Based on the article by:
Paul DiMaggio and Eszter Hargittai (2001)
From the ‘Digital Divide’ to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases
I summarized what I’ve read according to my own understanding and happy to share it with all my blog readers.
Definition
DIGITAL DIVIDE: inequality between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ differentiated by dichotomous measures of access to or use of the new technologies.
DIGITAL INEQUALITY: Besides differences in access, it also refers to inequality among persons with formal access to the Internet.
Varied ACCESS definition (operational):
1. Exploring the dichotomous distinction between people who use the Web and other Internet services and people who do not (most studies).
2. Literally to refer to whether a person had the means to connect to the Internet if she/he so chose (earlier studies).
3. Sometimes used as a synonym for USE (recent use).
Some studies focused on both ACCESS and USE:
· More people have ACCESS than USE it (NTIA, 1998)
· Resources drive ACCESS, demand drives intensity of USE among people who have ACCESS (NTIA, 1998)
· Adults (25-54yrs) have more ACCESS than young adults (NTIA, 2000)
· With Internet ACCESS at home, teenagers spend more time online than adults (Kraut et al, 1996)
· The gap between men and women in ACCESS to the Internet influenced by income and other resources, BUT among the people with ACCESS, women USE Internet less frequently than men, independence of differences in income (Bimber, 2000)
Historical view of Internet ACCESS
1. Observation in mid-1990s:
The emergence of Internet as mass medium in mid-1990s would enhance ACCESS equality to information by rapid reduction of the cost of information.
2. Observation in 1995 onwards:
DIGITAL INEQUALITY started to increase, the analyst called it DIGITAL DIVIDE between the online and the offline, the information ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.
Historical view of DIGITAL DIVIDE
DIGITAL DIVIDE at the earlier stage of diffusion is viewed as normal and appropriate as compared to the telephone diffusion earlier.
In presenting data of DIGITAL DIVIDE studies, there’s a changed in terms of reported level and categories. The data that focus on the level of households only has been changed to include both households and individuals. The earlier reports that only categorized the data into urban and rural have moved to include other demographic factors like race, income, education, age, and disability status (NTIA, 2000).
Research problem
· The concern of the increasing DIGITAL DIVIDE between the online and offline (information ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’)
Proofs:
1. After technological euphoria (mid 1990s) wore off, observers noted that some kinds of people were more likely to use the Internet than others – and that, for the most part, groups with higher levels of access to the Internet were the same groups (whites, men, residents of urban areas) that had greater access to education, income, and other resources that help people get ahead (Hoffman and Novak, 1998, 1999; Benton, 1998; Strover, 1999).
2. The concern of this inequality emerged as early as 1995 (Anderson et al. 1995), when just 3% of America had ever used WWW (Pew Center, 1995).
3. Since 1995, researchers in government and private sector have undertaken numerous surveys that have documented persistent differences in the rates at which members of different groups use the new medium (NTIA 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000).
· Issues of ACCESS and USE
Proofs
1. Studies that measured both access and the extent of Internet use have found: 1. more people have access than use it (NTIA, 1998); and 2. whereas resources drive access, demand drives intensity of use among people who have access.
2. Thus, young adults are less likely to report having access than adults between the ages of 25 and 54 (NTIA, 2000)
3. But in homes with Internet access, teenagers spend more time online than adults (Kraut et al 1996).
4. Gender differences in income and other resources account for the gap between men and women in access to the Internet, but among people with access, women use the Internet less frequently than otherwise comparable to men, independent of differences in income (Bimber, 2000).
Motivation/significant for this study
The believe that the research questions and methods appropriate for clarifying distributive issues are different now than they were at the earlier stage of Internet diffusion.
Goals
· To develop a testable model of the relationship between individual characteristics, dimensions of inequality, and positive outcome of technology use.
· To study institutional issues to understand patterns of inequality as evolving consequences of interactions among firms’ strategic choices, consumers’ responses, and government policies.
Research questions on ACCESS to Internet
1. To redefine ACCESS:
· What are people doing?
· What are they able to do?
· When they go online?
2. Internet is not a fixed object
· What influence/contribute to the Internet inequality?
· Internet inequality patterns reflects: 1. individual resources, 2. economic, 3. politics
Why rising penetration levels require an expanded paradigm?
· Internet diffusion process is different from other communication technologies diffusion.
· The increasing number of American online.
· New adopters from disprivileged family can help the family members to gain access to Internet.
· Proofs from studies:
a. Penetration has increased, access inequality has declined (Horrigan, 2000a; NTIA, 2000)
b. Higher Internet penetration among younger generation- age below 50.
Had the DIGITAL DIVIDE been overcome?
· Based on telephone history, Compaine (2000) said that the combination of market forces and government programs currently in place are achieving the goal to ensure universal access already.
Argument: Is the telephone the right analogy? (Comparing Internet and telephone)
· Ability to start ACCESS (depends on quality of connection & equipment, user know-how, and social support) is different – make it less similar to 20th century telephone.
Researchers’ anticipation of INEQUALITY
High rates of Internet penetration will not eliminate inequality so much as increase the salience of new kinds of inequality – inequality among Internet users in the extent to how the Internet users benefited the technology.
Findings/ Hypotheses
Focus of INTERNET INEQUALITY
How Internet users benefited the technology?
