The document discusses the issue of digital inequality in the Czech Republic, emphasizing the ongoing digital divide and its implications for social participation and access to resources. It highlights the role of individual motivation, social networks, and the unequal distribution of resources in exacerbating this divide, noting that nonusers often do not perceive their internet absence as disadvantageous. The findings are based on research that examines the benefits and challenges of internet use across different demographics and supports the need for targeted digital inclusion policies.

1. Mgr. Petr Lupač, Ph.D.
Charles University in Prague
World Internet Project
The Czech Republic
Financed due to Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA13-21024S)
„World Internet Project –The Czech Republic II“

2. System of
social
inequality
Unequal
Internet access
Unequal
gains/losses
“Those at the ‘wrong’ end of the digital divide will become
second-class or third-class citizens, or no citizens at all.”
J. van Dijk (2005: 17)

3. Source: Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005) Deepening digital divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks.
CA: Sage, p. 22; simplified for purposes of presentation
Low-tech environment> the problem of physical access
High-tech environment> the problem of the deepening
divide
The deepening of the digital divide
?

4. 1. Nonusers saying “I don’t need it” (motivation)
2. What does ICT stand for?
3. Weak evidence about strategic skills
1. Weak evidence about the actual link between Internet
access and participation on society
4. Online activites conceptualization (usage gap)
1. What is the content of communication activities?

5.  DD research started from scratch (x DOI tradition)
 Presumption of the new social structure (information society)
1. Reduction of ICT and information/communication channels to
the Internet (phone calls? F2F?)
2. The Internet access is crucial to maintain or increase
individual’s participation in all main spheres of social existence
3. The Internet use has the same relevance in all social contexts
4. The construction of universal need (normativity)
5. Individual-blame bias (adoption, gains)
6. Presumption of possibility to close the digital divide

6.  Rich-get-richer effect (benefits dependent on offline
resources)
 Resources are and will be unequally distributed
 Excessive use can lead to negative effects
For certain people in certain situations, in certain contexts, the
Internet is irrelevant or detrimental
 The Internet rather transforms than increase (->new
conditions)
 Supplement hypothesis:
People… “ are organizing their communications based on the
context of their contact. People use multiple media to
communicate and can choose the one that is most suitable for
the moment.”
Rainie, Wellman (2012: 97)

7. Perfectly connected digital society
where each individual owns several ICTs
and sacrifices enough time to maintain
both his/her digital skills and
knowledge of ICT innovations
⇣
Digital divide policies as cultural project

8.  “Why are you not using the Internet?”
 “I do not need it” explanations
◦ irrational, sour grapes reasoning, cognitive dissonance
◦ Rational now but not in the near future
 Purgation
◦ Focus on old, unsuccessful, deprived nonusers
◦ Who are the young, successful, rich nonusers? How do they navigate
through today’s world and why?
 Psychologizing nonusers as deviations
◦ Computer anxiety, technophobia

9. “the tendency to hold an individual responsible for his or her
problems, rather than the system of which the individual is a part
(Caplan and Nelson, 1973)”
(Rogers, 1983: 103)
 Individual factors of adoption (scdmg, attitudes, motivation, …)
 ICT use as an individual, isolated activity (x cultures of sharing)
 Outcomes derived from individual skills and online activities
 „Usage gap“ overlooks the content of „communication activities“
 Nonusers are not isolated entities

10. Metcalf’s Law :
“the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the
square of the number of connected users of the system”
The Flip Side of Metcalf’s Law (Tongia & Wilson, 2011):
“as a network grows in size and value, those outside the network
face growing disparities. (…) The increasing costs of not being in
the network can spread to the “included”.
Examples:
- Car transportation and sidewalks, public transport
- Health care system and uninsured
- Taxi driving system nowadays and nonusers
- Broadband Internet and those with slow connection

11. The more exclusive are ICTs as a communication
infrastructure and an information access point, the
more disadvantaged are nonusers and “weak” users.
nonuser user
Digital divide

12. In the given situation, actuality and seriousness of digital divide
depends on
 Ratio of communication networks size
 Availability of alternative communication channels or information
sources
 The costs differences (incl. translation points)
 Infrastructure-induced required level of skills
 Situational digital divide
(Situational information society !)

