrruiiorrSocict)! pp. 19-34.
London: Routledge.
Heller, E (1987) 'The Technological Iil~perativeand the QualiQ of Employment', NL~IIJ
J,.
Ecl~rrolc~,cc)~FIhrk ilrld Er~rployrircrrt2(1): 19-26.
Hesketh, A. and N. Selwyn (1999) 'S~l-fi~fillgto School: the Electroiuc Reco~lstructiollof
School Identities', O.x$d Rcvic~rjcf Ed~~caiiorr25(4): 501-20.
Hoar, P. and W. Hope (2002) 'The Internet, the Public Sphere and the Digital Divide in
New Zedand', ]~~rrrrro/of ~ilferrrntiorrfllCorrrrlrrrrlicatiorl 8(2): 64-88.
Howard, T. (1992) 'WANS, Connectivity, and Conlputer Literacy', C L J I I I ~ I I ~ C I Tilrld
Corrrpositiorl 9(3): 41-58.
Infortnation Infiasttructure Task Force (ITAF) (1993) 'The National Infornlation
Infrastructure: Agenda For Action', URL (consulted 11 February 2004): http:/
/met;llab.~~nc.edu/~lii/NII-Exec~~tive-Summary.h~~~l.
IT For -All (1999) Is IT-fi)r All? Resen~llirrtu tlre Attitrides Xnlli~rdsIT nrrd Eke-rip of
Ecllrroloq)~.London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Jordan, T. (1999) C)~bopouuer:the C~~ltrr,z.izrrd Politics cf C)~be,~paccnrrd of tlrc Irrlcrrlet.
London: Routledge.
jung, J., j. Qiu andY. IGm (2001) 'Internet Connectedness and Inequality: Beyond the
Divide', C~~i~lrrrrrrlicntio,~Rcsearclr 2S(4): 507-35.
Jurich, S. (2000) 'The Il~for~llatioi~Revolution and the Digital Divide: a Review of
Literature', ?i.cl~Krro~,r~Lo~qin2(1): 42-4.
ICantel; R. (1995) T/TT.i7r.ldC/nsr: Tlrrivir!q Locc~//)rill tlrc Global Eci~rrorlr)~.NewYork: Simon
& Schuster.
Kdtz, j. and M. Aakhus (2002) Pcrpctrii~lC[~rrtact.Cambridge: Canlbridge University
Press.
ICatz, j., R . Rice and P. Aspden (2001) 'The Internet 1995-2000: Access, Civic
Involvement and Social Interaction', Arrrcricczrr Bclrar~ia~rn~IScicrrtist 45(3): 405-15).
Kenway, J. (1995) 'Reality Bytes: Education, Markets and the Infor~~lation
Superhigh\vayl,Arrstrnlir~rrEdr~ci~tiorrnlResearclrcr '22(1): 35-65.
Kitclun, I?_.(1995) C)~bcrspacc:illc Tii.i~r./dirr t/rc r/T/irer. Ck~ichester:John Wiley.
Loges, W. and j. Juilg (2001) 'Explonllg the Digical Divide: Internet Collnectedlless and
Age', Co~rlrrrrrrricatiorrRcscnrclr 28(4): 536-62.
Lyon, D. (1996) 'The Roots of the Information Society Idea', in N. Heap, R. Thomas,
G. Einon, R. A/lason and H. Mackay (eds) Ir~j~rrrrntio~r?i.clrrrulr~g)~(crrd Society, pp.
54-73. London: Sage.
360
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Selwyn: Reconsidering the digital divide
Mendoza, M. (2001) 'The Global Digital Divide: Exploring the Relation Between Core
National Conlputing and National Capacity and Progress in Hunlail Developnlent
over the Last Decade', PhD thesis, Tulane University.
MORI (1999) Tlrc Britidr rurd Eclrrrolog)~Basingscoke: Motorola.
Murdock, G. (2002) 'Debating Digital Divides', Errropcnrr Je~rrrmlcf Corirrrrrirricatiorr 17(3):
385-90.
Murdock, G., P. Hartnlan~land P. Gray (1996) 'Conceptualising Home Computing:
Resources and Practices', in N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon, R. Mason and H.
Mackay (eds) lr!fi)rr~rariorrTeclrirolc~gynrrd Society, pp. 269-83. London: Sage.
National Sratisucs (2001) Ir~ter~~etAccess: F i s t Q11~7rter2001. London: Natiol~alS~atistics.
