Content uploaded by Jan A.G.M. Van Dijk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan A.G.M. Van Dijk on Aug 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
The Role of Digital Technologies on Social Development, Well-Being of All and
the Approach of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Professor Jan A.G.M. van Dijk, University of Twente (NL)
Main statements
• Currently, digital inequality reinforces existing social inequality.
• The digital divide cannot be closed completely. When the whole world population would
reach access to the digital media such as the Internet, inequalities of digital skills, usage
and outcomes or benefits remain and even tend to grow.
• Until recently, digital divide policy was focused on physical access. Now improving digital
skills, better Internet usage opportunities or benefits and building awareness of positive
attitudes of the Internet regulating negative uses are becoming more and more important.
• Policy perspectives to solve the digital divide need to be multidimensional: technological,
economic, educational, social and persuasive (creating awareness).
• Policies to close the digital divide have to reduce social and digital inequality
simultaneously.
• The current Covid-19 pandemic reinforces both existing social inequalities and digital
inequality. Nevertheless, supporting reliable and useful information and communication
about Covid-19 on the Internet and mobile phones is the best policy to mitigate digital
inequality and to fight against the virus.
Access of digital media and inequality
The digital divide is a complex and dynamic phenomenon. There are several digital divides and
they are continually changing. The access to digital media such as computers and the Internet is a
process that starts with a motivation and a positive attitude for using these media. Then people
need physical access getting a type of computer and an Internet connection. This is not enough:
the next phase is to develop a series of digital skills. After these phase people can use all kinds of
applications that are relevant for them. Finally, they hope to find the benefits of using these
media. Of course, the outcomes are the main objective of this process.
In the last 25 years digital divide research and policy has moved at three levels
1
. Until
about the year 2010 physical access was the main interest for both research and policy. Having
some type of computer and Internet connection for everybody was the main objective. This is
called the First Level of digital divide research and policy in the literature. After some time both
researchers and policymakers were convinced that digital literacy or skills and usage are in fact
more important in talking about digital inequality. This is called the Second Level. Since about
1
Scheerder A, van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM. Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A
systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics 2017;34:1607-1624.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
2015 the outcomes of computer and Internet use came forward in a Third Level of digital divide
research and policy. By that time not only positive outcomes were observed but also negative
ones such as cybercrime, illegal hacking, hate speech and disinformation on the social media and
smartphone, Internet or game addiction.
This process of four phases of access is the core of a theory about the digital divide called
Resources and Appropriation theory developed and tested in many surveys during the last 25 years by
the author of this paper.
2
The main statement of this theory is that particular personal and
positional categories of individuals have more or less resources in following this four phases
process and its outcomes or benefits, a process called appropriation of a technology. All these
factors can be perceived in a model that has shown to be fitting to the data in many countries
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1: A Causal Model of Resources and Appropriation Theory of the Digital Divide
Today, the categories of age, gender, ethnicity, labor, education and nation or region are
the most important factors in explaining digital inequality in all phases. These categories have
unequal resources such as material (income), mental (knowledge), social (relationships) and
cultural capital. In the last 25 years the categories at the ‘right side’ of the digital divide were
young people, people with high education and occupations, in many countries first of all males,
the ethnic majority in a country and people living in an urban environment and in developed
countries. At the ‘wrong side’ of the digital divide were elderly people, people with low education
and low occupations or being unemployed, often females, ethnic minorities and people in rural
2
Jan van Dijk (2005). The Deepening Divide, Sage Publications and Jan van Dijk (2020). The Digital Divide, Polity Press.
environments and developing countries. Between 1995 and 2010 the digital gaps between these
categories were only widening. Currently, some of the gaps are slowly closing (motivation and
physical access) while the gaps of digital skills, usage and outcomes are still widening (see Note 2
and below). In many countries the gender gap has disappeared
3
Motivation of wanting to use a computer or the Internet has grown substantially since the
1990s in the whole world. Though negative outcomes of Internet use have become to the fore in
the last ten years, positive attitudes of wanting to use the Internet still dominate in surveys
worldwide.
In terms of physical access developed countries have about 70 to 98 percent Internet
access while developing countries still average around 40-42 percent. On average, half of the
world population have now Internet access and at least one access device (from PC to
smartphone). However, since the year 2000 the gap between developed en developing countries
in physical access is still widening (in 2000 it was 29% and in 2018 it was 40%). See Figure 2.
