Establishing the human perspective of the information society

Abstract

The digital divide is a core issue of the information society. It refers to the division between those who have access to, or are comfortable using, information and communication technology (ICT) (the haves) and those who do not have access to, or are not comfortable using ICT (the have-nots). The digital divide is a complex phenomenon. The majority of studies to date have examined the digital divide from a socio-economic perspective. These studies have identified income, education and employment as the key factors in determining the division between the haves and the have-nots. Very little research has explore the psychological, social or cultural factors that contribute to digital inequality in community. The current study filled this gap by using Bandura's social cognitive theory (SCT) to examine the psychological barriers that prevent individuals from integrating ICT into their everyday lives. SCT postulates that a person will act according to their perceived capabilities and the anticipated consequences of their actions. Four studies have explored the digital divide using SCT. Because of limitations in the research design these studies have shed only limited light onto current understanding of digital inequality in community. The current research was the first study exploring the digital divide that (i) incorporated both socio-economic and socio-cognitive factors, (ii) used a community context that ensured the recruitment of participants who represented the full spectrum of the general population, and (iii) was conducted in both the US and Australia. Data was gathered via self administered questionnaires in two communities: Brisbane, Australia and San Jose, USA. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 330 and 398 participants from the US and Australia, respectively. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to explore the research question: what influence do socio-cognitive factors have in predicting internet use by members of the general population when the effects of socio-economic factors are controlled? The results of this analysis revealed that attitudes do matter. The US study found that socio-economic factors were not statistically significant predictors of internet use. The only factor that found to be a significant predictor of use was internet self efficacy. In short individuals with higher levels of internet self efficacy reported higher levels of internet use. Unlike the US study, the Australian study found that by themselves several socio-economic factors predicted internet use. In order of importance these were age, gender, income and ethnicity. However, the study also revealed that when socio-economic factors are controlled for, and socio-cognitive variables included into the analysis, it is the socio-cognitive and not the socioeconomic variables that are the dominant (in fact the only!) predictors of internet use. The research illustrated that the digital divide involves more than just the availability of resources and funds to access those resources. It incorporates the internal forces of an individual that motivates to them to use or integrate ICT into their lives. The digital divide is not just about ICT such as computers and the internet. It is about people. As such, the key to solving the issue of digital inequality is not going to be found with corporate or government funds providing physical access to technology. Instead, the key to solving digital inequality is inside the individual person. The alternative view of the digital divide presented in this research is by no means intended to minimise the role played by socio-economic factors. Indeed, the socioeconomic perspective has helped shed light on a very real social issue. What this research has done is suggest that the digital divide is more complex and more involved than has been imagined, and that further and different research is required if genuine insights and real steps are going to be made in establishing an information society for all.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.