A LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: CHARACTERISTICS
OF PEOPLE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ONLINE
Societal Factors Affecting Education
Jason Little
Franklin Pierce College
Nancy Gadbow
Springfield, Massachusetts Cluster
A course paper presented to Programs for Higher Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University
December, 2000
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Literature Abstract
3
Introduction
4
Income
5
Education
7
Race
8
Age
9
Disabilities
10
Worldwide Geographic Location
11
Conclusion
12
References
13
3
Literature Abstract
Global Internet access has grown exponentially during the last few years. By the
year 2005, the current 320 million online users will double to 720 million. While
worldwide use is growing rapidly, many individuals are being left behind. The "digital
divide" points to a number of factors as to why this phenomenon is taking place and why
only 5% of the world population are online. Income, education, and geographic factors
seem to be the most influential followed by race, age, and disabilities.
4
Introduction
This literature review focuses on a "digital divide" (Beazley, 2000) that appears to
have emerged during the last decade. The literature suggests that common factors
including demographics, people with disabilities, geographic location, and computer
ownership are directly linked to whether one uses the internet or not. Characteristics of
people least likely to be online are the focus of this paper.
The nature of online usage is changing rapidly. Over 50% of U.S. households
today are online (Thierer, 2000). In-home online access has grown more quickly than
any other major technology in the history of the U.S. The number of years it has taken
for the Internet to reach 50% of American homes has been just 10 years, compared to 14
years for cell phones, 28 years for radios, and 71 years for telephones.
The trend of future global Internet access and usage is expected to grow
exponentially. The Computer Industry Almanac (1999) predicts 490 million people
worldwide will have Internet access in 2002, up from 320 million users for the year-end
2000. By the year-end 2005, Internet access will more than double to 720 million people
and one hundred eighteen people per one thousand will have online access. These figures
are in line with other similar studies and predicted growth. For example, within the U.S.
border, by the year 2005, 150 million adults or almost 75% of the population will be
using the Internet (Fleisher, 2000). Recently the Internet Software Consortium conducted
a domain survey that accounts for every host (eg. .net, .org, .edu, etc.) on the Internet by
using the Domain Name System. As of July 2000, the survey suggests that 93 million
hosts are now available in 237 countries and territories up from 228 ("Internet Survey,"
5
2000).
All of these sources suggest expansive growth both in the U.S. and abroad
during next few years.
The growth of online use and the Internet is significant because it will have an
impact on how people communicate with one another. Libraries, professional and
nonprofessional web sites will have more information available for people about any
topic than ever before. More business will be conducted by way of e-commerce.
Education will be influenced both in terms of delivery and content. The world will move
more toward a "placeless society" where communication and information will be
available "any place" at "any time" (Knoke, 1996). As this trend continues, many will be
left behind because they will not have access.
The literature available on "digital divide" issues suggests the principal factors of
the "divide" include income, education, race, age, people with disabilities, and worldwide
geographic location. For the purposes of this review, values, lifestyles, gender and
religious preferences have not been included as significant factors. Sources included in
this review are based primarily on reputable current research and publications within the
last few years.
Income
According to the Gartner Group's Digital Divide and American Society report,
only 35% of the lowest socioeconomic status Americans have Internet access compared
with over 50% for all other socioeconomic brackets ("Internet Access, 2000). Research
conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 31% of households
earning less than $30,000 have access ("Internet Access, 2000). Two other studies help
validate the idea that less income translates into the likelihood of no online access. A
6
recent National Public Radio survey confirms that "…lower-income Americans are less
than half as likely as those with higher incomes to have an Internet connection at home"
(Peizer, 2000). Another study conducted by Rutger's University discovered that 39% of
the working poor and unemployed had access to the Internet compared to 76% of other
employees (Beazley, 1999).
While these studies suggest that poorer people tend not to have online access,
other studies show positive trends. The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA) fourth report, Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital
Inclusion, (2000) found that every income level is connecting at higher rates as of
August, 2000 when compared to December, 1998 (U.S. Department of Commerce,
2000). Households with average income of $25,000 or less represent the highest number
of new online users and have risen more than 50% in the past year (Ross, 2000). The
reason for this recent trend could be related to lower PC (personal computer) prices, free
ISP (Internet service providers), and lower internet access prices (Thierer, 2000).
