digital divide essay pdf

Advertisement

Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research

• Published: 06 January 2021
• Volume 25 , pages 955–969, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5947-4070 1 &
• Eli Hustad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-1850 1  

42k Accesses

82 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Extant literature has increased our understanding of the multifaceted nature of the digital divide, showing that it entails more than access to information and communication resources. Research indicates that digital inequality mirrors to a significant extent offline inequality related to socioeconomic resources. Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. Ιn this paper, we present a literature review of Information Systems research on the digital divide within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies over the last decade (2010–2020). The review results are organized in a concept matrix mapping contributing factors and measures for crossing the divides. Building on the results, we elaborate a research agenda that proposes [1] extending established models of digital inequalities with new variables and use of theory, [2] critically examining the effects of digital divide interventions, and [3] better linking digital divide research with research on sustainability.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Upward Spiral Model: Bridging and Deepening Digital Divide

Understanding Digital Inequalities in the Global South

Revitalizing the Quantitative Understanding of the Digital Divide: An Uptake on the Digital Divide Indicators

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Digital inequalities have emerged as a growing concern in modern societies. These inequalities relate to disparities in access, actual use and use efficacy of digital resources. Digital resources including transformative technologies, such as business analytics, big data and artificial intelligence are key for the transition of societies towards sustainability (Pappas et al. 2018 ; United Nations 2018 ). Reducing digital inequalities is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. At a high level, all types of digital inequalities are encompassed in the term digital divide . One of the first uses of the term is traced back in a US government report published in 1999 referring to the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without (NTIA 1999 ). The term was soon broadened to signify the “gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot” (Gunkel 2003 ). Overall, the term digital divide includes digital inequalities between individuals, households, businesses or geographic areas (Pick and Sarkar 2016 ; OECD 2001 ). The conceptual broadness of the term aims to capture a multifaceted economic and civil rights issue in an era of continuous efforts to digitalize society. The ongoing digitalization poses a challenge for individuals who are not fully capable of using digital resources and may feel partially excluded or completely left out of the society.

Extant research has contributed insights on the different aspects of the digital divide phenomenon. In the past, the digital divide literature was mostly driven by policy-oriented reports that focused on access. Nevertheless, scientific research expanded to digital inequalities beyond access. Researchers foregrounded digital inequalities related to knowledge, economic and social resources, attributes of technology such as performance and reliability, and utility realization (DiMaggio et al. 2004 ; Van Dijk 2006 ; Van Deursen and Helsper 2015 ). In technologically and economically advanced settings, digital divides seem to be closing in terms of access, but inequalities that affect people’s ability to make good use of digital resources persist (Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Bucea et al. 2020 ). As digitalization becomes increasingly pervasive in work and everyday life, concerns are rising about continuing inequalities within societies that are at the digital forefront. At the same time, in low-resource settings there are still significant access issues. For instance, in the least developed countries (as defined by the United Nations) only 19 per cent of individuals had online access in 2019 while in developed countries, close to 87 per cent of individuals access the internet (Int.Telecom.Union 2019 ). Beyond big differences across settings in terms of access, low-resource settings are tormented by particular political, economic and social conditions inflicting digital divides (Venkatesh et al. 2014 ; Srivastava and Shainesh 2015 ; Luo and Chea 2018 ). Overall, prior research has shown that the modalities of digital inequalities are context-specific and it is important to be explicit about the context when researching the digital divide (Barzilai-Nahon 2006 ). This work is focused on digital divide research within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies.

The digital divide is an exemplary sociotechnical phenomenon and has attracted the interest of Information System (IS) researchers. IS research examines more than technologies or social phenomena, or even the two side by side; it investigates emergent sociotechnical phenomena (Lee 2001 ). Hence, IS researchers are well-positioned to study the digital divide phenomenon and have been producing a significant volume of related research. Nevertheless, no systematic review of the IS body of literature on the digital divide exists. Our study identifies, analyses, and integrates a critical mass of recent IS research on the digital divide focused on settings where the technological infrastructures and economies are advanced. To ensure a robust result, we performed a systematic literature review (Kitchenham 2004 ) guided by the following question: What are the key findings identified in extant IS research related to the digital divide in contemporary technologically and economically advanced settings?

Our contribution is threefold. First, we identify recurring digital divide factors for population groups threatened by digital inequalities. The factors identified indicate that digital inequalities frequently mirror offline inequalities (for instance, in terms of socioeconomic resources, knowledge and physical abilities). Second, we present measures proposed in the literature and organize them in three key intervention domains that can contribute to closing the gap (related to policies, training initiatives and tailored design). Finally, as a third contribution, we identify areas for future research providing a research agenda.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we present the method used for selecting and analyzing the articles for this review. Then, we offer a synthesis of our findings related to digital divide factors and related measures and present them in a concise concept matrix. We continue by discussing the implications for further research and we end with overall concluding remarks.

The literature review is conceptual providing a synthesis of prior research and identifying areas for future research (Ortiz de Guinea and Paré 2017 ; Schryen et al. 2015 ). It includes research published during the last decade (2010–2020). The approach followed is based on the three-step structured literature review process proposed by Kitchenham ( 2004 ). Specifically, the three-step process includes: (a) planning the review, where a detailed protocol containing specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria is developed, (b) conducting the review, where the identification, selection, quality appraisal, examination and synthesis of prior published research is performed and (c) reporting the review, where the write-up is prepared. We used these steps as our methodological framework. In addition, we utilized principles suggested by Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) for sorting the articles included in the review. Following these principles, we identified key concepts and created a concept-centric matrix that provides an overview of the literature reviewed.

To identify articles to be reviewed, we searched for “Digital” and “Divide” in the abstract, title or keywords within published Information Systems research. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to reduce selection bias, guarantee the quality of the papers selected and increase the review validity. Peer-reviewed, empirical papers, written in English were included. Conceptual papers that lack empirical evidence and papers focusing on the digital divide in developing countries were excluded. Figure 1 provides an overview of the selection process. To ensure a good coverage of Information Systems research we searched within the eight top journals in the field i.e. the basket of eight (AIS 2019 ). The journals included in the basket are: European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of MIS, Journal of Strategic Information Systems and MIS Quarterly. Additionally, we searched within the journal Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) which has a key role within the IS research community communicating swiftly novel, original research. We also included in our search the journal Information Technology (IT) & People because it focuses on IS research that explores the interplay between technology individuals and society and the journal Information Systems Frontiers because it covers behavioural perspectives on IS research. Both journals are high quality IS outlets especially relevant for research on the digital divide. Furthermore, we included in our search the conferences of the Association of Information Systems (ICIS, ECIS; AMCIS; PACIS) and the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). We utilized Scopus as our search engine.

The literature selection process

In Scopus, we searched for papers from the selected journals and conferences excluding books, book chapters, commentaries, letters and short surveys. For the journal article search, the ISSNs of the selected journals were used for filtering the search results in Scopus. In total, 45 journal papers were identified. For the conference article search, the conference names were used in Scopus and 91 conference papers were identified. Overall, the search yielded 136 unique articles in total. The next step was to read the titles and abstracts of the articles identified checking their relevance to the research question. For this step, the exclusion criteria were used. Specifically, we excluded papers that only casually mentioned the digital divide but had a different focus, literature reviews and conceptual papers and papers focused on developing countries. After this step, 79 articles were shortlisted. The full text of each of the shortlisted articles was assessed for relevance applying the inclusion-exclusion criteria to the full content. Additionally, the quality of the research reported was assessed. For the quality assessment, each article´s method description was first checked. At this stage, conference papers reporting early stages of ongoing research were removed. In several cases of conference papers that were removed, we found that more mature and extensive results from the same studies were reported in journal articles that were already included in our shortlist and were published after the conference papers. After this step, a final corpus of 33 articles was defined (Table 1 ). A detailed overview of the reviewed articles is included in an electronic supplementary file that can be accessed in the journal´s web site (see Online Resource 1 ).

After selecting the papers, we analyzed their content. We started with extracting meta-data of the papers such as type of study, year of study, study context, research method and theoretical framework applied. In addition, we identified the study subjects for each paper distinguishing between papers that engage with the general population, or specific groups of people including the elderly and marginalized population groups (e.g. refugees, migrants). We continued with an intra-analysis of the content of the papers by looking for core themes in each paper. The themes that were identified for each paper were registered, and as a next step, we performed an inter-analysis and comparison across papers. Based on the comparison, recurring themes and patterns across the papers were discovered and further categorized. The outcomes of the papers´analysis are presented in the " Results " section that follows.

This section presents the key findings from the literature reviewed. First, we present the theoretical premises and the methodological approaches of extant publications on the Digital Divide within IS research and their evolution from 2010 to 2020. Table 2 provides an overview of the theories and concepts, methods and data sources in the literature reviewed. Then, recurring digital divide factors are presented for population segments that are particularly digitally challenged (the elderly and marginalized population groups) and also, for the general population. Finally, measures for addressing the digital divide are presented and organized in three key intervention domains (policy measures, education/training and design tailoring). The section also includes a concept matrix which provides an overview of digital divide factors and related measures identified in the literature reviewed (Table 3 ).

3.1 Trends, Methods and Theoretical Frames in IS Research on the Digital Divide

The work of Information Systems´ researchers on the digital divide has been influenced by policy-oriented reports that tend to be based on macro-level analyses. This influence is clear in the first half of the 2010–2020 period while in the second half, research extends towards a more complex and contextualized picture of digital divides. Newer papers tend to ask a wider range of questions related to access and use of information technologies and investigate a greater variety of factors. For instance, skill related factors are explored in about half of both earlier and later studies, but, newer studies tend to additionally explore motivation and personality aspects (about half of the newer studies include such aspects). Interestingly, several of the newer papers only focus on technology use. In these papers, researchers explore the second order digital divide and the extent of inclusion or involuntary exclusion of those that already have access to technologies. Furthermore, most earlier papers tend to investigate the general population while the majority of newer studies focus on specific population groups.