13. Actuality and seriousness of digital divide depends on
 The embeddedness of ICT in his/her area of qualification (job
market)
 The institutional pressure to use the Internet (schools, public
offices, massmedia)
 The share of Internet users and intensity of use in his/her
social network (close and weak ties)
 The Internet penetration in broader social environment and
among people with similar interests

14.  Are nonusers disadvantaged? (Under which conditions?)
◦ H1: Majority of nonusers experienced being disadvantaged by not using the
Internet
◦ H2: Nonusers will be surrounded by users to a lesser extent.
 How we explain the differences in perceived Internet effect
among users?
◦ H2: The indispensability of Internet use will be among most important
predictors when it comes to explaining perceived Internet effects
◦ H3: The ICT-specific network capital will be among most important
predictors when it comes to explaining perceived Internet effects
◦ H4: The non-Internet network and individual resources will partly explain
perceived Internet effects
 Bridging capital
 Innovativeness
 Skills
 Life-satisfaction

15.  Pilot study in May
 Data collected in May and June 2014 by a specialized agency
 Method of data collection
◦ CAPI F2F interviews
◦ Stratified random sampling combined with quota sampling
◦ Measures taken to include parts of the population with lower probability of being
interviewed
 Respondents declaring no or very low interest in being interviewed pre-recruited from CAWI
panel (cca 8 % of the sample)
 Trained experienced interviewers instructed to deal with soft-rejection
 Financial incentives (computed or estimated from wage)
 100 % of the interviews were recorded, controlled and problematic respondents were excluded
 1316 respondents in the final sample, 79 % Internet users
 Weighted sample representative for the population of the Czech Republic,
age 15+
 A good fit of results with other data sources (WIP I, CZSO, Facebook)

16. Users Nonusers
Nr of people living
in the household 2 (1,9; 0,7) 2 (1,7; 0,8)
Ind. income/month 3/17 (4; 3) 2/17 (2; 2)
Nr. of close friends 4 (5; 3) 2 (3; 3)
Share of soc.
environment using
the Internet
70 % (60 %; 30 %) 10 % (20 %; 30 %)
Life satisfaction 7/10 (7; 3) 8/10 (7; 4)
Median (mean; std. dev)

17.  69 % of Czech nonusers know anyone who could send an email,
fill an online form or find something online for them (67 % for
ordering something online for them)
◦ 31 % of nonusers asked someone to do so at least several times (2014)
 72 % of British nonusers and 89 % of ex-users know someone
who… (2013)… and over half has asked for help already (2009)
 44 % of US nonusers “have ever asked a friend or family
member to look something up or complete a task on the internet
for them” (2013)
 45 % of British users “use” family or friends to help them use
the Internet (2013 data, 62 % in 2007)
Sources: WIP-CZ, WIP-GB, PIP

18. Having proxy No proxy
Age 66 (63; 13) 73 (73; 14)
Nr of people living
in the household 2 (2,03; 12) 1 (1,63; 4)
Ind. income/month 2/17 (2; 3) 2/17 (2; 2)
Nr of close friends 3 (4; 3) 1 (2; 3)
Share of soc.
environment using
the Internet
30 % (40 %; 30 %) 0 % (20 %; 30 %)
Life satisfaction 8/10 (7; 3) 6/10 (6; 4)
Median (mean; std. dev)

19. Question:
Not-using the Internet can be either advantage or disadvantage.
Thinking about your personal experience in the recent years, how
much does the fact that you are not using the Internet affected
your life in the following areas?
Please, answer with the help of a scale, where -5 means significant
worsening and +5 means significant improvement.
[Scale:]
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(-5=Significant worsening 5 = Significant
improvement)

20.  My knowledge of what's going on in the Czech republic
 My knowledge of what's going on in other countries
 My knowledge of what's going on in your locality
 My involvement in public life in my local community
 Dealing with state authorities {getting subsidy, welfare,
submitting documents, etc.}
 Contact with my family and my family life
 Contact with my friends and acquiantences
 My overall financial situation (i.e., my incomes and expenses)
 Building up my career and my success on labour market
 Pursuing and developing my hobbies
 Overall satisfaction with my life

22.  Important differences between users and nonusers are
◦ new-tech efficacy
◦ network capital (ICT in social environment)
 Majority of nonusers declare no worsening of their life due to
Internet nonuse.
 The assumption of irrational, sour grapes reasoning nunuser
is weakened due to negligible differences between proxy
users and completely disconnected.