Figure 2: Internet Users per 100 Inhabitants in Developed and Developing Countries (ITU)
The following decade this gap is expected to close partly. In the mean time technological
development is not halting. Even in a rich country with 98% Internet access, the Netherlands, we
have observed that some people (especially with high income and education) have several access
devices and many subscriptions and apps while others (with low income and education) only
have one
4
. Worldwide people with low income, education and social class hope to catch-up with
using a mobile or smartphone. This type of device is the hope for the developing countries at
least getting access via one medium, but in this way they cannot ‘leapfrog’ technological phases of
evolution. Some observers are talking about the appearance of ‘mobile underclass’ in both
developed and developing countries
5
. Mobile (smart) phones are still inferior in work, education,
business and citizen use as compared to PCs and laptops with fixed and broader connections.
3
I.T.U. (2018). Measuring the Information Society Report, Volume 1, ITU: International Telecommunication Union,
Geneva.
4
Van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM. (2019) The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access
to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society 2019; 21(2):354-375. doi:10.1177/1461444818797082
5
Napoli PM and Obar JA (2014) The Emerging Mobile Internet Underclass: A Critique of Mobile Internet Access.
The Information Society 30(5): 323-334.
The next phase is digital skills or literacy. We have developed a framework of six digital
skills. Primary medium-related skills are operational and formal (navigation) skills. Advanced
content-related skills are information, communication, content creation and strategic skills
6
. Here
the differences in populations are big and growing
7
. Especially, people with high education and
occupations are superior to people with low education and manual jobs concerning content-
related digital skills. In terms of operational and formal skills young people are much better than
seniors. However, a surprise for the readers might be that seniors are better in content-related
skills than young people
8
! Probably because of their experience in life, work and education.
In usage of the digital media/the Internet differences between personal and positional
categories have grown in the last 25 years
9
. The main causes are 1. the growing social and cultural
differentiation of modern society and 2. the growth of all kinds of Internet and mobile
applications. The result is that people with different social class, age, gender, ethnic and cultural
origin and other backgrounds are increasingly using the Internet differently. A structural divide
observed here is called the usage gap: people with high education and social class use more
informational, educational, work and career enhancing applications and people with low
education and social class primarily use applications of entertainment, chat or simple
communication and e-shopping
10
.
The final phase is benefitting from Internet use. Unfortunately, those people at the right
side of the digital divide report more positive outcomes of Internet use in all domains of society
(economy, social, politics, cultural etc.) and are better prepared to cope with the negative
outcomes. Those people at the wrong side of the divide report the flipside of these
observations
11
.
All these phases and divides show that existing social inequalities of all kinds are reflected
in digital inequalities. In practice they are even reinforce these old inequalities because the
inequality of outcomes support better or worse resources and participation in society: on the job
market, in politics and citizenship, social networking and cultural (online) activities. When I
started my research about the Internet in the 1980s I was optimistic that this promising new
medium would support equality because it is relatively cheap offering free information and apps
and because it is easier to use than particular traditional media (for instance consulting a library).
After 25 years of research I am disappointed. The opposite has happened. The main conclusion
6
Van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. and van Deursen, Alexander J.A.M. (2014). Digital Skills, Unlocking the information society. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7
Van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2014a). Internet skill levels increase, but gaps widen: A longitudinal cross-sectional
analysis (2010–2013) among the Dutch population. Information, Communication & Society, 18(7), 782–797
8
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., and Peters, O. (2011) Rethinking internet skills: the contribution of
gender, age, education, internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related internet skills,
Poetics, 39(2): 125–44.
9
Blank G, Groselj D. Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society
2014; 17(4):417-435. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189.
Van Deursen AJAM, Van Dijk JAGM, Ten Klooster PM. Increasing inequalities in what we do online. A
Longitudinal Cross-Sectional Analysis of Internet Activities among the Dutch Population (2010 To 2013) over
Gender, Age, Education, and Income. Informatics and Telematics 2015; 32(2):259-272. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.09.003
10
Zillien N, Hargittai E. Digital distinction: Status‐specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly
2009;90(2):274-291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617. Also see Note 8.
11
Van Deursen AJAM, Helsper EJ. Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging
with the Internet. New Media & Society 2018; 20(7): 2333-2351. doi:10.1177/1461444817715282; Jan van Dijk (2020)
The Digital Divide. Cambridge UK, Medford MA USA: Polity Press.
of my last book called The Digital Divide argues that unfortunately digital inequality reinforces
existing social inequality. How can we turn the tide? This is the next question to be answered.
Closing the digital divide?
Considering all these kinds of digital divides we have to conclude that the digital divide can
‘never’ be fully closed. Motivation and positive attitudes about the Internet have grown since the
1990s though negative effects of Internet use have appeared. Physical access is growing and we
can expect that in two decades about 75-80% of the world population will have Internet access.
