Inequality in the Internet Age: A Twenty-First Century Dilemma

Abstract

We now live in a networked, global environment where having instant access to news and data—the currencies of the information age—require computer-mediated technologies and the competency to use them. Though knowledge-intensive activities are a critical component of the modern economy (Hargittai 2002), access to and proficiency with information and communication technologies are not equally shared among populations within countries or between countries themselves. The unequal allocation of digital resources insures that some countries and populations will find it difficult to compete in the global game of life (Norris 2001). This special section, "Inequality in the Internet Age: Macro and Micro Perspectives," is an extended discussion of this nascent form of human disparity. The goal of this project was to bring together several scholars whose work is expanding our understanding of the disparate distribution of information and communication technologies as well as differences in human proficiency with these resources. The study of inequality and new media technologies encompasses a wide variety of perspectives and units of analysis; our contributors and their work reflect that diversity. Changes in technology have always been of significant interest—if not concern—to sociologists because they shape, in some fashion, how people interact and the basis for their actions. Moreover, sociology has a rich history of examining the inequality that stems from the unequal distribution of social and technological resources. Several classical social theorists, among them Tönnies, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, discuss the class inequalities borne out of the social and technological change associated with the urbanization and industrialization at the turn of the twentieth century. In the United States, during the 1950s, increasing levels of suburbanization, new federally subsidized highways, greater diffusion of telephony, and other technological advancements changed how and where people lived. For example, a person could live in one place and work in another, allowing her to focus a substantial portion of her life and interests outside the spatial limits of the workplace (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Warren 1978). These kinds of changes contributed to the erosion of inner city tax bases and created new forms of inequality. Furthermore, as they altered the social and spatial topography of our lives there were those who argued that territorial distinctions no longer mattered much as we were now all citizens of a "Mass Society" (Vidich and Bensman 1958). In this society, the world's major cities eclipsed the influence of small towns and less urbanized countries. Today, the most palpable technological change comes in the form of information and communication technologies and the inequality that results from the unequal distribution of these technological resources. Life in the "Internet society" is—like human life everywhere—hierarchical. While there are many issues surrounding digital inequality, they can be generally reduced to access and proficiency (DiMaggio et al. 2001; Whitacre and Mills 2007). Differences in access and know-how combine in many and varied ways to create plural forms of inequality; but together they signify a loss of opportunities for the "have nots" (Akca, Sayili, and Esengun 2006; Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal 2008; Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury 2003). On the other hand, those with access and expertise enjoy what we might call "digital capital" or the benefits that access to and proficiency in Internet technologies affords them (Stern, Adams, and Elsasser 2009). In terms of access to these technologies, sometimes referred to as the first-level of the digital divide, the most compelling works have evaluated the structural arrangements and international relationships that inhibit or hasten technological diffusion across the globe (Crenshaw and Robison 2006). Indeed, research supports the assertion that this diffusion, or lack thereof, provides a competitive advantage to the more "wired" countries regarding, for example, access to world markets and cutting edge ideas (Driori 2006). In addition, other work in the U.S. has shown that these technologies and their innovations diffuse more slowly to rural areas (Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal 2008; Whitacre 2007) and this affects the way people use their connections (Horrigan and Rainie 2006; Stern, Adams, and Elsasser 2009). There are, it appears, social and political forces that impact Internet diffusion. Technological proficiency also has an impact on the effectiveness and usefulness of Internet technologies. For example, recent research shows that, beyond access, ability to utilize these technologies to one's advantage is highly stratified by race, socio-economic status, and residential location (Hargittai 2007; Hogan et al. 2007). This type of disparity is referred to as the second-level digital divide (Hargittai 2002). Different researchers have grappled with ways to measure proficiency including the time people spend online, the number of years that they have used the Internet, and the different skills one uses when online (see Hargittai 2002, 2007; Haythornthwaite 2001; Robinson, DiMaggio, and Hargittai 2003). In short, no matter how it is measured the consensus is that proficiency matters. For example, research shows that disparities in aptitude affect how and why people use the Web (Hargittai, this issue) and whether