Overall, most of the studies employ quantitative research methods utilizing well-established survey instruments adapted for studying digital inequalities for certain groups (e.g. older adults) or re-using existing data sets from organizations like the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and the United Nations. A few studies use a mixed-method approach combining interviews with survey data, while the rest employ qualitative approaches. Well-known technology acceptance models such as TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and MATH (Model of Adoption of Technology in Households) and theories on motivation and human behavior have been used to explore the digital divide. Typical variables included in the investigations are self-efficacy, performance and effort expectancy. Furthermore, social cognitive theories, social support theories and social capital conceptualizations have been used while some of the papers utilize selectively digital divide conceptualizations combined with constructs from social, sociotechnical or economic research.

3.2 Factors Contributing to the Digital Divide

The digital divide is often characterized as a digital divide cascade which is nuanced into different types of inequalities including unequal capabilities, engagement, and use outcomes in addition to inequalities of access and use. This points to the importance of identifying and aiming to remedy inequalities in what people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies (Burtch and Chan 2019 ; Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). In settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, physical access is not a key source of digital inequalities and IS studies that examine issues of unequal access show that access gaps are closing with the exception of marginalized population groups. Nevertheless, there is still a stark difference between access (first-order divide) and actual use (second-order divide) (Bucea et al. 2020 ). The latter relates to differences in digital skills, autonomy, social support and the aims of digital technology use (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Going beyond socioeconomic demographics, additional personal contributing factors have been identified in the literature related to: (a) motivation, (b) personality traits (e.g. openness, extraversion, conscientiousness), (c) digital skills. Many of the studies reviewed focus on the elderly who are also referred to as “digital immigrants” (as opposed to digital natives that have been interacting with digital technology since childhood). Additionally, several studies focus on marginalized population groups. In the paragraphs that follow, we present research findings organizing them according to the different groups studied.

Elderly Population

Although digital technologies have been around for several decades, some of the elderly members of society have difficulties familiarizing with and adopting digital tools and services. Nevertheless, although a decade ago age-related underutilization of IT was significant (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ), over the years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been gradually better integrated in the lives of elderly adults. A recent study on the digital divide related to mobile phone use among old adults in UK found that more than 70% have adopted smartphones (Choudrie et al. 2018 ). Specifically, research findings indicate that older adults frequently use internet-related smartphone features such as emailing and browsing although only very few use smartphones to access public services such as the National Health Service. One potential reason for the limited use of specialized web-based services among the elderly despite the wide adoption of smartphones, is that their former workplaces may have been characterized by low IT intensity causing a lower exploratory IT behavior when seniors are retiring (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Niehaves and Plattfaut ( 2014 ) used the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the model of adoption of technology in households (MATH) to explain internet acceptance and usage by the elderly. Performance expectancy was found to be the main use driver among senior citizens. These models were able to predict how the elderly could be encouraged to learn to use digital technologies.

When asked, the elderly themselves identified several key impeding factors for their digital involvement: fear and anxiety of using digital technology and services, negative attitude, a sense of feeling too old for learning, lack of knowledge, difficulties understanding digital terminology (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). Family support is key for developing mobile internet skill literacy and mobile internet information literacy among older adults (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Seniors become better positioned to take advantage of digital resources when they have cognitive and emotional support. Cognitive support from family facilitates learning and digital skills´ development, and also, the development of skills for judging, analyzing and selecting information (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support based on patience, praise, encouragement and comfort can help the elderly avoid computer anxiety and stress (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support is important because unwillingness to adopt advanced digital services by the elderly was found to stem from mistrust, high-risk perceptions, and privacy concerns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ).

Overall, older people are a heterogeneous group, and it is important not to overlook their differences in digital skills and digital practice. Klier and colleagues conducted a survey on older unemployed individulas in Germany and showed that they can be grouped into four different types of digital media users ranging from very active users (digital contributors) to sceptics with limited or no use (digital sceptics) characterised by their negative attitude towards digital media (Klier et al. 2020 ). Digitalization efforts should take into account “the various shades of grey in older adults’ ability to draw on IT-based innovations” (Lameijer et al. 2017 , p. 6).

Marginalized Population Groups

Language barriers as for instance, in the case of refugees and immigrants, and practical resource limitations as in the case of distressed urban areas and remote rural areas can cause social exclusion and hinder the process of digital technologies´ assimilation throughout society. Several researchers have studied specifically issues related to the digital divide within marginalized population groups. Alam and Imram ( 2015 ) found in their research that although refugees and immigrants in the US are motivated to learn about new technology, many are not able to do so because of unaffordable cost, language barriers and lack of skills. Refugees and immigrants realize that technology is helpful for finding new jobs or facilitating social engagement. Digital technologies are of particular value to refugees for multiple reasons: to participate in an information society; to communicate effectively; to understand a new society; to be socially connected; to express their cultural identities (Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). A study on mobile communications by labor migrants (Aricat 2015 ) showed that mobile phones may also facilitate the development of ghettos and the lack of integration in the new countries by easing communications between the migrants and their home countries. The study identified a visible divide in the framing of the prospects and potentialities of mobile phones related to acculturation.

Enhancing the relationship between citizens and government through digital services requires reaching out to individuals and communities on the unfortunate side of the divide. Digital technology access and use in the context of e-government services were explored within one of the most distressed cities in the US (Sipior et al. 2011 ). This study showed that socioeconomic characteristics (educational level and household income) have significant impact on access barriers, but they also found that employment plays a critical role and is associated both with perceived access barriers and with perceived ease of use. A study conducted among governmental participants representing rural communities in Australia suggests that rural digital exclusion can result from three intertwined layers: availability (elements of infrastructure and connectivity), adoption, and digital engagement (Park et al. 2015 ). Among these layers, availability is probably not as important as one could expect. Similarly, one large household study conducted across the US found that the availability of Internet Supply Providers (ISP) had little impact on Internet adoption, and that Internet adoption can almost exclusively be attached to differences in household attributes and not to ISP availability (Ma and Huang 2015 ).

As access gaps are closing in settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, those who do not have access are easily overlooked (Davis et al. 2020 ). Nevertheless, the first-level digital divide still requires attention for marginalized population groups. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors that were found to affect uptake more than two decades ago (for instance, education level and income) are still relevant in today’s context for particular segments of our societies. Contrary to traditional views, the availability of digital solutions does not always facilitate the resolution of long-standing problems for those that are less well-off in our societies (for instance, immigrants or financially troubled individuals). What people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies relates to their greater positioning in society (Burtch and Chan 2019 ) and affects their potential for improvement. As digital technologies are becoming indispensable for participating in the economy and engaging in society, sustained digital divides amplify marginalization.

General Population

A study by Pick and colleagues ( 2018 ) showed the positive influence of managerial/science/arts occupations, innovation, and social capital on the use of digital technologies (Pick et al. 2018 ). Nevertheless, unreasonably high expectations are found to have a negative impact on ICT acceptance (Ebermann et al. 2016 ). Findings from a study conducted within White and Hispanic-owned SMEs in the US (Middleton and Chambers 2010 ) indicate some level of inequality related to ethnicity and age (younger white SME owners being better positioned). Davis and colleagues (Davis et al.  2020 ) analyzed the influence of income, income distribution, education levels, and ethnicity on levels of access to Internet in the US. The findings show that low levels of education and levels of income below the poverty line still tend to lead to higher proportion of people with no Internet access (Davis et al. 2020 ). Even when individuals do have equal access to digital technologies, differences in skills can lead to digital inequalities (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Taking a differentiated view on skills is needed to understand technology use and no-use (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Physical skills matter; users with disabilities can be digitally disadvantaged and despite the benefits promised by specialized assistive technologies their adoption rate falls short of expectations (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ).

Some groups may be challenged because they are too far embedded in older systems, which makes it difficult for them to adopt newer ICTs (Abdelfattah 2012 ). Social capital can trigger ICT awareness changing individual dispositions, thus converting social capital into cultural capital (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). An interesting study on crowdfunding showed that the benefits of medical crowdfunding accrue systematically less to racial minorities and less educated population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). One of the reasons for this is the communication-rich nature of the context: less educated persons are not always capable of producing polished, persuasive pitches to solicit funds. Furthermore, digital inequality manifests on the efficacy of using crowdfunding platforms, due to a lack of critical mass in the number of potential transaction partners (donors). The results show the importance of looking beyond access or connectivity to investigate efficacy (in this case, expressed as success in fundraising), and how it associates with different population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ).

At the country level, a number of studies examined socio-economic influences on access and use of particular forms of technologies as for instance, personal computers and broadband internet (Zhao et al. 2014 ; Pick and Azari 2011 ; Dewan et al. 2010 ). A world-wide study found complementarities in the diffusion of PCs and the Internet leading to narrower digital divides (Dewan et al. 2010 ). These findings challenge the dominant understanding of characteristics such as country wealth, education levels and telecommunications infrastructure leading to the widening of the digital divide. Country-level studies are based on the analysis of data from census surveys, national statistics, and datasets from organizations like UNDP and ITO. The use of such datasets is helpful for performing comparisons across countries but due to the generic nature of data the purpose of digital technology use has been scarcely examined in country-level studies. This may be attributed to the fact that comparable data on specific online activities are not easy to collect across countries (Zhao et al. 2014 ). A study conducted by Bucea and colleagues ( 2020 ), is an exception to this. The study assessed specifically the use of e-Services and Social Networks within the 28 member-states of the European Union analyzing four socio-demographic factors (age, education, gender, and income). The findings showed that for e-Services, disparities relate mostly to education while for Social Networks age is the most important factor (Bucea et al. 2020 ). Overall, country level studies are important for assessing disparities across countries and can lead to the identification of factors reinforcing inequalities. At the same time, macro studies can not bring insights about digital inequalities across different population segments within countries.