However, technology changes. With new types of digital media the history of physical access will
be repeated: the Internet of Things, Augmented and Virtual Reality and others are first adopted
by young people with high education and income. Some will possess all digital media and others
only one type. Yet, the most important trend is that access problems are shifting from physical to
skills an usage access
12
. The more advanced the Internet applications become, the more digital
skills are needed, especially content-related skills (information, communication, strategic). The
more applications are offered, the more they are used differently by particular groups of people.
Because social inequality is increasing in many parts of the world, digital inequality will
follow. The simple reason is that digital media are important tools that tend to support people
with high positions more than those with low positions. Digital inequality is of a relative kind
(more or less) and not absolute (have or have not).
Dimensions and priorities of digital divide policies
As the digital divide is shifting from physical access to skills and usage policies to close or to
mitigate the digital divide also have to shift. This appears to happen today. Until recently digital
divide policy in the world was completely focused on physical access. While this might still be the
first priority in the developing countries in a global policy perspective we are shifting to problems
of skills and usage
13
. In Table 1 (p.134 of my book) are the five perspectives of policy.
12
Van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM. The Digital Divide Shifts to Differences in Usage. New Media & Society
2014; 16(3):507-526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959; van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2015a)
Internet skill levels increase, but gaps widen: a longitudinal cross-sectional analysis (2010–2013), Information,
Communication & Society, 18(7):782–97.
13
See for instance World Bank (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington DC and The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019)
The Inclusive Internet Index 2018, https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/assets/external/downloads/3i-executive-
summary.pdf.
When until about the year 2010 technological and economic perspectives completely dominated
all government and other public institutions policies, today educational, social and persuasive
(building awareness) perspectives come forwards. In fact all these perspectives are needed
simultaneously. However, the educational, social and persuasive perspectives need more time and
effort for social development and well-being for all and for the fight against the Covid-19
pandemic (see below).
Reducing both social and digital inequality
The next main conclusion is it is impossible to lessen digital inequality without reducing the cause
of it: existing social inequality. As many observers notice that economic and social inequality are
rising in large parts of the world we are confronted with the fact that closing the digital divide is
an uphill struggle of simultaneously fighting against digital and social inequality. The following
five strategies are my solutions
14
:
The most important strategy is to improve social mobility. This means more and better
employment and relatively more fixed jobs instead of flexible and insecure jobs. It also means
better opportunities of education for all, with both traditional and digital media means. For the
developing world all barriers mentioned in the UNDP Human Development Reports have to be
removed as much as possible. The other four very general strategies are specifically focused on
digital inequality taking into account social inequality. For a list of 21 specific solutions focusing
especially on digital inequality and all phases of access see Annex 1.
The Covid-19 pandemic reinforcement of inequality and how to reduce it
Not surprisingly, the same story is happening with the effects of and reactions on the Covis-19
pandemic. It is now widely acknowledged that the poor and those with bad housing and low-paid
jobs are most in danger and effected by this virus. People living in densely packed housing in
poor communities, not to mention shanty towns, people living and working on the streets and in
informal trade and industry have the most chance of being infected. Flexible and insecure jobs
are in poor working conditions in crowded buildings or in public transport, restaurants and
cleaning with frequent contacts with other people. Their jobs and those of the informal economy
are the first to disappear. People with low jobs or social class on average have the worst health
condition suffering from obesity, lung problems and the effects of smoking and junk food. In
many countries they have no, or minor health insurance and they have to go to low quality
hospitals with less chances to survive the disease.
14
Jan van Dijk (2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge UK, Medford MA: Polity Press, p. 155
The middle class and professionals have better and often fixed jobs that during the outbreaks of
the virus have more opportunities to work online at home. Their children have much more
opportunities (equipment and parent support) in online education when schools are locked than
children of the working and underclasses.
There are more of these conditions that show that both social and health inequality
(chances to be infected) are increasing in the pandemic situation. A logical conclusion is that
because the disadvantaged have a higher chance to be infected and to infect others, while they
have lesser chances to prevent this or to be cured.
In the list of conditions mentioned online work and online education are the only
examples related to digital inequality. But there are many more. To describe them I will gratefully
benefit of a very recent nation-wide investigation about the effect of Covid-19 pandemic on
digital inequality in the Netherlands of my colleague Professor Alexander van Deursen
15
. Though
this only observes the relatively rich Dutch population with high access the results will even be
more severe for poor countries with less access.
A nation-wide representative survey in April 2020 among 1733 respondents of the Dutch
population has revealed most of the digital divide causes in (not) using the Internet for Covid-19
information and communication listed in the model of Figure 1.