Regardless of the positive trend, research conducted by Jupiter Communications
suggests that by 2005 only half of U.S. households with incomes of $15,000 or less will
be online compared to much higher percentages for middle and upper income categories
("Digital Divide," 2000).
From a present perspective on global connectivity with regard to income, only 5%
of the world are currently online. This figure is probably partly based on the fact that
nearly half of the world's population lives on less than $2.00 a day and are illiterate
(Chanda, 2000).
7
Education
Closely tied to income is education. The UCLA Internet Report purports that the
higher the income and education level of a person, the more likely a person is to have
online access ("Lebo," 2000). The study's finding states that 31% of people with less
than a high school education are using the Internet while high school graduates account
for 53%, and college graduates 86%. Novak's study concludes that education explains
access to a work computer (Novak, 1998). Since business and communication are
commonly conducted over the Internet, it would seem probable those who have access to
a computer at work would be online at least some of the time.
With regard to Hispanic and white non-Hispanics, the Forrester Research Inc.
discovered that both races were nearly equal when it came to online usage with
relationship to education and income (Garcia, 2000). Similar incomes and education
suggested similar online (or offline) usage. A similar study conducted by Cheshkin
Research found that "wired" Hispanics had 14.4 years of schooling versus 9.5 years for
nonusers (Lach, 2000).
All of the above studies point to a direct relationship between online use and the
level of education. The more education a person has, the more likely they are to be
online.
Another important point related to education is the notion of the illiteracy rate.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, nearly one in four adults in America are
illiterate (Carvin, 2000). Since the vast majority of online content is text-based, illiterate
people are less likely to be online. The Children's Partnership study found literacy
barriers the biggest barriers to getting lower income users online (Fattah, 2000). This
8
idea becomes even more problematic as we view the world. Since much of the world
can't read and does not understand English (which is the dominate Internet language),
future global penetration ("Content and the Digital," 2000) may eventually plateau unless
governments address these problems .
Recent trends suggest the gap may be narrowing between less and more educated
people in the U.S. ("Digital Divide," 2000). The NTIA report suggests that the Internet is
expanding across every education level including those with some high school education
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000). This report while encouraging is contrary to
many studies conducted during the last two years.
Race
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 50% of whites in the
U.S. have Internet access, compared to 36% of blacks and 44% of Hispanics ("Internet
Access," 2000). The American Internet User Survey found that as of December 1999,
28% of U.S. adult blacks were online as well as adult Hispanics ("Online Habits," 1999).
Another 1999 report by Jupiter Communications suggest that blacks had a 30% Internet
penetration rate and Hispanics had a 33% rate for the year-end 1999 ("Digital Divide
More," 2000). This research suggests that whites outpace blacks and Hispanics by a 6%
to 22% lead with regard to online access. While the Jupiter report states that the gap will
close significantly by 2005 by blacks, Irving states that the gap between whites and
blacks/Hispanics connectivity actually has widened 3%-5% over the past two years
(Irving, 2000).
The NTIA report found that blacks and Hispanics have shown impressive gains in
Internet access during the last twenty months (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000).
9
Black households are more than twice as likely to have home access than they were 20
months ago. Hispanic penetration has grown at roughly the same pace. Asians and
Pacific Islanders outpace blacks and Hispanics by a two-to-one margin at 56.8%
compared with roughly 24%.
Based on Cheskin's study, roughly 58% of Hispanic households do not own
computers and are less likely to be online (Lach, 2000). However, 54% of this group
stated they are going to buy a computer in the near future. Price was most often stated as
the number one reason for not buying a computer. Since the average price of a computer
continues to fall (Therier, 2000), it would seem likely Hispanics as well as other
minorities will be more inclined to buy a computer and connect to the Internet.