3.3 Overcoming Digital Divides

Policy-making is considered instrumental for closing the digital gap and a mix of policy measures has been suggested in prior research. In general, policy initiatives can include subsidies targeting specific digitally disadvantaged segments as for instance rural populations (Talukdar and Gauri 2011 ). For instance, governments can apply strong intervention policies to provide equitable ICT access also in rural areas (Park et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, digital divides may be addressed at scale by crafting policies to equip underprivileged groups with better communication skills (reading, writing, and software use) enabling meaningful engagement with digital platforms (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Government policy makers can collaborate with schools to support students from low-income households through the provision of home computers aiming to reduce the effect of socio-economic inequalities among students (Wei et al. 2011 ). Policies raising the priority of IT, protecting property rights, and enhancing freedom of the press and openness, can help to stimulate educational advances, labor-force participation and income growth, all of which contribute to advancing technology use (Pick and Azari 2011 ). Policy measures should allow room for local adaptations, as contextual and local elements seem to play a role for technology users and could influence policy success (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Effective evaluation mechanisms make it easier to develop new policies addressing digital divides (Chang et al. 2012 ) helping policy-makers to refine initiatives targeting certain segments of society, such as elderly people and socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Hsieh et al. 2011 ).

Contemporary workplaces can help by taking greater responsibility for IT education of their employees even when they are close to retirement. Developing the digital skills of seniors while they are still employed is important for preventing digital exclusion after retirement (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Overall, employment has a pivotal role in explaining citizen usage of e-government initiatives (Sipior et al. 2011 ). As an employee, an individual may have access to the Internet at the place of employment. Furthermore, employment demands may increase the confidence of an individual in performing new tasks. Thinking beyond workplaces, policies that leverage existing communities, social structures, and local actors can also help in reducing digital inequalities (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Such policies can stimulate public/private partnerships with grassroots organizations that already have “hooks” in local communities. Moreover, long-term government policies could set a goal of encouraging growth in social capital within communities (Pick et al. 2018 ).

Proper training and education can help mitigate digital inequalities (Van Dijk 2012 ). For instance, platform operators can provide coaching services for underprivileged populations (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Furthermore, information campaigns also have a significant role to play, digital divides may be narrowed if vendors engage in trust-building campaigns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Integrating digital education into curricula can also contribute to reducing digital inequalities (Reinartz et al. 2018 ), and education campaigns can stimulate the adoption and usage of ICTs bridging rural-urban digital gaps. Rural communities typically lag in digital skills, and digital literacy training programs can improve digital engagement in rural communities. Digital literacy programs targeting senior citizens can help them develop the necessary skills and abilities to use digital mobile devices so that they could be part of the Digital Society (Carvalho et al. 2018 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ; Klier et al. 2020 ). Educational efforts for the elderly must be practically oriented in order to show directly what is to be gained by becoming more digital (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). In addition, social networks, friends and family are important for supporting the training of disadvantaged people in technologies; family emotional and cognitive support can increase the elderly’s digital capabilities, reduce computer anxiety and increase trust and motivation for learning (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ).

The design and development of ICT solutions should take into account individual differences for creating proper stimuli to different user groups. For instance, the use of governmental e-services can be improved by making them more engaging, interactive, and personal to address a country’s or region’s cultural norms (Zhao et al. 2014 ). This makes the role of appropriate design for overcoming the digital divide a center of attention. Lameijer et al. ( 2017 ) propose that design-related issues should be considered and evaluated to better understand technology adoption patterns among elderly. Also, the study by Klier and colleagues showed that there is a potential to shift older individuals towards a more active engagement with digital media by ensuring ease of use in the design of digital services (Klier et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the needs of groups with disabilities ought to be taken into account when designing information systems for the general public (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). It is important to integrate assistive functionalities in general IS to emphasize authentic inclusiveness. Overall, research points to the importance of functionalities that suit the needs of specific user groups to stimulate the use of digital technologies.

4 Crossing Digital Divides: a Research Agenda

The evolution of IS research on the digital divide during the last decade shows the richness of this research area. As digitalization becomes pervasive in our societies, digital inequalities emerge in different contexts and communities renewing the interest on digital divide research. In recent years, researchers have been shifting away from macro-level studies and are re-orienting towards developing nuanced and contextualized insights about digital inequalities. The analysis of published research allows the identification of gaps and opportunities for further research. Furthermore, there are specific research directions proposed in several of the reviewed papers. The synthesis of suggestions from the papers reviewed with the results of our analysis led to the identification of three research avenues that bring exciting opportunities for researchers to engage with topics that are highly relevant with our digitalization era. Specifically, we suggest a research agenda that proposes: [1] extending established digital divide models with new variables and use of theory, [2] examining the effects of interventions, and [3] addressing societal challenges and especially sustainability goals through the lens of digital divide. Social inclusion and digital equality are crucial for a sustainable digitalized society.

4.1 Avenue I: Extending Established Digital Divide Models and Use of Theory

Extant research shows that physical access divides are being reduced in technologically and economically advanced societies but, inequalities in use persist (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ). These use inequalities are found to be related to socioeconomic characteristics and also, personality traits, motivation and digital skills. A better understanding of the complex phenomenon of digital divide is needed combining multiple aspects to form comprehensive models (Choudrie et al. 2018 ) and further explore the concept itself to get more explanatory power (Lameijer et al. 2017 ). The emphasis, to date, has been on describing the digital divide by identifying gaps between actual technology access and use against an ideal situation. Work should be undertaken to investigate different national, social and cultural settings (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) across geographical contexts (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ) and the influence of institutional and environmental factors on individuals’ ability and motivation to access and use technology (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Furthermore, researchers may explore the values and interests of those abstraining from the use of digital resources and the implications of the overemphasis to digital inclusion (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ).

Further research is also needed to extend established models with new variables. Future investigations may add variables related to social theories (Abdelfattah et al. 2010 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ), personal traits models (Ebermann et al. 2016 ), and capital theory (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Additionally, future research should consider testing psychological variables (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) and additional socio-economical aspects (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ) including support from friends and family (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ; Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ) to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the association between the digital divide phenomenon and contributing variables (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Qualitative research is important for revealing factors that influence inequalities and can become the basis for model building and testing using quantitative data.

Interestingly, fully developed theoretical frameworks that have been extensively used in other streams of exploratory information systems research related to the introduction and use of ICTs were not present in the papers reviewed. For instance, Activity theory and Institutional theory can be used as lenses for understanding and analyzing the digital divide phenomenon. Activity theory (Allen et al. 2011 ; Engeström 1999 ) can help in developing a nuanced understanding of the relationship between ICT artifacts and purposeful individuals taking into account the environment, culture, motivations, and complexity of real-life settings. Institutional theory (Jepperson 1991 ; Scott 2005 ) can contribute to developing insights related to societal structures, norms and routines shifting attention to units of analysis that cannot be reduced to individuals’ attributes or motives. Overall, we observed that digital divide research could benefit from better leveraging theory to extend established digital divide models.

4.2 Avenue II: Examining the Effects of Interventions to Cross the Digital Divide

Measures for crossing digital divides include policy interventions, training and design. Information Systems research can be especially relevant by developing design knowledge for the development and deployment of digital technology artifacts in different settings. Although several measures are proposed in the literature, further work is required to research the effect of interventions to avoid the exclusion of citizens from the digital realm addressing inequalities (Alam and Imran 2015 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). In particular, appropriate design approaches for digital technologies should be investigated and tested to avoid involuntary exclusion of marginalized groups, elderly people or any other group of individuals affected by digital inequalities (Rockmann et al. 2018 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Alam and Imran 2015 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Additionally, comparative research can be undertaken investigating the effects and attractiveness of different design solutions in different cultural settings (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). Overall, although many studies include insights related to measures for bridging digital divides, there is a clear need for studies with a longitudinal research design to investigate the impact of measures over time. Interestingly, little research has been performed up to now on the potentially negative unexpected effects of measures for bridging digital divides (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). This is certainly an area that needs to be further developed. The use of technologies might lead to advantages or disadvantages, which are unevenly distributed in society. Focusing only on benefits, researchers miss the opportunity to connect to emerging literature on the dark side of Internet and unexpected outcomes of digitalization including privacy risks. Scholars of information systems can develop novel avenues of critical thinking on the effects of interventions to cross the digital divide.

4.3 Avenue III: Linking Digital Divide Research With Research on Sustainability

There were no studies in our literature review that focused specifically on sustainability topics, and future research should pay attention to this gap. The United Nations´ sustainability goals focus on reducing inequality within and among countries to avoid biased economic development, social exclusion, and environmentally untenable practices. Important dimensions of sustainable development are human rights and social inclusion, shared responsibilities and opportunities (United Nations 2020 ). An essential part of social inclusion in our societies is e-inclusion (Pentzaropoulos and Tsiougou 2014 ). At the same time, it is important to research the risks and ethical implications of depriving individuals from offline choices (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). Furthermore, we need to support sustainability in rural areas reducing the urban - rural digital divide. Sustainability researchers have identified the issue pointing to the vulnerabilities of rural communities that are in particular need of bridging inequalities (Onitsuka 2019 ). Future empirical studies on the digital divide should therefore pay attention to sustainability topics in terms of social exclusion and digital inequality to better understand underlying factors and potential remedies.

