Page 27 - Šolsko polje, XXVII, 2016, no. 3-4: IEA ICILS in druge sodobne teme, ur. Eva Klemenčič
P. 27
p. mirazchiyski ■ the digital divide ...
– Very recent concept, mainly at descriptive level;
– Lack of conceptual elaboration and definition;
– Not being discussed against the general theory of social inequalities;
– Only a minor role of the “diffusion of innovations” theory;
– Lack of interdisciplinary research and preponderance of sociological
and economic studies, mostly ignoring the attitudes towards tech
nology and its use;
– Static (possession of technology) vs. dynamic (developing technolo
gy) approach;
– No serious elaboration of the consequences of the digital divide.
Traditionally seen as a gap in possession, the digital divide was per
ceived to be bridged with the rapid increase of computer and network ac
cess after 2000 (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). But even then the studies
on the digital divide had their focus on accessibility, ignoring the infor
mation inequality. In addition, possessing financial resources is not au
tomatically related to willingness to access and use information. As the
access to media becomes easier for everyone, regardless of the econom
ic power, the focus shifts to how information is used, what one does with
the information (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). The digital divide is a much
more complex phenomenon than just the possession of means to obtain
information (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). In addition, “As informatization
progresses in society, the cause and structural nature of social inequality
changes as well” (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001, p. 79). This is why the issue of
access to technology (the first level of digital divide) started to lose its im
portance and more recently the “beyond access” aspects or “second level of
the digital divide” (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008, p. 605) became issues and
attracted further attention. These beyond access issues include (van Dijk,
2006; van Dijk & Hacker, 2003):
– Inequalities in social, cultural and informational capital and re
sources amplified by the use of digital media;
– Inequality of positions and power in social networks;
– Differences in social, psychological and cultural backgrounds.
Further, the concepts of skills, competencies, and technology use and
applications were added, shifting the focus from inequalities in possession
to inequalities in social, cultural and informational capital and resourc
es. Some researchers have focused on inequalities in terms of positions of
power in social networks which could result in unequal participation op
portunities in different social areas, thus reflecting all common social and
cultural differences. These traditional inequalities in resources and capital
25
– Very recent concept, mainly at descriptive level;
– Lack of conceptual elaboration and definition;
– Not being discussed against the general theory of social inequalities;
– Only a minor role of the “diffusion of innovations” theory;
– Lack of interdisciplinary research and preponderance of sociological
and economic studies, mostly ignoring the attitudes towards tech
nology and its use;
– Static (possession of technology) vs. dynamic (developing technolo
gy) approach;
– No serious elaboration of the consequences of the digital divide.
Traditionally seen as a gap in possession, the digital divide was per
ceived to be bridged with the rapid increase of computer and network ac
cess after 2000 (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). But even then the studies
on the digital divide had their focus on accessibility, ignoring the infor
mation inequality. In addition, possessing financial resources is not au
tomatically related to willingness to access and use information. As the
access to media becomes easier for everyone, regardless of the econom
ic power, the focus shifts to how information is used, what one does with
the information (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). The digital divide is a much
more complex phenomenon than just the possession of means to obtain
information (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001). In addition, “As informatization
progresses in society, the cause and structural nature of social inequality
changes as well” (M.-C. Kim & Kim, 2001, p. 79). This is why the issue of
access to technology (the first level of digital divide) started to lose its im
portance and more recently the “beyond access” aspects or “second level of
the digital divide” (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008, p. 605) became issues and
attracted further attention. These beyond access issues include (van Dijk,
2006; van Dijk & Hacker, 2003):
– Inequalities in social, cultural and informational capital and re
sources amplified by the use of digital media;
– Inequality of positions and power in social networks;
– Differences in social, psychological and cultural backgrounds.
Further, the concepts of skills, competencies, and technology use and
applications were added, shifting the focus from inequalities in possession
to inequalities in social, cultural and informational capital and resourc
es. Some researchers have focused on inequalities in terms of positions of
power in social networks which could result in unequal participation op
portunities in different social areas, thus reflecting all common social and
cultural differences. These traditional inequalities in resources and capital
25