Milton Little, CEO of the National Urban League states that race is not at all the
issue behind online connectivity (Fattah, 2000). He finds evidence of a much broader
issue at play - economics and income. Poor whites in Appalacia, inner-city blacks in
Detroit and Native Americans on Arizona reservations all suffer from lack of income and
are not likely to own a computer nor be online.
Age
Two significant studies with regard to age include the UCLA Internet report and
the NTIA report. The UCLA Internet report states that "contrary to conventional
wisdom, Internet use is not dominated by young people" (Lebo, 2000, p. 14). The
average weekly Internet connect time increases between the ages of 12 and 35. However,
after age 55, it decreases significantly.
10
The study found that "…about 45% of those stating they are not likely to access
the Internet in the next year are greater than 56 years old, followed by those 36-55 (33.7
percent), and those 12-35 (22 percent)" (Lebo, 2000, p. 16).
The contrary NTIA report purports that people aged 50 years and older
experienced the highest growth rate of Internet usage - up 53% from December 1998 to
August 2000. This figure is compared to a 35% growth rate for all individual Internet
usage nationwide (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000). The report also suggests only
29.6% of individuals 50 years of age and older were online as of August 2000. However,
an interesting discovery made in this study suggests if individuals are in this age bracket
and are in the workforce, they are three times more likely to be using the Internet than
those who are not in the workforce. Since the over-the-50 labor pool is expected to grow
in the next decade (D'Amico & Judy, 1997), the likelihood of increased connectivity will
increase among this age cohort.
Disabilities
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, 54 million Americans have
disabilities. "Persons with a disability are only half as likely to have access to the
Internet as those without a disability" (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000). Kaye,
author of Computer and Internet Use Among People with Disablilites, (2000) facilitated
research during March 2000. His research found that only one quarter of people with
disabilities own a computer and the disabled who are using the Internet represent only
one-tenth of this group. Being disabled and elderly, or having low income or low
educational attainment further diminished the likelihood of not being online.
11
A recent publication by the National Organization on Disability featured a report
by the Harris Poll. This report found more promising results. The poll discovered that
48% of people with disabilities say the Internet has improved their quality of life
compared to 27% of those without disabilities ("People with Disabilities," 2000). The
disabled who were online spent twice as many hours online as others did.
This Harris Poll study is questionable because interviews were conducted using
self-administered, online questionnaires, via web-assisted interviewing software (People
with Disabilities," 2000). It is unclear how nonusers of computers and the Internet were
accounted for.
Worldwide Geographic Location
Chanda (2000) states that 5% of the world is connected to the Internet while
everyone else is off-line. Dr. Ahmad Nazif, Egypt's minister of Communications and
Information Technology further purports that only 10% of the world population has
access to the Internet, only 20% have heard about it, and 70% don't know about it
(Macharia, 2000).
These statistics are alarming since most of the people who are not online live in
some of the most populous and poorest nations. The Economist (2000) mentions that of
an estimated 332 million Internet users, fewer than 1% live in Africa and most are located
in South Africa - a significantly wealthier nation compared to other African nations. In
comparison, 1 out of every 4 persons in North America and Europe are online.
The top 15 nations possess 84.6% share of worldwide Internet usage. They
include: the U.S., Japan, Gemany, UK, China, Canada, South Korea, Italy, Brazil, France,
Australia, Russia, Taiwan, Netherlands, and Spain ("The World's Online," 2000). What
12
this means is that there are still roughly 185 other countries worldwide that account for
only 15% of the remaining Internet use. Cyberatlas's research suggests that only 56 of
the 200 countries of the world have citizens that have access to the net ("The World's
Online," 2000). Of these 56 countries, the U.S. dominates by accounting for 41% of total
worldwide use (Frost & Strauss, 2001).
A NUA Internet survey represents a sharp contrast to these gloomy statistics.
The survey found that African and European Net usage grew by at least 200% during the
last two years from 1998 to 2000 ("Most Users," 2000).
Conclusion
Based on the literature review, studies and articles strongly suggest that while
worldwide online usage is rapidly growing, many individuals are being left behind. The
"digital divide" between the "haves" and "havenots" is quite significant.