The covid-19 pandemic made digital inequalities even more evident. In periods of social distancing to minimize infection risks, individuals sustain their connections with colleagues, friends, and family through online connections. Furthermore, people need digital skills to keep updated on crucial information and to continue working when possible using home offices and digital connections. In addition, recent crisis response experiences have shown that switching to digital education may lead to exclusion of the few that cannot afford physical digital tools (Desrosiers 2020 ), or do not have access to sustainable infrastructures and ICT access. This crisis has shown that digital divides can become a great challenge aggravating inequalities experienced by marginalized communities such as urban poor and under-resourced businesses. Digital inequalities are a major factor of health-related and socio-economical vulnerability (Beaunoyer et al. 2020 ).

The role of Information Systems researchers is critical for the development of digital capital contributing to sustainable development. Digital capital refers to the resources that can be utilized by communities including digital technology ecosystems and related digital literacy and skills. General policy measures related to stimulating regional economic growth, strengthening tertiary education, or discouraging early leaving from education can be developed by scientists in other domains. However, thinking about inclusive configurations of digital infrastructures and ecosystems and developing related design principles entails specialized knowledge from the Information Systems domain. Furthermore, Information Systems researchers can provide insights about the development of capabilities required for leveraging digital resources such as digital infrastructures (Hustad and Olsen 2020 ; Grisot and Vassilakopoulou 2017 ), big data and business analytics (Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Innovative approaches for leveraging digital resources will be pivotal for addressing grand challenges related to poverty, healthcare and climate change. Information Systems researchers can contribute insights for bridging digital divides to promote an agenda towards a sustainable future.

5 Conclusions

The present work takes stock of Information Systems research on the digital divide by synthesizing insights from publications in the 2010–2020 period. The review process was performed with rigor while selecting and critically assessing earlier research. Nevertheless, this work is not without limitations. We have confined the literature search within one specific discipline (Information Systems research). This limits the breadth of the review but facilitates comprehensiveness and depth in the development of insights about the body of literature analyzed. Furthermore, focusing on Information Systems research facilitates the development of a research agenda that is relevant to the target discipline through the identification of gaps and extrapolations from previous work.

The review showed that within digital divide research, the attention of Information Systems research has gradually shifted from access to use and now needs to shift further towards better understanding use outcomes. Digital inequalities are a serious threat to civil society in an era where societies are rapidly going digital. For instance, daily activities such as paying bills, filling in application forms, filing tax returns, are all expected to be carried out electronically. There are high expectations for active citizens´ role based on online services (Axelsson et al. 2013 ; Vassilakopoulou et al. 2016 ); hence, we need to be concerned of digital inequalities ensuring fairness and inclusiveness. Furthermore, digital resources such as big data and business analytics are key enablers of sustainable value creation within societies (Pappas et al. 2018 ; Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. The findings of this literature review can provide a foundation for further research and a basis for researchers to orient themselves and position their own work.

Abdelfattah, B. M. (2012). Individual-multinational study of internet use: the digital divide explained by displacement hypothesis and knowledge-gap hypothesis. In  AMCIS 2012 Proceedings . 24. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/AdoptionDiffusionIT/24 .

Abdelfattah, B. M., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Kirs, P. (2010). Understanding the internet digital divide: an exploratory multi-nation individual-level analysis. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 542. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542 .

AIS (2019). Association for information systems. Senior scholars’ basket of journals . https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarBasket . Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28 (2), 344–365.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (4), 776–788.

Aricat, R. G. (2015). Is (the study of) mobile phones old wine in a new bottle? A polemic on communication-based acculturation research. Information Technology & People, 28 (4), 806–824.

Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2013). Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen benefit—Findings from a stakeholder centered analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30 (1), 10–22.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22 (5), 269–278.

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106424.

Bucea, A. E., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Coelho, P. S. (2020). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9 .

Burtch, G., & Chan, J. (2019). Investigating the relationship between medical crowdfunding and personal bankruptcy in the United States: evidence of a digital divide. MIS Quarterly, 43 (1), 237–262.

Carvalho, C. V. d., Olivares, P. C., Roa, J. M., Wanka, A., & Kolland, F. (2018). Digital information access for ageing persons. In ICALT 2018 Proceedings  the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE, 345–347.

Chang, S.-I., Yen, D. C., Chang, I.-C., & Chou, J.-C. (2012). Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 14 (3), 693–709.

Choudrie, J., Pheeraphuttranghkoon, S., & Davari, S. (2018). The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of mobile phones: a quantitative study. Information Systems Frontiers, 22 , 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9875-2 .

Davis, J. G., Kuan, K. K., & Poon, S. (2020). Digital exclusion and divide in the United States: exploratory empirical analysis of contributing factors. In AMCIS 2020 Proceedings . 1. Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/social_inclusion/social_inclusion/ .

Desrosiers, M.-E. (2020). As universities move classes online, let’s not forget the digital divide, Policy Options Politiques . https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2020/as-universities-move-classes-online-lets-not-forget-the-digital-divide/ . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.

Dewan, S., Ganley, D., & Kraemer, K. L. (2010). Complementarities in the diffusion of personal computers and the Internet: Implications for the global digital divide. Information Systems Research, 21 (4), 925–940.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 405–416.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. (2020). Digital enforcement: Rethinking the pursuit of a digitally-enabled society. Information Systems Journal, 12306 , 1–14.

Google Scholar  

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New YorK: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ebermann, C., Piccinini, E., Brauer, B., Busse, S., & Kolbe, L. (2016). The impact of gamification-induced emotions on In-car IS adoption - the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE, 1338–1347.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (Vol. 19, pp. 19–37). Cambridge: Camebridge University Press.

Fox, G., & Connolly, R. (2018). Mobile health technology adoption across generations: Narrowing the digital divide. Information Systems Journal, 28 (6), 995–1019.

Grisot, M., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2017). Re-infrastructuring for eHealth: Dealing with turns in infrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26 (1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9264-2 .

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5 (4), 499–522.

Holgersson, J., & Söderström, E. (2019). Bridging the gap - Exploring elderly citizens’ perceptions of digital exclusion. In ECIS 2019 Proceedings.  https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/28 .

Hsieh, J. J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2011). Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 233–253.

Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2020). Creating a sustainable digital infrastructure: the role of service-oriented architecture. Presented at the Centeris conference 2020, forthcoming in Procedia Computer Science , preprint available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346989191_Creating_a_sustainable_digital_infrastructure_The_role_of_service-oriented_architecture .

Int.Telecom.Union (2019). Facts and figs. 2019: measuring digital development. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf . Accessed 25 Apr 2020.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, UK, TR/SE-0401,  1–26.

Klier, J., Klier, M., Schäfer-Siebert, K., & Sigler, I. (2020). #Jobless #Older #Digital – Digital media user of the older unemployed. In ECIS 2020 Proceedings . Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/206 .

Lameijer, C. S., Mueller, B., & Hage, E. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide–recognizing shades of grey in older adults’ digital inclusion. In ICIS 2017 Proceedings . 11. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/General/Presentations/11 .

Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor’s comments: What are the best MIS programs in US business schools? MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), iii–vii.

Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2018). Internet village motoman project in rural Cambodia: bridging the digital divide. Information Technology & People, 21 (1), 2–20.

Ma, J., & Huang, Q. (2015). Does better Internet access lead to more adoption? A new empirical study using household relocation. Information Systems Frontiers, 17 (5), 1097–1110.

Middleton, K. L., & Chambers, V. (2010). Approaching digital equity: is wifi the new leveler? Information Technology & People, 23 (1), 4–22.

Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020). Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value. Information & Management, 57 (1), 103237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103237 .

NTIA. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. National Telecommunications and Information Administration .  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html . Accessed 20 Oct 2019.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (6), 708–726.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). The age-divide in private internet usage: a quantitative study of technology acceptance. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 407. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/407 .

OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers ,  49 , OECD Publishing, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/236405667766 .

Onitsuka, K. (2019). How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities. Sustainability, 11 (2697), 1–24.

Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Paré, G. (2017). What literature review type should I conduct? 1. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp. 73–82). Abingdon: Routledge.

Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Lekakos, G. (2018). Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 16 (3), 479–491.

Park, S., Freeman, J., Middleton, C., Allen, M., Eckermann, R., & Everson, R. (2015). The multi-layers of digital exclusion in rural Australia. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences   (HICSS 2015) Proceedings, IEEE, 3631–3640.

Pentzaropoulos, G. C., & Tsiougou, D. (2014). E-inclusion policies for contemporary knowledge economies and societies: an examination of the main issues. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 5 (1), 77–89.

Pethig, F., & Kroenung, J. (2019). Specialized information systems for the digitally disadvantaged. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20 (10), 1412–1446.

Pick, J., & Azari, R. (2011). A global model of technological utilization based on governmental, business-investment, social, and economic factors. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1), 49–84.

Pick, J., & Sarkar, A. (2016). Theories of the digital divide: Critical comparison. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE,  3888–3897.

Pick, J., Sarkar, A., & Parrish, E. (2018). Internet use and online activities in US States: geographic disparities and socio-economic influences. In the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018) Proceedings, IEEE, 3853–3863.

Racherla, P., & Mandviwalla, M. (2013). Moving from access to use of the information infrastructure: A multilevel sociotechnical framework. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 709–730.

