The long tail of digital exclusion


Published on

Presented by Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics, at the Social Digital Research Symposium (13th September 2012)

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Children in the household has almost no impact on adult levels of Use. Experience, skill, age, gender and the socio-economic circumstances (education) most strongly related to internet use.
  • Presence of children in the household does have an influence on quality of Internet access and use of the Internet(particularly when children are aged 10-13)The strongest predictors of skills and self efficacyare age, gender and education+veeGov & formal learning (education & self-efficacy more imp) -ve for Web 2.0 and entertainment (age, SES, socialisation, home access and self efficacy more imp)
  • The long tail of digital exclusion

    1. 1. The Long Tail of Digital Exclusion: Narrow, Proxy and Non-Users Ellen J. Helsper, London School of Economics Social Digital Research Symposium #3 Based on a collaborative project with Sergio Godoy-Etcheverry, UC School of Communications Funded by the conference board The Linked World Book available at:
    2. 2. Who uses by proxy? ex-user proxyAbout 4 in 5 non-users have a proxy user 5%available ex-user no never-user proxy proxy 15%1 in 5 have used proxy users in the last year 22%(1 in 3 out of those who have one available) never-user no proxyWho are these proxy users? 58% Source: OxIS 2011 Base: Non-users who have proxy user available N=373
    3. 3. Who are the proxies 100 80% used as proxy 60 57 40 26 20 14 16 17 3 3 4 0 Base: Proxy users N=102
    4. 4. Inequality by proxy? 100% Seconday Further Higher100% 80% Source: OxIS 2011 80% Base: Non-users who have proxy user available N=373% that used proxy 60% 54% 59% 58% 60% 50% 44% 40% 36% 40% 27% 24% 25% 23% 20% 20% 15% 16% 16% 12% 12% 12% 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Internet Library Colleague Parent Sibling Partner Friend Child Under 25 26 thru 40 41 thru 55 56 thru 65 Over 65 caf
    5. 5. Social pressures/facilitators of engagement Men and women felt missing the boat if they did not belong to professional and social networks enabling them to engage with ICTs. All groups believed technology was inevitable, and that youngsters with low digital and traditional literacy levels would be excluded. In the UK many regarded engagement not as a free and positive choice. The need to ask others for help created a strong feeling of exclusion even within the family Mothers talked about digital exclusion/inclusion in relation to their children (homework , future jobs) while fathers expressed a wider repertoire of topics. For parent users, children were a powerful driver for ICT access. Children were regarded as the more proficient in both countries, yet they were poor trainers and their less proficient parents felt ashamed and irritated by this. Source Helsper & Godoy (2011) 5
    6. 6. A specific case of proxy use…ARE CHILDREN GOOD FORPARENTS? With Rebecca Eynon (OII)
    7. 7. Economic circumstances household AccessSocio-cultural background Use , experience and skill Children Base. OxIS 2011, Internet Users N=1,498
    8. 8. Parent and child characteristics and parental internet use Parent’s → Self-efficacy Frequency LocationsAge parent -0.05 -0.02 -0.06Education parent 0.14** 0.02 0.19**Household SES -0.01 -0.02 0.20**Age child 0.04 -0.06 -0.05Comparative self-efficacy child -0.19** -0.12** 0.05Ego centric self-efficacy child 0.05 0.09* 0.08Skills child 0.01 0.06 0.06Frequency use parent 0.38** 0.17**Access points parent 0.17** 0.17**Digital self-efficacy parent 0.41** 0.18**
    9. 9. Summary: Children as proxiesPresence of children in the household: – Has an influence on quality of Internet access and basic use of the Internet – has no impact on adult levels of self-efficacy / skill – has an influence in the uptake of Internet uses beneficial to children“Usual suspects” are still more important than the child: – age, education, gender, SES, self-efficacy