National Scatistics (2002) I~~rerrretAccess: F i r ~ tQ~rarrcr2002. London: National S~atistics.
National Teleco~ll~~l~~nicatio~~and Inforlllation Adniiistration (NTIA) (1995) 'Falling
through the Net: a Survey of the 'Have-Nots' in Rural and Urban America', URL
(consulced 11 February 2004): l~ttp://www.~~tia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide
National Telecoilu~l~~~licationand Illtbrn~atio~lAdnlinisn-ation (NTIA) (1999) 'Falling
through the Net: Defuling [he Digital Divide', URL (consulted 11 February 2004):
l~ttp://\vww.~~tia.doc.gov/~~dahome/digitaldivide
National Telecoilu~lunicationand Infornlatio~lAdininistration (FTIA) (2000) 'Falling
through the Net: TOW&-dDigital Inclusion', URL (consulced 11 February 2004):
l~ttp://ww\~~.~i.ntia.doc.gov/ntial10111e/digit'~11divide
Norris, E (2001) Diqital Dividc: Civic Er~~qn~qerrlcrrt,Ir$~rr~lutiorrPol~crijlarrd t l ~ c1rrtcr.rrct
I;%t~r/d-~,r~idc.Canlbridge: Canlbridge Uiliversity Press.
Oppenhein~,C. (1998) Air lrrclrrsivc Socict)l: Strntegicsf~rTacklirlgi 1'c~vo.t)~.London: Institute
for Public Policy Research.
E. (21)00) 'Closing the Digital Divide in Rural America', Elcmrr~rr~rr~ric~~tiorrsPolicj]
14(4): 2S1-90.
Policy Action Team 15 (PATl5) (2000) Clasir~qtlre Digital Dividc: 6f;Jrlllati01l nrrd
Corrrrrr~rrrialtiilrrEclrr rol(~,qicsirr Deprived Ayeas. London: Department for Trade and
Industry.
Reddick, A. (2000) Tlrc Diral Dlqital Dividc: flrc b!l;,rriratiorr I l j q l r ~ i ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ill C L ~ J I ~ ~ ~ L Z .Ottawa:
Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
Reich, R . (1991) Tlrc T;T.br%.1f N~1tiorrs:o Blir~yrirrt~fiortlrc Frrtrrrr. Londo~~:Sinloll &
Schuster.
Research Surveys of Great Britain (RSBG) (2001) ICTl"lccss 17fllf U ~ L , :Rcpor.1 cJir rlrc
BorcI~rrror%.Srrrrlcl~- DEE Rcsca~lrReport 232. London: Department for Educatioll
and Employment.
Rogers, E. (1995) D$fji(~rr of lrrrro~~atiorrs.NewYork: Free Press.
Rogers, E. and E Shoenlalcer (1971) Corrrrrrrrrricotiorr of6111o~~eitic~rrs.New York: Free Press.
Rousseau, G.IC. and W.A. Rogers (1998) 'Computer Usage Patcerns of University
Faculty Me~nbersAcross the Life Span', Ci~rrrprrtcrsirr I31irr1nrrBclravior 14, 417-428.
Sel\vyn, N. (2002) 'E-stablishing an Inclusive Society?Tecllnology, Social Exclusion and
UI< Governnleilt Policy Making', _kc~rrrfrii/c f Sacill/ Pe~licy31(1): 1-20.
Selwyn, N. (2003) 'Apart kom Technology: U~lderstandingPeople's Non-use of
Technology ill Everyday Life', ?i~cl~rrolo~q~~irr Society 25(1): 99-1 16.
Selwyn, N., N. Marriott and P. Marriott (2001))'Net Gains or Net Pains? Business
Students' Use of the Internet in University', Hklrer Edrrcfltiorr Qlrnrarl11 54(2): 166-86.
Servon, L. and M. Nelson (2001) 'Conullunity Technology Cencres: Nan-rowing the
Digital Divide in Low-income, Urban Conln1~11lities',Je~lrrrlil/~JJ-Ur/~nrrA f i ~ i r s23(3-4):
279-90.
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
New Media & Society 6(3)
Silverstone, R . (1996) 'Future Imperfect: Inrbrnlation and Co~llrnunic~tionTechnologies
m Everyday Life', in W. Dutton (ed.) Ir!fi~rr~rafi~~rrarrd Corrrrirr,rricatiom Ec/~rro/o~yics:
Ihsrorrs arrd Realities, pp. 217-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sdverstone, R. (1999) W?ZJJSt~rdythe Media? London: Sage.