Reinartz, A., Buhtz, K., Graf-Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2018). Mechanisms of engagement with, and disengagement from, Internet applications: A qualitative study of online job search. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) .

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital rehabilitation: a model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62 (9), 1273–1290.

Rockmann, R., Gewald, H., & Haug, M. (2018). Equal access for everyone? A digital divide cascade for retired senior citizens. In  ECIS 2018 Proceedings , 30. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/30 .

Schryen, G., Wagner, G., & Benlian, A. (2015) Theory of knowledge for literature reviews: an epistemological model, taxonomy and empirical analysis of IS literature. In ICIS 2015 Proceedings .  https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=icis2015 .

Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt (eds.) Great minds in management: The process of theory development ,  37 (2), 460–484. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-government in the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (3), 308–328.

Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. (2015). Bridging the service divide through digitally enabled service innovations: evidence from indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39 (1), 245–267.

Talukdar, D., & Gauri, D. K. (2011). Home Internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28 (1), 85–98.

UnitedNations (2020). Getting to know the sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

United Nations (2018). E-government survey 2018, Gearing E‐government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. https://www.unescap.org/resources/e-government-survey-2018-gearing-e-government-support-transformation-towards-sustainable . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34 (4–5), 221–235.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook, 2012, 57–75.

Vassilakopoulou, P., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2016). Enabling electronic interactions between patients and healthcare providers: a service design perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 28 (1), 71–90.

Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding e-Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal, 24 (3), 249–269.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 170–187.

Xiong, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). How does family support work when older adults obtain information from mobile internet? Information Technology & People, 32 (6), 1496–1516.

Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014). A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology & People, 27 (1), 38–62.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge June Lithell Hansen and Andreas Skaiaa for their contribution in an early stage of this study during fall 2018. The contribution was part of their master course work performed at the University of Agder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou & Eli Hustad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

(DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vassilakopoulou, P., Hustad, E. Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf Syst Front 25 , 955–969 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Download citation

Accepted : 06 December 2020

Published : 06 January 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital divide
• Digitalization
• Digital inequalities
• Information systems research
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy

Cynthia k. sanders.

1 School of Social Work, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID USA

Edward Scanlon

2 School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS USA

The role of technology and importance of access to high-speed broadband has become glaringly obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic. High-speed Internet is a tool people rely upon to conduct the daily business of their life and interact with each other, the economy, and government. However, millions of people in the USA still have no home access to high-speed Internet. Low-income, people of color, older, Native Americans, and rural residents in particular are on the wrong side of the digital divide. This structural reality perpetuates social, economic, and political disparities. Consistent with a social work human rights approach, the United Nations General Assembly declared access to the Internet a basic human right in 2016. This calls upon social workers to engage in advocacy efforts to advance policy and programs to alleviate the digital divide. In this article, we examine the digital divide in the USA and discuss why it is a social justice and human rights issue. We provide a policy context and recent examples of state or local policy initiatives to reduce the digital divide. Prominent among them is California’s Internet for All Now Act. We also identify and share promising practices and advocacy tools being used in the field that provide guidance to community practitioners as they engage in work at state and local levels aimed at closing the digital divide.

Introduction

Imagine your day-to-day life without reliable, consistent, and rapid access to the Internet. What kind of impact would this have on your ability to communicate with others, stay in touch with family and friends, complete your schoolwork, look for a job, keep up on current events, or take care of your daily financial transactions? What kind of impact would this have had on your life during the pandemic of 2020? The role and importance of technology has become glaringly obvious in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where society has been forced to rely even more heavily on technology for basic daily living including accessing basic goods, maintaining connections with others, working from home, and having the ability to complete schoolwork.

However, completing these basic tasks is a major challenge for millions of people who either lack access to high-speed Internet or do not adopt it, creating disadvantages that affect their ability to participate in social, political, and economic lives in the USA. A high-speed Internet connection, also known as broadband, is an essential infrastructure for functioning in today’s society. Those without access or adoption are in the digital divide. This structural reality effectively results in what has been called “digital redlining” and further perpetuates social and economic disparities in society (Neidig 2017 ; Gilliard 2016 ). This injustice calls on social workers to engage in policy and program initiatives to close the digital divide.

In this article, we examine the digital divide, who does and does not have access to an essential service that is part of the daily fabric of living in the digital era. We discuss why the digital divide is a human rights and social justice issue: one that social workers should be actively working to close through policy advocacy work. We examine what some states are doing to reduce the divide and are encouraged by steps in some communities to extend Internet service to many rural and marginalized groups. However, there is still much work to do in order to ensure everyone has access to reliable and high- speed Internet. In the final section of this article, we examine promising practices and advocacy tools utilized in the field that can assist community practitioners to engage in work at state and local levels aimed at closing the digital divide.

The Digital Divide

Librarian Jessamyn West ( 2011 ) offers a definition of the digital divide: “The digital divide is a simplistic phrase used to explain the gap between people who can easily use and access technology, and those who cannot. The term digital divide has been in common use to refer to the sense of technological haves and have-nots for over a decade” (Introduction, p. xxiv). In other words, some people are privileged in their access to and use of technology compared with others. This is due to a variety of factors, including computer ownership, high-speed Internet access and adoption, and digital literacy.

Mossberger et al. ( 2003 ) conceptualize the digital divide to consist of multidimensional aspects of technological inclusion: “an access divide, a skills divide, an economic opportunity divide, and a democratic divide” (p. 2). High-speed Internet is a tool people increasingly rely upon to interact with the government, the economy, and each other. Increased home Internet use is associated with a significantly higher probability of contacting government officials in various ways. In a 2010 study by political scientists Dari Sylvester and Adam McGlynn, Internet usage was found to increase political participation by providing information that can increase one’s political efficacy, including acts such as letter writing, phone calls, and sending e-mails to government. The results demonstrate that those who do not use the Internet at home, whether due to inadequate knowledge or lack of access, are less likely to be civically active. Thus, the digital divide can have significant negative consequences for political participation.

While an extensive discussion of the history of Internet development is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that there is good reason to argue that broadband should be a public utility. Indeed, billions of dollars in public funding are responsible for the mobilization and development of the Internet (Tarnoff 2016 ). The roots of the Internet go back to the 1960s when the public entity Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) began to invest heavily in computing, building mainframes at universities and other research sites. The precursor to the Internet was the network built by ARPA called ARPANET. Through public funding, scientific collaboration, experimentation, and innovation ARPANET flourished. In the mid-1970s, the development of Internet protocols emerged as a common language between very different networks and made it possible for ARPANET to evolve into the Internet. The National Science Foundation undertook initiatives to bring the Internet to universities across the country. These efforts culminated in NSFNET, a national network that became the new backbone of the Internet. As popularity of the Internet grew, so did congestion and demand beyond capability (Tarnoff 2016 ).

Beginning in the 1990s, the US government began a process of privatizing a network built at tremendous public expense. The free market and deregulation climate of Clinton Democrats and Newt Gingrich’s Republicans framed private ownership of the Internet as beneficial and inevitable. NSFNET director Stephen Wolf believed privatizing the Internet could avoid political and technical challenges and that liberation from government control would allow the Internet to become a mass medium. Today, the Internet backbone and broadband are held by relatively few large corporations that dominate the market (Tarnoff 2016 ). Developing the Internet was historically a radical and financially risky idea. It took decades of public funding and planning to bring it into existence. The development of the Internet can be thought of as akin to other public utilities such as water and electricity. It can be compared with the US road grid or the US Postal Service that reaches everyone. Left to its own devices, the private market will not provide access to everyone at affordable prices but rather systematically provide expensive services for the richest people in order to make profits at the expense of the social good (Klein 2014 ).

Thus, there is an argument to be made that the Internet should be a publically owned and controlled utility. Indeed some municipalities have forcefully responded with publicly owned and affordable municipal broadband. For example, Chattanooga, TN, using a fiber-optic network built in part with federal stimulus funds, offers some of the fastest Internet speeds in the world at affordable prices (O’Toole 2014 ). The “Chattanooga model” has inspired movements for municipal broadband in several other cities (Tarnoff 2016 ).

The digital divide not only includes the obvious issues of access to computers and connectivity but also includes issues of inequity affecting those who either lack the skills and opportunities to access information technology or who are in a less equal position in terms of use (Makinen 2006 ). As research into the digital divide progresses, the need for digital literacy is highlighted. In some cases, those with low digital literacy may begin to gain access and enter the “haves” in technology but may demonstrate reluctance to the use of technology simply because they do not know how (Real et al. 2014 ). Educating and training both individuals and library and information (LIS) professionals are crucial components in the digital divide in order to provide information congruent with ever-changing technology and points of access.

A goal for using information technology (IT) becomes the promotion of social inclusion among marginalized groups. That is, closing the digital divide requires access and enhancement of the abilities of individuals and groups to use IT to engage in meaningful social practices. Access to broadband Internet has been credited with effects on individual empowerment, community development, and economic growth (Jayakar et al. 2016 ). Historically, people have relied upon the US Postal Service (USPS) for access to information, a means of communication, and their ability to deliver essential items like medication, legal notices, and ballots. USPS’s overall financial condition has been deteriorating for several years (GAO 2017 ), and its sustainability is under attack by the Trump administration (Waldman 2020 ). Thus, perhaps now more than ever, it is important for social workers to advocate for an inclusive high-speed Internet that replicates in the digital age what the postal service originally sets out to do in providing the nation with a reliable, affordable, and universal service (USPS 2011 ).

