DIGITAL DISCONNECTPredictors and Solutions for Digital Disengagement

Ellen Helsper

BACK AND FORTH…BACK AND FORTH

Rich get richer?

Access:• Mobility• Ubiquity• Privacy

Skills• Technical• Social• Critical• Creative

Motivations• Societal• Personal

Engagement• Entertainment• Information• Communicatio

n• Participation• Creativity

DIGITAL VULNERABILITY/INCLUSION

SOCIAL VULNERABILITY/INCLUSION

Economic :• Education• Income• Occupation

Cultural• Generation• Gender• Ethnicity

Social• Civic

participation• Isolation

Personal• Health• Personality

Engagement• Entertainment• Information• Communication• Participation• Creativity

COMPOUND DISADVANTAGE2007, R2 = 0.89

2003, R2 = 0.94

2005, R2 = 0.91

2009, R2 = 0.94

Deep exclusion Deep Inclusion --- Level of social inclusion ---

--- Le

vel o

f dig

ital i

nclu

sion

---

Deep

exc

lusio

n

Deep

Incl

usio

n

Source: OxIS 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009

SPECIFIC VULNERABLE GROUPS: ACCESS INEQUALITY

2003 2005 2007 2009-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

44%

60%

38%

61%

30%

3%

Age

#REF!

Educa-tion

In-come

#REF!

Gender

Diffe

renc

e in

hom

e ac

cess

in p

erce

ntag

e po

ints

Urban: No significant differenceEthnicity: No significant difference at the moment

SPECIFIC VULNERABLE GROUPS: ACCESS LEVELS

2005 2007 20090%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

87%

28%

53%

91%

35%

97%

High SESLow SESSecondaryUniversityLow incomeHigh income

SPECIFIC VULNERABLE GROUPS: USE INEQUALITY

2003 2005 2007 20090%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3%

53%59%

84%

59%Gender

Age

SES

Educ (no students)

Income

Diffe

renc

e in

hom

e us

e in

per

cent

age

poin

ts

CHOICE OR EXCLUSION?

Choice “Personality”

Inevitability (social “pressure”)

Acculturation/Socialisation

Exclusion Material Wealth

Forced choice?

RELATIVITY AND CONTEXTUALITY OF EXCLUSIONRelativityRelative deprivation can be as important if not more so than absolute deprivation. For some key clusters digitally excluded people may suffer from higher levels of disadvantage in the context of their community than other with the same levels of ‘objective’ digital exclusion. (National Audit Office report, 2009)

Proxy useOne third of non-users in the UK rely “..on family or friends to use the Internet on their behalf, which means they belong to networks of people able to do this for them” (Helsper & Godoy, 2011)

REASONS FOR NON-USE OVER TIME

2005 2007 20090%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

42%

50%51%63%

45% 48%44%

64%

High Costs No Access No Skills No Interest

% o

f Ex-

and

Non

-Use

rs w

ho sa

y th

is fa

ctor

was

im

port

ant f

or st

oppi

ng to

use

/not

usi

ng th

e In

-te

rnet

Base: Non and Ex-users of the internet: 2005 N=876; 2007 N=773; 2009 N=612.

REASONS FOR NON-USE OVER TIME

Base: Non-users

DISENGAGED FROM WHAT?

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

C1C2Secondary educ

Further educ

Higher educ

DE Basic Educ

AB

14 to 25yrs

26-45yrs

46-65yrs

66+ yrs

Female

Male

Urban

Rural

Low £

Middle £Higher £

Children

No Children

Disabled

Not disabled

Student

Employed

Retired

Unemployed

Caretaker

AsianAfrican C.

White

Single

Married

Cohabit

Separated

MobileBroadband

Dialup

ElsewhereHome Home & Elsewhere

Negative attNeutral att

Pos att

Info

Learning

Gaming

LeisureCommunication

Individual networking

Social Networking

Buying

Investing

PoliticsCivic

No political

No Info

No Gaming

No Learning No Leisure

No Communication

No Individual networking

No Social Networking

No Investing

No Politics

No civic

ENGAGEMENT LADDER (YOUNG ADULTS)

Num

ber o

f Int

erne

t use

rs

ShoppingEntertainment

Travel

Topicalities

TrainingFact Checking

Perso

n to Pers

on

Network

Finance

Egov

ernm

ent

Socia

l Netw

ork

Diary

Civic Participation0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Number of activities that undertakes in total

LESSONS LEARNED

IPTS

EXAMPLES OF (RESEARCH) PRACTICE Case I The socially isolated Case II NEETs Case III Ethnic Minorities Case IV Travellers/Gypsies Case V Disabled individuals

CASE III ETHNIC MINORITIES“I don't think minorities in general go for that...meeting people online. Because I don't think they're that open minded, generally.” (African Caribbean teenager)

Scho

ol w

ork

Vide

os

Dow

nloa

...

New

s

Emai

l

Chat

Gam

es

Vitru

al w

...

Web

cam

Post

ing

...

Blog

Crea

ted

a...

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

82% 81%

49%54%

64%

32%

47%

23%

36% 36%

14%24%

85%76%

43%48%

61%

23%

44%

15%

31% 30%

11%17%

Discriminated Not discriminated

BEST PRACTICE AND INTERVENTIONS

Best practice does not start with IT but

…IT can play an important role in engaging people from disadvantaged backgrounds

if …inclusion is seen as a process starting from

specific social, personal, cultural and economic situation, looking at access, skills, and attitudes and concerned with several types of engagement.

FOOD FOR THOUGHTEvaluation of ‘success’ with the most vulnerable in society often requires a normative solution:

What do we consider to be inclusion? Is it up to the different groups to decide what

inclusion means to them?

Pull

Push