one uses the Internet solely for entertainment purposes, as many novices do, rather than for occupational training or major financial decisions means types of uses can potentially impact life chances (Horrigan and Rainie 2006). Another issue worthy of discussion is that of digital acceptance—that is, how do we perceive information provided, garnered, or gathered through our technological tools? Increasingly, Web surveys and other Internet-based data collection methods are being used to gather social science data yet the information provided through these means may not be getting equal respect or representation when compared with more "traditional" forms of data collection. This is true at a time when our ability to obtain quality sampling frames—traditionally, landline telephone records—is seriously threatened. Thus, beyond access to and proficiency with these technologies, there is a perception that data collected "out there" is in some way compromised. The first two articles in this special section meaningfully address issues of the global digital divide, yet they do so in very different ways. Drori's research explains this divide in terms of access to and innovation of emergent Internet technologies. Her work disentangles two opposing policy agendas that have implications for reducing global technological inequities. Specifically, she illustrates that there are formal strategies seeking to provide equality in access to Internet technologies (diffusion) and those seeking to promote technological innovation (intellectual property). The problem, however, is viewing these policies as discrete entities without the recognition that access to and ownership of these technologies are not only fundamentally linked but both must be present to truly close the gap or reduce the "global divide." The article provides one other piece of the puzzle for understanding why some countries remain laggards while others become leaders in global information and communication technologies. Continuing with explanations for laggards and leaders in global information and communication technologies, Robison and Crenshaw take up several questions about global Internet diffusion that remain previously unanswered. The authors use a sample of 143 countries and nearly 15 years worth of panel data to explore how demographic differences such as rates of fertility; socio-political variables such as state failure, democracy, terrorism, or war; urbanization; and gross domestic product influence a country's degree of Internet access. Interestingly, they find, for example, that while fertility rates and socio-political instability negatively influence Internet diffusion, other predictors such as urbanization help facilitate it. Taking these findings in connection with Drori's might suggest that a politically stable country with some urban centers and policies that are focused on both innovation and access, may be the most interesting to watch over the next several decades as our world, in the words of Thomas Friedman (2005), becomes "flat" due to information and communication technologies. Hargittai takes up the issue of technological proficiency among people we assume to be savvy with these technologies: young adults who have grown up in the "the Internet society" who she refers to as "digital natives." She suggests that politicians, journalists, and even researchers tend to focus on problems of only access while ignoring issues of proficiency or Web skills. Nonetheless, her research shows us that skills are not equally shared among young people and, in particular, parental education, race, socio-economic status, gender, ready access to the Web, and general experience play a role in one's skill level. What is more, she demonstrates that even when we take into account access to the Web, socio-economic status plays an important role in diverse usage of the tool, which is a critical, but largely neglected, component to the study of digital inequality. The final article addresses a question about how we perceive data gathered from or on the Web. Farrell and Petersen suggest that until very recently there has been, in fact, reluctance among sociologists to use this type of data and that this unwillingness to use data from the Web has left sociologists lagging behind other disciplines. The central concern has been with the quality of the data coming from the Web due to coverage error or the lack of appropriate sampling frames. Nonetheless, Farrell and Petersen systematically discuss issues of representativeness, sampling frames, internal validity, and more and conclude with useful recommendations for using Web-based data such as employing a mixed-mode approach where researchers use a combination of Web survey data along with telephone or mail surveys. This approach is inline with many of the suggestions made by leaders in the survey research field (see Dillman, Smyth, and Christian 2009). In summary, the digital divide is a moving target and it is far too early to predict its life course. But one thing is certain, there will be inequalities of many kinds and forms around access to digital technologies and the know-how to use them. Moreover, questions surrounding the validity of Internet-based research are only going to grow more pronounced, perhaps challenging a few of the conventional epistemologies that prop up our discipline. These three articles and the research note are together a valuable cache for those of us who care about the inescapable age we call the digital.

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 — 26 citations exist upstream.

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