Broadband Access

While Internet access has grown among all socioeconomic categories, significant differences by age, income, ethnicity/race, and educational level persist (Warf 2012 ). Geographical location is also a leading factor, with rural communities much less likely to have access to high-speed Internet (West and Karsten 2016 ). A large disparity also exists for those living with a disability. Approximately 81% of adults use the Internet; however, only 51% of adults living with a disability access the Internet (Fox 2011 ).

According to the most recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deployment report (FCC 2019 ), an estimated 21 million Americans still have no home access to high-speed Internet service, defined by the FCC as a download speed of 25 Mbps and upload speed of 3 Mbps. The majority live in rural areas (McGill 2018 ). These data most likely underestimate the number of people who do not have access to broadband, as the FCC’s data are widely considered to overestimate broadband connectivity (Pew Research 2020 ; Lecher 2019 ; GAO 2018 ). Other sources estimate this number as high as 162 million people across the USA who are not using the Internet at broadband speed (Microsoft 2019 ). Based on the 2018 Broadband deployment report, as of the year end 2016, 92.3% of all Americans had access to fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from 89.4% in 2014 and 81.2% in 2012. While the overall trend in access is improving, patterns of exclusion persist (FCC 2018 ).

Broadband Adoption

Availability of broadband does not equal adoption. Adoption of broadband is equally important to ensure the benefits (including economic benefits) that go along with Internet use to everyone. While broadband may be available, broadband adoption refers to the extent to which US households subscribe to and use broadband. Populations who continue to lag in broadband adoption, even when available, include people with low incomes, older adults, minorities, the less educated, non-family households, the unemployed, and limited English-speaking households (Kruger and Gilroy 2019 ; Ryan 2018 ). According to Census data from the 2016 American Community Survey, 81.4% of American households have a broadband Internet subscription. Census data from July 2015 show that 68% of Americans use the Internet at home. However, in 2015, 73.3 million (almost a quarter of the nation’s population) lived in neighborhoods where in-home broadband subscription rates fell below 40%. These residents tend to be older, have lower incomes and lower education levels, and subscription rates remain lowest in rural America. These numbers also include 17.7 million children under the age of 18 (Tomer et al. 2017 ). For children, living without in-home broadband means losing the benefits from digital curricula or developing digital skills for the future workplace among other things. And the challenges are great for schools and school districts serving non-subscribing households. Data from the Pew Research Center demonstrate that certain groups, unable to afford the cost of monthly subscriptions, continue to lag in the adoption of broadband including people with low incomes, older adults, those with less education, rural households, and those on tribal lands and US territories (Kruger and Gilroy 2019 ).

Digital readiness/literacy also plays an important role in adoption rates. Digital readiness (digital skills such as ability to use hardware and software to communicate, manage information, navigate the Internet, identify threats and safety issues) and access to equipment are other consistent adoption barriers. A lack of digital readiness is most prevalent among older, non-Asian minority, less-educated, and lower-income individuals (Horrigan 2016 ).

Low-Income Households

The main reason some families do not have home computers or subscribe to the Internet is because they cannot afford it (Rideout and Katz 2016 ). People who fall lower on the economic ladder are more likely to be people without access or unable to adopt the Internet resulting in falling further behind and widening the digital divide between rich and poor. According to 2015 National Telecommunications and Information Administration data, the digital divide varies by family income. Americans with family incomes between $75,000 and $99,999 per year adopted the Internet at an 83% rate, compared with 80% with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 and 70% for those in the $25,000 to $49,999 range. Pronounced disparities exist for those living in rural areas compared with urban ones (Carlson and Goss 2016 ). Nearly half (48%) of all households have “high connectivity” meaning households with a laptop or desktop, a smartphone, a tablet, and a broadband Internet connectivity. However, among household with an income of $150,000 or more, 80% of households had high connectivity while this was true for only 21% of households with an income under $25,000 (U.S Census 2017 ). Additionally, states with higher incomes reported high rates of use and access while low-income states including Arkansas and Mississippi had the lowest rates of broadband use at 71%. (Ryan 2018 ).

The majority (91% overall) of people living in poverty have at least some form of Internet access (Rideout and Katz 2016 ). However, lower-income adults rely more heavily on smartphone-only access. In 2019, 26% of adults making $30,000 or less relied on smartphones for Internet access compared with 20% of those making between $30,001 and $49,999, 10% of those making $50,000–$74,999, and only 6% of those making $75,000 and above (Pew Research 2019 ). Mobile-only families are less likely to do certain types of online activities including staying in touch with family and friends, getting news, looking for general information, bank or pay bills online, shop online, and apply for jobs or services. With just a mobile device, it is very difficult to do things like help children with homework (Rideout and Katz 2016 ).

This pattern of income variation in broadband connectivity not only affects households but also occurs at the neighborhood level. Tomer et al. ( 2017 ) found that low-income neighborhoods have the lowest subscription rates and that the opposite is true for high-income neighborhoods, where only 3% of residents lived in low-subscription neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these patterns support the notion that those left behind in the digitally connected economy are those who are already struggling economically.

Race and Ethnicity

With the degree to which Internet access and adoption is paramount to social mobility, racial disparities stand to reproduce and perhaps exacerbate broader, racialized patterns. Blacks and Latinos are equally likely to report having Internet access, but both groups are less likely to report having Internet access than Whites. While access to the Internet has increased for all racial groups, access disparities for Blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans persist compared with Whites (Campos-Castillo 2015 ; FCC 2020 ).

Based on census data in 2015, the percentage of households with no broadband or computer disproportionately impact Blacks and Hispanics at rates of 36.4 and 30.3%, respectively, compared with only 21.2% of White households who have neither broadband or a computer (US Census 2017 ). Families headed by Hispanic immigrants are the least connected among low and moderate income families (Rideout and Katz 2016 ). Households with an Asian head of household were the most likely to own or use a laptop or desktop, to own or use a smartphone, to own or use a tablet, and to have a broadband Internet subscription. On the other hand, Black heads of household were the least likely to own or use a desktop or laptop or have a broadband subscription (Ryan 2018 ).

Approximately one in five adults, especially young adults, in the USA are smartphone-only Internet users. These smartphone-only users are more likely to be Black or Hispanic (Pew Research 2019 ). This is congruent with smartphone-only use among low-income households since we know that Black and Hispanic persons are disproportionately poor (Macartney et al. 2013 ). This could suggest that some people are increasingly comfortable using their phones rather than a computer. However, it is also because cell-only Internet users are younger heads of household of color with low incomes and less education who may resort to choosing between a phone or a computer and are thus forced to forgo the advantages and speed of conducting Internet business on an in home computer (Pew Research 2019 ; Duggan and Smith  2013 ).

People with lower levels of education are more likely to find themselves within the digital divide. In 2015, for example, the digital divide was greatest between rural and urban users without a high school diploma. Only 52% of those who lack a high school diploma and live in a rural area reported using the Internet, compared with 59% of those who live in urban households (Carlson and Goss 2016 ).

Variations in public school funding are reproduced in terms of quality of Internet access within their classrooms, and the digital divide in public schools is also racialized with White students more likely than students of color to use the Internet in the classroom or school library (Warf 2012 ). And, while many students can utilize broadband capabilities within school facilities, many students will not be able to tap their device’s full potential at home. Additionally, a lack of access and in-home equipment can have a negative impact on school enrollment for youth (Tomer et al. 2017 ; Fairlie  2005 ).

For students who cannot get online at home, either because they lack access or because their families are socioeconomically disadvantaged and they cannot afford monthly charges to stay connected, learning starts and stops at the classroom door. According to Karl Vick ( 2017 ), policymakers trade stories of children completing assignments by using Wi-Fi outside of closed libraries or camping out in fast food restaurants. Children may try to complete homework on their phones but run out of data before they can complete their work. In some areas, it can be even more difficult if communities are relying on satellite dish technology, which is slower and more expensive.

Children who lack access to digital resources miss out on other enhancements as well, with disadvantaged students lacking or holding inferior technological resources at home compared with more privileged students (Ritzhaupt et al. 2013 ). For example, technology can enhance learning in various positive ways such as through e-books and animation. In a similar vein, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics ( 2015 ) indicates that the effective use of technology can increase interest and proficiency in mathematics. Unfortunately, technology is not distributed evenly in schools. Teachers in low-income districts tend to incorporate digital resources in a less than optimal manner compared with those in wealthier areas (Rienhart et al. 2011 ).

This information paints a picture of some of the challenges faced in education prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 forced most schools to rapidly shifted entire curricula to online platforms. A recent New York Times editorial ( 2020 ) highlighted digital inequality among school age children when the country responded to the coronavirus by shutting down schools. Before the pandemic, an estimated 12 million children were having difficulty completing homework assignments because they lacked home Internet. A disproportionate share of those students are African-American, Hispanic, live in rural areas, or come from low-income families (Walravens 2020 ). Internet-savvy school systems appeared to move forward relatively smoothly. However, some districts that lack infrastructure and serve largely poor populations are scrambling to deliver remote learning (Bentley 2020 ). A number of states have been forced to reckon with how the digital divide is impacting their youngest residents. For example, Idaho launched a media campaign called “Close the Divide” recognizing that 200,000 students in Idaho lack a computer and 30,000 do not have access to Wi-Fi. This is about 11% of the 1.8 million residents of Idaho. The campaign is seeking donated laptop computers and financial contributions to buy computers and increase Internet access (Close the Divide 2020 ). While initiatives like this one are valued, it is unfortunate that it required a pandemic to highlight the divide and advance efforts to close it.