Sinunons, L. (2000) 'Me~suringUp Access', TeclrE[rroi~~L~~~~in(March-April): 12-15.
Strover, S. (2003) 'Remappmg the Dlgital Divide', Tllc Irforrirntiorr Socict), 19: 275-77.
Thomas, R. (1996) 'Access and Inequahq', in N. Heap, 12.Thomas, G. Einon, R.
Mason and H. Mackay (eds) Ir$~rrrratiorr ?ilc/rrrolo,g)~arrd Society, pp. 90-100. London:
Sage.
Touloust, C. (1997) 'Introductlon', in C. To~douseand T. Luke (eds) Tlrc Polirics of
Cj~bcrspr~ce,pp. 1-16. London: Routledge.
Townsend, E (1987) 'Conceptudlsmg Poverty', In Z. Fel-ge and S. Mder (eds) Dyrrarrrics
c?f Dcpr lwtlorr, pp. 31-44. Aldershot: Gower.
Tuonu, I. (20110)'Beyond the Dlgltal Dl~lldc.',paper presented to the UCB Human-
Centl~cConlputlng Workshop, Umverslry of Callforma Berkeley, July.
Uiuvers~t)lof Cahfor~uaLos h g e l e s (UCLA) (2000) UCLA Irrtcrrrct Rcpctrt: S~~rvc),ir!ytlrc
D~grrr~lFrctlcrc. Los Angeles: UCLA Centre for Coinn1umcahon Policy.
US Depart~~leiltof Conullerce (21100) 'About the & g ~ t d&vl+', U l U (consulted 11
February, 1004): l~ttp~//~~v\v.d~g~tdId~~~de.gov/about.ht~~~
Dglc, J. (1999) Tlre Nct~vorkSociety: Socrnl Aspect5 of A'crr~Ahdin (trans. L.
Spoorenberg). London: Sage.
Wallce~,A. (1997) 'Introductlon', 111A. Walker and C. Walker (eds) Britalrr Dividcd: tlrc
Gro~r~tliofSoc~rzlEsrlrrsiorr lrr tllc 1980s arid 1990s, pp. 1-9. London: Chdd Action
Poverty Group.
Warf, B (2001) 'Segueways Into Cyberspace: Mult~pleGeographies of the Digital
D~vlde',Errvrrorrrr~crrtarrd Plr~rrrrrrgB: Plarrr~rr~qG Dczr2112S(1): 3-19.
Webster, F (1995) Tlrcor~csof tlrc Irfirr~ratiorrSocrct)/. London: Routledge.
Wellmm, 13 (2001) 'Computer Networks as Social Networks', Scic~rcc,14 Septenlbcr, pp.
2031-4
Wdhelm, A. (7000) Derrrocmcy 111 tlrc Dtqrtal A,ye. London: Routledge.
Wdhelm, A (2007) 'The Dlgl~alDlvlde', Tlrc Irforrr~nrrorrSociety lS(4): 415-16.
Wds, M. (1999), 'Brldgmg the Dlgltal Dlvlde', Adrrlts Lcrlrrrir~yDecember: 10-11.
Wdson, E. (2000) Clostrrg tile Dlgrtal D ~ v ~ d c :arr hr~tralRCIIILLIJ.Br~<fir~,qtlr~Piesidc~~t.
Washmgton, DC: Internet Pollcy Institute.
Wdson, P. (1973) 'Sltuahonal Relevance', Ir$tr~rratiorr Storqc orr~lRctricvnl 9(S): 457-71.
Wlse, J. (1997) E.\plor~r~y Eclrrroloqy arrd Socral Space. London, Sage.
Wresch, W. (1996) Drrcoirrrcctcd: Hilvcx arrd Hru~c-rratslrr tlrc Ir~fitrrrrat~orrA,qc. New
Br~ulswlck,NJ: R~1tgc.r~Unlverslty Press.
NEIL SELWYN is a lecturer at Cardiff School of Social Sciences,where his research focuses
on technology and society. Recent books include Telling Tales on Technology(Ashgate,2002),
The Information Age (Universityof Wales Press, 2002) and Information Technology (Hodder
and Stoughton, 2001).
Address: School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII
Avenue, Cardiff CFlO 3WT, Uli. [ernail: selwynncQcardiff.ac.uk]
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely
Určeno pouze pro studijní účely