1) The document summarizes research on the digital divide conducted between 2006-2013. It analyzed over 900 articles on the topic and identified patterns in the arguments. 2) A key finding is that an unequal access to the Internet is a new source of social inequality that requires intervention. However, the benefits of Internet access are dependent on existing offline resources and may be irrelevant or detrimental for some. 3) Non-users are often blamed individually rather than considering the systemic factors involved. The digital divide policies aim to create a perfectly connected digital society but could be viewed as a cultural project.

1. 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“

2. “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 Science
I. 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

4. 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)

5. Is digital divide closing?
Securing a
connection
Securing a
broadband
connection
Improving
digital
skills
?

6. 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 bias
1. 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

7.  Rich-get-richer effect (benefits dependent on offline
resources)
 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)

8. “ (…) 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)

9. 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

10.  “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

11. “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)

12. “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

13.  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

14. 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

15. “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

16. …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

17. 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 !)

18.  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”

20. Mgr. Petr Lupač, Ph.D.
PETR.LUPAC@FF.CUNI.CZ
@PetrLupac
Department of Sociology
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts
Celetna 13, Prague
The Czech Republic