Urban/Metro vs. Rural and Tribal Communities

An issue commonly raised in the literature is the digital divide between urban and rural communities, especially in terms of their differential access to broadband (West and Karsten 2016 ). Since the dawn of the Internet, rural areas have had less Internet access than urban areas. High-speed wired connections are less common, and wireless phone service and signals are weaker than in cities (or absent all together). Rural residents have fewer choices of Internet service providers (or none at all), pay higher prices for lower quality service, and generally earn less money than urban dwellers. Disparities could have adverse economic and social consequences for those left behind. A number of studies have demonstrated positive relationships between availability of broadband and greater economic growth in employment, number of business overall, and greater growth in median household incomes (Kruger and Gilroy 2019 ).

Broadband is currently largely deployed by the private sector and thus profit-driven. Because of this, there is less incentive for companies to invest in broadband in rural areas than in urban areas where there is more demand and where customers are more likely to have higher incomes and less cost to wire the market area. Broadband providers are less likely to enter rural markets due to the actual or perceived lower profitability of markets with lower population densities or rugged terrain which may be difficult to reach or build technological infrastructure (GAO  2006 ). There is less money to be made with lower population densities and running wires to rural areas costs more.

According to the FCC as of the end of 2017, over 26% of Americans in rural areas and 32% of Americans on tribal lands lack coverage from fixed terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, compared with only 1.5% of Americans in urban areas (FCC 2019 ). Approximately 14 million rural Americans and 1.2 million Americans living on tribal lands in 2017 lacked even low-speed mobile LTE broadband of speeds of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps (FCC 2018 ). According to Traci Morris, Director of the American Indian Policy Institute at Arizona State University, accurate measures of Internet access are lacking and thus likely overestimate connectivity because nationwide reports that measure digital access and literacy typically exclude Native American Populations (ASU 2019 ). While mobile phones are a tool to help residents on Native American land get online, many communities do not have reliable cell coverage nearby (Wang 2018 ). Tribal communities stand out as being among the most unserved and underserved populations with respect to broadband deployment. Writing in Politico , author Martha Harding McGill ( 2018 ) notes that nowhere is the digital divide more extreme than on tribal lands. According to the FCC ( 2020 ) “by virtually any measure, communities on tribal lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services than any other segment of the population” (p. 5).

While libraries play a vital role in rural and tribal locations to Internet access, they too lag behind more urban areas. According to a study by the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums, 89% of tribal libraries that responded to a 2013 survey offer Internet access to patrons compared with 100% of public libraries (Jorgensen et al. 2014 ). At least 40% of tribal libraries lacked broadband Internet, and 14% of tribal libraries did not offer public computer workstations. While 86% of rural public libraries offer some form of free public Wi-Fi, only 68% of tribal libraries do; however, only 17% of tribal libraries in the study were able to provide Wi-Fi access when the library is closed. Eleven percent do not offer Internet access at all, and only 34% of tribal libraries had a website. Compared with public libraries nationwide, fewer tribal libraries can offer electronic resources for homework, licensed electronic databases, e-books, and online instructional courses and tutorials. While 87% of rural public libraries and 90% of all public libraries offer some type of training in technology, only 42% of tribal libraries offer similar training.

Rural students are severely restricted from educational opportunities compared with their urban counterparts including personalized online curricula, Internet-based research, and online testing. Further, rural communities may be unable to access critical government services that are increasingly provided through online portals such as Social Security, tax forms, and college student financial aid forms (West and Karsten 2016 ). Americans who are otherwise less likely to use the Internet, such as those with lower levels of income or education, confront an even larger disadvantage when living in a rural area. According to data collected by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), all persons, regardless of race or ethnicity, were less likely to use the Internet when living in rural areas; however, certain groups face a particularly large digital divide (Carlson and Goss 2016 ).

In metro areas, the biggest shortfalls are in the South, especially Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Georgia (Tomer et al. 2017 ). Within large metro areas, neighborhoods without broadband service are largely suburban. However, due to density, the largest absolute number of residents in low-subscription neighborhoods lives in areas that are more populous overall and includes four of the largest areas in the nation; Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Chicago. In other words, while each metro area is below average in terms of the share of people living in low subscription neighborhoods, collectively, this group is composed of 5.7 million people. So, while rural communities are much more likely to lack access to broadband, many metro area neighborhoods also fail to connect significant number of residents to existing broadband service. Residents living in low subscription rate neighborhoods can be found in urban, suburban, and small metropolitan communities alike, but by far, access and subscription rates remain lowest in rural America (Tomer et al. 2017 ).

Digital Access Is a Human Rights and Social Justice Issue

According to the United Nations, human rights are inherent to all human beings regardless of their status. Human rights include freedom from slavery and torture, the right to life and liberty, the right to work and education, freedom of opinion and expression, and equality and non-discrimination. Human rights include covenants on civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Under international human rights law, it is incumbent upon nations and states to engage in or refrain from acts in order to promote and protect human rights (UN, n.d. ). In recent years, social work’s historic commitment to social justice has been advanced through the promotion of a human rights approach. The human rights approach turns social work’s response to individual human need to a more expansive view that the resources necessary for survival and the development of human potential should be available to all as a right based upon our common humanity. In this view, resources must be distributed broadly within a framework that sees such a dispersal of social goods and resources as necessary for equitable human development and the social inclusion necessary for the development of democratic institutions (Murdach 2011 ; Wronka 2016 ). Given the central role that the Internet plays in today’s digital age in gaining access to resources, jobs, health care, and education among others, universal access to broadband clearly falls within the realm of human rights.

Consistent with this approach, we see that around the world, access to high-speed Internet is increasingly seen not just as a convenience, but as a necessity and more recently as a human right. The United Nations has created a comprehensive body of human rights law to which nations can subscribe and people can aspire. The foundations of this body of law are the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Major social work organizations affirm this Declaration including the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW 2012 ). One of the Council on Social Work Education’s competencies includes advancing human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice (CSWE 2015 ).

In 2016, an addition was made to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly 2016 ). The United Nations General Assembly declared access to the Internet a basic human right, integral to allowing individuals to “exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression” and emphasizing “access to internet facilitates vast opportunities for affordable and inclusive education.” Additionally, viewed globally, the UN also stressed the importance of “the empowerment of all women and girls” by enhancing their access to information and communication technology (p. 2–3). According to the International Telecommunication Union ( 2016 ), while the USA has a small gender gap (2%) in access to the Internet, there is a large gap in the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) at 31%.

With the advancement of technology comes the evolution of need. Today, computers and access to and adoption of the Internet impact multiple areas of our lives and have become vital to a wide range of functions from basic tasks like paying bills and shopping, to entertainment and socializing, to staying connected to family and friends. Internet access has become an avenue for finding employment, accessing health care, and pursuing formal education through online degree programs, to searching for information for more informal learning (e.g., how do I unclog my kitchen sink?). Those who lack Internet access are deprived of knowledge that could assist them in obtaining jobs, lower consumer prices, online entertainment, and many other necessities (health care, banking, communication with children’s school and teachers, etc.). Without government support of human rights little progress can be made to incorporate them into policy and practice. The USA has a mixed record on its commitment and actions on human rights (Human Rights Watch 2019 ). Sadly, while the Internet began as a public investment, which theoretically should support access for all and thus reinforce a human right’s framework to support each human being in realizing their inherent dignity and autonomy, privatization has resulted in the digital divide. Nonetheless, this should not prevent social workers from advancing inclusive policies and practices premised on the integration of human rights to close the divide.

Digital exclusion amounts to social exclusion where lack of information and digital technology negatively impacts personal, political, and economic capabilities. Individuals and communities are socially excluded when for reasons beyond their control, they are unable to participate in the normal activities of society (Burchardt et al. 1999 ). Everyone should have equal access to the Internet and have the opportunity to interface effectively through universal broadband access and by means of digital literacy training where needed in order to help people use the Internet well. Social work ethics call for social workers to ensure clients’ access to services, as well as to provide culturally competent, inclusive, and affirming services (NASW 2017 ).

Social workers are committed to promoting social justice and access to resources that allow individuals and communities to more fully meet basic needs, promote well-being, and reach their capabilities in a complicated society. It has become increasingly clear, and during the recent pandemic glaringly obvious, that access to information and communication technology (ICT) and a broadband infrastructure to support it is an essential human right in order to function in today’s society. When millions of people, disproportionately low-income, people of color, Native American and rural residents, find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide, it calls upon social workers to engage in advocacy efforts to advance policy and programs to alleviate the divide.

Social work literature on integrating technology into practice and social work curriculum is on the rise (Belluomini 2017 ; Perron et al. 2010 ; Cosner Berzin et al. 2015 ; Allen et al. 2010 ; Stuhlmiller and Tolchard 2009 ; VanDeMark et al. 2010 ; Youn 2007 ). However, there is relatively little social work literature on the topic of policy advocacy to close the digital divide (Kuilema 2012 ; Queiro-Tajalli et al. 2003 ). At the same time, the US National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has compared broadband access with other vital services and utilities including water and electricity (Pace 2010 ). A recent publication by NASW ( 2017 ), in a joint statement with the Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, and the Clinical Social Work Association on standards for technology in social work practice, acknowledges the importance of technology in enhancing social workers’ ability to engage in social action, develop social policy, and promote social justice (p. 21). They also note the importance of advocating for access to electronic services as part of social workers’ commitment to social justice (p. 26).