23. Using the Internet can either improve or worsen people's lifes.
When you think about your personal experience in the last
years, how much influences your Internet use following areas
of your life?
Please, answer with the help of a scale, where -5 means
significant worsening and +5 means significant improvement.
[Scale:]
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(-5=Significant worsening 5 = Significant improvement)

24. Rotated Component Matrixa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Change in knowledge, CZR ,239 ,858 ,139 ,090 ,042 ,085 ,124
Change in knowledge, world ,095 ,873 ,160 ,108 ,115 ,089 ,105
Change in knowledge, locality ,152 ,379 ,747 -,022 ,136 ,086 ,053
Change in involvement, local public life ,092 ,035 ,880 ,191 ,043 ,062 ,103
Change in dealing with state auth. ,121 ,139 ,110 ,116 ,117 ,954 ,061
Change in family life/contact ,840 ,062 ,115 ,189 -,005 ,112 ,074
Change in contact with friends ,797 ,252 ,070 -,115 ,167 ,076 ,163
Change in financial situation ,069 ,115 ,120 ,837 ,286 ,161 ,072
Change in career / labor market succ. ,098 ,130 ,131 ,243 ,918 ,122 ,065
Change in pursuing hobbies ,225 ,195 ,133 ,108 ,068 ,066 ,932
Change in overall satisfaction with life ,608 ,181 ,166 ,554 -,007 -,055 ,144
(4)
(5)
.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations
74 % of variance (5 factors), 83 % of variance (7 factors)

26.  The supposed role of variety/number of online activities and time
spent online (van Dijk 2005)
◦ -> hours online weekly, nr. of online non SNS activities performed weekly
 The important role of digital skills, age and education in gaining
benefits from Internet use (van Deursen, van Dijk and Peters 2011)
◦ -> operational skills index, informational skills index, age, education
 Previous social skills predict well sociability gains from Internet use
(rich-get-richer hypothesis findings; c.f., Lee 2009)
◦ -> ntw size index (via resource generator, sum of strong and weak ties)
 The role of bridging social capital in acquiring resources
◦ -> bridging = bonding * nr. of structural holes
 The role of network capital in explaining individual state (Wellman
and Frank 1999)
◦ -> share of Internet users in respondent’s social environment
 The ability to benefit from technological development (Rogers 2003)
◦ -> innovativeness index
 The embeddedness of a respondent in ICT world
◦ -> indispensability scale (work, social life)

27. Dependent ⇢
Independent ⇣ Total change
Social contact
change
Knowledge
change
Gender 0,04 -,60 ,08*
Age -,96** -,09* -,03
Education ,11*** -,03 ,09**
SNS use intensity ,18*** ,21*** ,10**
SNSuse (users only) ,10* ,10* ,04
Skills operational ,21*** ,17*** ,10**
Skills informational ,30*** ,22*** ,24***
Innovativeness ,20*** ,18*** ,15***
OA variety – no SNS ,29*** ,24*** ,23***
Time on Internet /weak ,20*** ,15*** ,16***
Bridging soc. cpt. ,16*** ,08* ,10***
Ntw. size ,21*** ,16*** ,14***
Ntw. cpt ,26*** ,15*** ,21***
Life satisfaction ,19*** ,13*** ,09**

28. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age -,13***
Education ,09**
Time online / week
OA variety - no SNS
Operational skills
Informational skills
Innovativeness
Life satisfaction
Bridging cpt.
Ntw. Size
Ntw. capital
Indispensability
Adj. R2 ,02

29.  Granting the variability of available communication channels
◦ Massmedia, governmental agencies, schools …
 Regulation of cost differences
 Establishing and/or mantaining “translation points”
(intermediary institutions) to support delegated or assisted
access
 Priority of the individual and/or local needs over the vague
scheme of the “benefits for all from spreading ICT”

30. Mgr. Petr Lupač, Ph.D.
PETR.LUPAC@FF.CUNI.CZ
@PetrLupac
Department of Sociology
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts
Celetna 13, Prague
The Czech Republic