The survey looked at the need the actual use and the outcomes of the Internet for information
and communication concerning Covid-19. The information needs are evident: people want to
know what the virus means, what the symptoms are and hope to prevent the disease. They also
want to know which measures are suggested or imposed. They can consult all kinds of sites, apps
and social media. The outcomes might be better information about the disease, prevention of
being infected and to understand why particular measures are necessary. This information
reduces the risks of becoming infected and creates more awareness of one’s own behavior.
The communication needs are equally obvious asking relatives and friends about the risks
and approach of the disease, asking questions in the social media or consulting doctors and giving
advice and support for others. The communication outcomes might be getting support and
advice for protection, to share concerns about the crisis and feeling less alone.
The first result of the survey is that those with the best access to the Internet, especially
having the motivation and positive attitude to use the Internet, the best material access (all kinds
of digital media used) and good digital skills used more Internet Covid-19 information and
communication applications and benefitted most about its useful information and
communication outcomes. Positive attitudes of using the Internet (trust) were important because
this medium is good for specific and personal problems or questions. Especially, when people are
at home most of the time and the other information sources left there are broadcasting and the
press. Physical access of the Internet is necessary of course and material access matters because
all digital media have different opportunities to inform and communicate. However, the most
important access type for inequal use and outcome was having more or less digital skills. Equally,
traditional literacy, the level of reading and writing attained appeared to be important. This is
15
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2020). Digital Inequality During a Pandemic: Differences in COVID-19-Related Internet
Uses and Outcomes among the General Population. Journal of Medical Internet Research (in press). doi:10.2196/20073
understandable because Covid-19 is an new, unknown and complicated disease with
characteristics that are often described in difficult medical language that is not easy to read.
Digital skills also are needed to find reliable and valid information about the disease and to
communicate about the findings. Those with a high level of digital skills were to found to receive
more and better information about Covid-19 on the Web and benefitted more in the outcomes.
The demographics in this survey covered the personal and positional categories and the
resources people have in getting access and use of the Internet (see Figure1). The most important
results included age, gender, level of education, and health status or perception. In terms of age
the elderly seems less equipped to use Covid-19 web-information and communication, although
they are more at risk in having severe complications by this disease. The main reason was a lack
of digital skills and traditional literacy. People with high education used and benefitted more
Internet information and communication than people with low education. However the good
news is that people with low education were just involved in at least trying to use information and
communication applications on the Internet, probably because the crisis is vital for them too.
Gender differences were not pronounced. However, surprisingly Dutch males were more
involved Covid-19 communication than females -traditionally more looking for health
information in all media-. The health psychological literature explains this noting the male
reaction to a crisis situations
16
. Obviously, people in good health (status) looked less for Covid-19
web-information and communications. However, people with a high (good) health perception were
looking more for this information than those with a low perception, which is a surprising result.
Probably elderly people use the Internet less for Covid-19 information.
The general conclusion of the survey is that people with better positions who have more
access, skills and usage of the Internet benefitted most of information and communication
outcomes related to Covid-19. More information about the disease and better following the
advice of measures of the authorities and more Web-support when they thought to be sick.
Conversely, people with low social positions and worst access to the Internet were benefitting
less of all these outcomes and followed advice and measures less. So, those who need Covid-19
information and communication the most (the elderly and the poor) are using it less. So, digital
inequality also makes the pandemic worse.
Fortunately, resources such as income and having a large social network made no
difference. The reason is that the Netherlands is a rich country with very high Internet access.
Therefore also people with low income are able to use Covid-19 information on the Internet. -
Though they frequently use social media which are often unreliable in Covid-19 information.-
Unfortunately, we have to conclude that the situation will be much worse in poorer
countries with less Internet access and populations mainly informed via mobile social media.
Jan A.G.M. van Dijk (68) is emeritus professor of communication science and sociology of the information
society and still working at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. His main domains of research are the social
aspects of the digital media, digital democracy and the digital divide. His best known books are The Network Society
(Four Editions), Digital Democracy (2000), The Deepening Divide (2005), Digital Skills (2014), Internet and Democracy (2018)
and The Digital Divide (2020). During his long career he was an advisory of many governments and departments and
the European Commission.
16
Lachlan KA, Spence PR, Nelson LD. Gender differences in negative psychological responses to crisis news: The
case of the I-35W collapse. Communication Research Reports 2010;27(1):38-48. doi:10.1080/08824090903293601
Annex
Figure 3: A Wheel of Policy Instruments to Bridge the Digital Divide
Source Jan van Dijk (2020) The Digital Divide, p. 149
