Michael Williamson

1
The Dual Digital DivideThe Information Highway
in Canada

• Michael Williamson
• Office of Learning Technologies
• SAS Presentation
• University of Toronto
• March 30, 2001

2
Purpose of Study

• Improve understanding of attitudes, practices and
  needs of those not connected.
• Are there different types of non-users?
• Identify barriers/obstacles of digital divide.
• What are the policy implications and options?

3
Dual Digital Divide

• Internet Access Trends
• Dual Divide Typologies of Non-Users
• Policy and Program Implications

4
Have you ever accessed the Net from home or
somewhere else?
5
Growth in Internet Income (from somewhere).
6
Internet access from Home.
7
Internet Access from home.
8
Plateau Effect Forming Access from somewhere.

• Upper income (60k)
• 79 Dec 1999
• 82 Feb 2000
• Middle income (40 60k)
• 63 Dec 1999
• 62 Feb 2000
• Lower middle (20-40k)
• 49 Dec 1999
• 50 Feb 2000
• Lower (lt20k)
• 35 Dec 1999
• 41 Feb 2000

9
Main Reason for Not Having Access.
10
I would be more likely to try the Internet if I
had someone take the time to show me how to use
it. 1999, N 1187
11
Preferred method to obtain INFORMATION from the
federal government. 1999, N 2494
12
Preferred method to APPLY FOR A PROGRAM from the
federal government. 1999, N 2520.
13
Differential levels of access.

• Historically Differential Levels of Access
• - Class (income, educ. literacy)
• - Interest Need
• Essential or Optional Service!
• - basic telephone
• Policy/Market problems if Net becomes Essential
• government services
• participation, inclusion (market, social
  relations)
• displacement

14
Home Computer.
15
Cable Television.
16
Internet Comparison.
17
Dual Digital Divide

• First Divide
• Connected and Unconnected (50)
• Second Divide
• Those who want access barriers (Type 1)
• Those who are not interested, no need (Types 2
  and 3).
• Cuts across income, education but largely
  social class cleavages.

18
Type 1 Non user.

• Near users.
• Recognize value of access.
• Cost/affordability major barrier.
• Technical literacy second barrier.
• Social literacy (ability to use/apply
  information) is also an obstacle.
• Younger Canadians (44 yrs. and less).
• Women 21 ratio to men.
• Ongoing government roles access (CAP) and
  literacy and learning (CLN).

19
Type 2 Non user.

• Major obstacle is perceived or very real lack of
  need lack of personal or social benefit and
  value of Net.
• Cost and technical literacy barriers are factors,
  but secondary to need/value.
• Social literacy (ability to use/apply
  information) is also an obstacle.
• Improved content, content relevancy may
  facilitate greater interest/use of Net.
• Tendency to be pre-retirement cohort (45-55 yrs.)
• Public policy roles in content development,
  access sites as public service option and to
  facilitate access.

20
Type 3 Non user.

• Far users not likely to go online in near
  future.
• Dont see benefits, lack resources or social
  skills and interests to benefit from access.
• Seniors and retired Canadians are major
  component.
• Policy role social needs assessment, relevant
  content development may increase use over longer
  term.
• In Type 2 and 3, females slightly over
  represented than males.

21
Internet User Profiles

• Confident Technophile (25)
• Males, younger, better educ., low privacy
  concerns, higher comfort levels range of
  technologies 58 buy online.
• Wary User (24)
• Male, middle age, better educ., highest privacy
  concern, less online comfort more Internet use
  at work, 31 buy online.
• Apathetic Fringe (27)
• Female, less educ., slightly older, less online
  comfort, high privacy concern, few online
  activities, less use of other tech, 15 buy
  online.
• Offside Fringe (23)
• Female, less educ., older than others, low online
  comfort, high privacy concerns, low use of other
  tech, 11 buy online.

22
Findings and Policy Implications

• Digital Divide is complex Dual
• Unlikely divide will be overcome (norm) plateau
  effect and differential levels of access.
• Unconnected cut across all social groups, but
  aggravated and more in lower SES.
• Cost major barrier (50 - 70 of non users)
• Non-users may become occasional users of public
  sites/ home access in future.
• Internet not displacing, but added to mix of
  access and communication technologies.

23
Findings and Policy Implications

• Access easy connects have been made ongoing
  role to facilitate access, training, and
  providing public service access over near term.
• Technical literacy and social literacy are major
  social barriers having relevancy for Inet access
  and use.
• Opportunities to use Net, develop skills,
  necessary to avoid new disenfranchisement and
  facilitate economic and social participation.
• Diversity of means/formats of Access. Net will
  not displace many communication activities or
  uses of different types of information even for
  Net users.

24
Findings and Policy Implications

• Government role to support integration of
  community access and networking initiatives
  (efficiency, content and service relevancy)
• Strategic approach to public access number of
  sites location national standards quality of
  service and infrastructure services available
  terms of access government funding and public
  service role government online.
• Ongoing local training, skills, literacy,
  learning for individuals and community
  organizations.

25
Findings and Policy Implications

• Content development strategy diverse social and
  culturally relevant (local, regional, national)
  are lacking, but highly valued for users and
  non-users (the sticky stuff!). Not just a
  digital focus Net is only one means for
  access/use.
• Improved communications strategies (local,
  national) to increase awareness/ use of access
  sites, community online resources.
• Cataloguing and standards for Canadian content.
• Target other divided/needs unemployed, seniors,
  languages, etc.