Income,
education and geographic location seem to be the most apparent factors affecting online
connectivity. Race, age, and disability factors seem to be closely linked with income,
education and location. In other words, the less income and education one has the less
likely they are to use the Internet regardless of race and age. This is also the case with
geographic location. Individuals who live in poorer countries with less education are
more likely to be offline.
13
REFERENCES
A raw deal. (2000, July 22). Economist, 356 (8180), 69.
Beazley, M. (1999, July). Record of the DTI/social exclusion policy action team
15 visit to the Sparkbrook, Sparkhill and Tyseley area regeneration initiative (sstari)
Birmingham. Birmingham, United Kingdom: University of Birmingham, School of
Public Policy.
Carvin, A. (2000, November/December). More than just access. Educause, 35 (6),
38-46.
Chanda, N. (2000, October 19). Asian innovation awards: The digital divide. Far
Eastern Economic Review, 163 (42). 50-53.
Cohen, L. (2000, July). Focus on the digital divide. Journal for Education for
Teaching, 26 (2). 187-189.
Content and the digital divide: What do people want? (2000). [Online]. Retrieved
December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/contentbeat.adp.
D'Amico, C. & Judy, R. (1997). Workforce 2020. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson
Institute.
Digital divide more economic than ethnic. (2000). Cyberatlas [Online]. Retrieved
November 30, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323_5901_395581,00.
html.
Fattah, H. (2000, September). Politics or real problem? Technology Marketing
Intelligence, 20 (9), 83-87.
Fleisher, M. (2000, October 2). The digital divide and American society. FDCH
Congressional Testimony, Washington, DC: eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
Frost, R. & Strauss, J. (2001). E-marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Internet access in america: Who's got it, who needs it? (2000). Cyberatlas
[Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_474291,00.html.
Internet survey reaches 93 million Internet host level. (2000, September 30).
[Online]. Center for Next Generation Internet. Retrieved December 3, 2000 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.ngi.org.trends/TrendsPR00009.txt.
14
Irving, L. (2000). Falling through the net: Reason for concern and optimism.
[Online]. Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/irving2000.adp.
Garcia, K. (2000, September). Crossing the digital divide. Hispanic, 13 (9), 80.
Kaye, H. (2000). Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities.
Disability Statistics Report (13). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
Knoke, W. (1996). Bold new world. New York, NY: Kodansha America, Inc.
Lach, J. (2000, June). Crossing the digital divide. American Demographics, 22
(6), 9-12.
Lebo, H. (2000, November). The UCLA Internet report: Surveying the digital
future. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA Center Center
for Communication Policy.
Macharia, M. (2000). The global digital divide: An Egytian perspective. '
[Online]. Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://digitaldividenetwork.org/giic_aip.adp.
Mosquera, M. (1999, December 2). NTIA looks to narrow digital divide.
[Online]. Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991202S0017.
Novak, P. (1998, February 2). Bridging the digital divide: The impact of race on
computer access and internet use. [Online]. Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World
Wide Web: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.html.
Online habits of African-Americans set them apart. (1999, December 16).
Cyberatlas [Online]. Retrieved November 30, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323,5901_261081,00.h
tml.
Over 150 million Internet users worldwide at year-end 1998. (1999). Computer
Industry Almanac, [Online]. Retrieved April 30, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.c-i-a.com/199904iu.htm.
Peizer, J. (2000). What do we mean when we say 'digital divide?' [Online].
Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/tdd.adp.
People with disabilities isolated from community life-but Internet a tool to close
the gap, new Harris survey finds. (2000). National Partnership Program. [Online].
Retrieved December 6, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nod.org/press.html.
15
Ross, S. (2000, September 18). Lower income users get online as gap in digital
divide closes. Adweek, 37 (38), 72.
The world's online populations. (2000). Cyberatlas [Online]. Retrieved November
30, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,1323_5911_151151,00.ht
ml.
Thierer, A. (2000, July). Is the 'digital divide' a virtual reality? Consumers'
Research Magazine, 83 (7), 16-21.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital
inclusion. [Online]. Retrieved December 2, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/execsumfttn00.htm.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1999, March 4). Computer ownership up sharply in
the 1990's. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.