Dimension of digital inequality in Internet penetration
In differentiating access, support, and use, there are 4 steps involve in the conception of inequality of technological opportunity:
1. Identifying critical dimension of inequality.
· Variation of inequality in the:
a. Technical means (hardware & software)
b. Extend people’s autonomy in using web (workplace/home)
c. People’s skill to use internet
d. Social support Internet users can draw
e. Purposes people used the technology
· General Hypothesis: Each of these types of inequality is likely to shape significantly the experience that users have online, their utilizations of internet, satisfactions, and returns of use in the forms of human capital, social capital, earnings or political efficacy outcomes.
· Hypotheses:
a. Inequality in technical apparatus (hardware & software):
Hypothesis: inferior technical tools reduces the level of users’ benefit directly or indirectly because of limited access sites and their less gratifying experiences.
b. Inequality in autonomy of use (workplace/home)
Hypothesis:
1. Access to the Internet at work is associated with users organizational ranks and functional position.
2. The greater the autonomy of use among users with access, the greater the benefits they derive.
c. Inequality in skill to use Internet (cognitive access)
Relevant knowledge:
1. Recipe knowledge: log on, searches, download.
2. Background knowledge: helpful to web users but not specific to Internet use (e.g: Booleian logic)
3. Integrative knowledge: the way the web operates enable users to navigate more effectively.
4. Technical knowledge: about software, hardware, networks.
(1-4 above = Internet Competence)
INTERNET COMPETENCE: the capacity to respond pragmatically & intuitively to challenges & opportunity in a manner that exploits the Internet’s potential.
Hypothesis:
1. Internet competence is related directly to individuals’ capacity to use the Internet for the purposes they choose.
2. Internet competence is related to the satisfaction users derive from the experience (stressful/rewarding/persist use/acquire skills)
d. Inequality in the availability of social support: Distribution & impact of 3 kinds of supports:
1. Formal technical assistant (technician, customer support staff etc.).
2. Technical assistance from friends & family members.
3. Emotional reinforcement from friends & family.
Hypothesis:
1. All kinds of social supports increase users’ motivation to use the technology & to develop digital competence.
2. Variation in social support influences the returns to Internet access that have to be measured.
e. Variation in used: How do income, education, and other factors influence the purposes for which one uses the Internet?
Hypothesis:
1. In the long run, education will be a strong predictor of Internet use for the enhancement of human capital, the development of social capital, and political participation.
2. Such uses will be more strongly associated with positive life outcomes than the forms of Internet use to represent pure consumption activities.
· Based on the above hypotheses, we can draw A MODEL OF THE INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INEQUALITY ON INDIVIDUAL LIFE CHANCES that may both apply to the Internet and generalize beyond it:
Probable Cause → Effect
INDEPENDENT MEDIATING DEPENDANT
VARIABLES → VARIABLES → VARIABLES
·Efficacy ·Apparatus Increasing in:
·Intensity quality ·Human capital
·Purposes → ·Autonomy → ·Social capital
·Skill ·Earnings
·Support
· Other forms of inequality:
1. Cross-national variation in Internet access & use – e.g: citizenship, global divide
2. Social & linguistic groups – the availability of culturally & linguistic specific Internet content of different kinds and their reach ability.
· We also need to understand the institutional issues in order to understand patterns of inequality as simplified below:
Social organization of Technological Inequality
Government regulations
e.g: issues accessibility standards for public institutions to comply
+
Customers’ responses
↓
Corporate strategies
e.g: decision to design website
↓
Change individuals’ access to technology
e.g: influence people’s ability to navigate the web
Conclusion
The current development of Internet access expansion and institutional changes requires the researchers to move beyond the old paradigm of ‘digital divide’ if they want to document and explain important dimensions of ‘digital inequality’ as Internet penetration continues to increase.
The writers call for the researcher to particularly:
1. Expand the focus of DIGITAL DIVIDE research between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ to the full range of DIGITAL INEQUALITY in equipment, autonomy, skill, support, and scope of USE among those who are already online.
2. Go beyond documenting INEQUALITY to developing and testing models of the processes that cause or improve INEQUALITY by mediating the relationship between individuals’ social identities and their ACCESS to and USE of new technologies.
3. Extend such models to the relationship between the USE of these technologies and valued individual-level outcomes, and investigate variations in potential of return to technology USE for different subgroups within the population.
4. Supplement individual-level research with analysis of institutional factors that shape and modify over time and the relationships between individual characteristics and individual outcomes.
5. Expand the research on DIGITAL INEQUALITY beyond the survey method.
Overall I found this article discusses the up to date issues of digital divide which go beyond the old interpretation. It moves the dimension to look at the digital inequality which covers many aspects. It is a good arrangement for the writers to define the digital divide and digital inequality in the beginning of the article. And in reading through the article I found out that the writers also used the terms such as Internet inequality and technology inequality. There’s no specific explanation on each of that terms but I guess the writers refer that to the digital inequality as well. This article consists of a good content but the way it’s organized made it difficult for me to categorize the points, like what are the exact objectives, problems, significant of the study etc. Fortunately, the abstract is quite helpful. I think the paper is written in the earlier stage of the study but it is also helpful for the readers especially the research beginners to learn the systematic or organize ways of reviewing the literatures and conceptual terms if the writers put into details on how they analyze the literatures. This is my first review for my first reading on DiMaggio and Hargittai article. I still have 3 more articles from the same writers to work on. If anybody out there (including the writers themselvesJ) has read the same article and has a different understanding or just wants to comment, please feel free to discuss it here. I always hope to learn more. Thank you.
Posted by suemuda 
Just because 