Policy Context and Policy Efforts

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addressed the issue of whether the Federal Government should intervene to prevent the digital divide in broadband services. Section 706 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable fashion” (U.S. Senate Bill 652- Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) . Historically, court rulings have upheld net neutrality prohibiting broadband companies from blocking or slowing the delivery of Internet content to consumers and maintaining the notion that the Internet is as critical as phone service or power (Kang 2016 ). Net neutrality preserves the FCC’s authority to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) and the Internet infrastructure to ensure that everyone has equal access. The concept of net neutrality is that all data traffic on a network should be treated indiscriminately and Internet service providers would be restricted from blocking, slowing down, or speeding up delivery of online content at their discretion. The debate surrounding net neutrality is essentially about how Internet service providers should be regulated, or not, and what role government should play in overseeing their network practices (Morton 2019 ).

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan to promote digital inclusion includes a combination of sufficient broadband service, affordable broadband service, and the availability of opportunities to develop the digital literacy needed to use broadband (Jaeger et al. 2012 ). However, the FCC and federal communications’ involvement in ensuring Internet access for all continues to be a source of heated debate. President Obama for example offered his view on broadband connectivity in a video from November 10, 2014, which in essence would have resulted in policies that would have radically changed the way that Internet is viewed by the government, resulting in broadband being seen as a public utility (Zeke 2014 ). In 2015, the FCC released an Open Internet Order with extensive rules to ensure Internet users equal and open access (Ruiz 2015 ). However, more recent actions under the Trump administration and FCC chairman Ajit Pai include the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order and transparency rule amendments. Taking effect June 11, 2018, this order overturned earlier requirements on net neutrality for Internet service providers and placed primary jurisdiction over Internet service providers’ network management practices under the Federal Trade Commission. Further, it preempted states from enacting similar network restrictions found in the 2015 Open Internet Order (Morton 2019 ). Nonetheless, 29 states and Puerto Rico responded by introducing net neutrality legislation in 2019 (Morton 2019 ).

FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, was appointed by President Trump and made repeal of rules and deregulation of the Internet a top priority, suggesting that it would help encourage innovation and help propel the economy (McCabe 2019 ). Led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, 22 states, the District of Columbia, and Internet company Mozilla, a lawsuit was filed against the FCC and efforts to dismantle net neutrality in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Kang 2019 ). In October 2019, the federal appeals court upheld the repeal of regulations, but ruled the FCC overstepped by seeking to broadly stop states and local governments from implementing their own net neutrality rules (McCabe 2019 ). This ruling sets a precedence for the FCC to no longer regulate Internet service providers and diminishes the idea that high-speed Internet delivery should be treated as if it were a public utility. Sadly, this is in stark contrast to the declaration that access to the Internet is a basic human right. Net neutrality is likely to continue to be an ongoing debate at federal, state, and local levels and in the courts.

Recognizing the importance of broadband and the gap that results between resources and opportunities available to those who live in communities with robust networks and those who do not, a number of states are making efforts to close the gap in the absence of adequate federal action. For example, in New York City, OneNYC launched in 2015 by Mayor Bill de Blasio, aimed to provide every resident and business in New York with access to adequate and affordable broadband by 2025 (Nyc.gov 2015 ). It also focused on providing people with IT and technology skills, as well as providing improved Internet access throughout the city and offered dedicated support to senior citizens and young people and their families. Another example is LinkNYC, which is focusing on repurposing New York’s payphone infrastructure with free Wi-Fi—with at least 7500 payphone kiosks planned for installation by 2025, providing high-speed broadband to residents. The Smart Communities program in Chicago offered digital literacy and other training in low-income neighborhoods. Results demonstrated that more residents accessed job and health care services when a neighborhood-wide intervention to promote broadband use was implemented and confirm that neighborhoods struggling with broadband subscription are important focus areas for inclusive economic development planning (Tomer et al. 2017 ).

A recent expansive effort is the state of California’s Internet for All Now Act , which attempts to reduce the digital divide for the 5 million California residents who lack access to reliable high-speed Internet services. Recognizing that broadband is a key component in building healthy economies and educational systems and acknowledging that many rural and low-income communities go unserved or underserved in the digital age, California passed the Internet for All Now Act in 2017. Assembly Bill 1665 (the Internet for All Now Act) was introduced in the California State Legislature on February 17, 2017, by Assembly member Eduardo Garcia with multiple joint and coauthor assembly members. The bill allocates $330 million and extends the California Advances Services Fund (CASF) toward broadband deployment in low-income and rural areas by amending sections of the public utility code (California AB No 1665  2017 ).

The Internet for All Now Act received overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses and moved on to be signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 15, 2017. The new law took effect on January 1, 2018. The bill package includes funding to expand access to broadband and support for digital literacy programs in communities previously deprived of reliable Internet connection (Wood 2017 ). California previously had a goal of expanding broadband infrastructure to 98% of California households. The goal of the Internet for All Now Act is to expand this goal to 98% of every geographical region of the state ensuring that rural communities are not left out of expansion efforts. In fact, the law stipulates that infrastructure projects in unserved or underserved regions are to receive funding first. In addition to broadband infrastructure, the bill includes an account directed toward unserved public housing communities. Additionally, money is available through the broadband adoption account to advance digital literacy training, public education, and outreach programs to increase broadband adoption by consumers, in particular those who are low-income, older adults, and communities facing socioeconomic barriers to broadband adoption.

California has also been a leader in seeking to maintain net neutrality, approving a law in 2018 that effectively restored the Obama-era federal rules at the state level (McCabe 2019 ). This law was passed in response to the Restoring Internet Freedom order under the Trump administration and FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, discussed earlier. Unfortunately, the California law is currently being held due to a lawsuit filed by the US Justice Department asking a federal judge to block implementation (Castro 2020 ).

The approach of advancing broadband and reducing the digital divide in California is to encourage public-private partnerships and leverage private investment, maximize available federal funding (such as through the federal Connect America Fund), and administer the CASF to promote the most cost-effective and equitable progress in access to and adoption of the Internet across California. Despite certain limitations, the Internet for All Now Act makes strides toward closing the digital divide in California and advancing inclusion of marginalized groups, particularly low-income and rural residents, thus advancing social and economic justice for Californians in the Digital Age.

Overcoming the Digital Divide

Bringing all Americans into the information age will require a momentous effort on the scale of the federal project that brought electricity to darkened regions of the country during the New Deal. However, in the absence of such an initiative, we must continue to move forward with local and state initiatives and as social workers engage in policy practice that reaches vulnerable groups in the digital divide including low-income communities, people of color, older, and rural populations. Using a slightly modified version of Bliss’s ( 2015 ) model of advocacy, we propose a six-step model for social workers to utilize in digital inclusion activism, recognizing that state and local contexts will shape the specifics of strategic decisions that are made at each point along the way. However, drawing upon existing digital activism efforts and the best policy and program practices that have emerged in states with extant broadband access initiatives, we suggest a number of goals that might be useful for newly forming coalitions to consider.

In a review of the literature on the advocacy process, Bliss ( 2015 ) identifies five components of a framework for thinking about engaging in policy advocacy which we might use to reduce the digital divide. These include (1) identifying the cause and beneficiary of the advocacy campaign, (2) specifying an intended outcome, (3) identifying target audiences, (4) specifying strategies and tactics, and (5) constructing a plan for evaluating advocacy processes and outcomes. We have added a component that we believe should occur at the beginning of Bliss’s model: developing an appropriate structure for coordinating advocacy efforts. We will consider each stage in turn.

Forming an Advocacy Structure

First, social workers will need to determine the most fitting structure for an advocacy campaign focused on digital inclusion. A variety of possibilities exist and are dependent on the impetus for the campaign, state and local agencies and organizations that may have an interest, and the level of change that the advocates are attempting to leverage. For example, social workers might launch such a campaign under the structure of an NASW State Chapter policy committee, as part of a multiagency campaign to increase client access to tele-health services or as part of a local chapter of a national digital inclusion organization. Because digital inclusion requires a fairly expansive involvement by either local or state government, a coalition model seems appropriate for marshalling the influence that multiple stakeholders could exert upon elected officials who might move model legislation forward. With the social distancing needs of those providing social services, health care, and mental health services to low income and rural populations during the era of Covid-19, it might be an opportune time for state actors to create coalitions of digital access activists among the providers accepting Medicaid and/or working with state contracted services. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance might be a useful organization with whom social workers might form coalitions, as they currently work with 44 state organizations that include libraries, universities, school districts, and others with a vested interest in seeing an expansion of digital access (National Digital Inclusion Alliance  2020 ).

Clarifying Cause and Beneficiaries

Second, Bliss states that social workers should clarify the nature of their cause and the intended beneficiaries of their advocacy. In this case, the cause is clear—to increase access to and adoption of affordable, high-speed broadband at the state or local level. However, the exact nature of the beneficiaries will vary somewhat based upon state context—in general though, as we have shown in our earlier literature review, the populations dealing with lower levels of Internet access and adoption include rural populations, residents of tribal reservations, the elderly, people of color, and low-income citizens.

Articulating a Desired Outcome

Third, what is the intended outcome? Bliss notes that advocacy efforts are intended to bring about some change in the status of the beneficiary. Again, the exact nature of policy change that can occur in the area of reducing the digital divide will depend upon the political context of the state or locality in question. Generally speaking, one would posit that more liberal states (e.g., California) are more likely to have more expansive digital inclusion policies and are more likely to use government sponsored Internet providers rather than rely solely upon private, for-profit providers for access. However, this is not always the case, as we see in the Chattanooga model, where local government provides a public option for Internet services.

Fortunately, social workers do not have to develop possible outcomes of interest on their own. A variety of models of public policy and governmental action for digital inclusion, as we have seen, currently exist. A recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts ( 2020 ) examined state broadband programs nationwide. Findings reveal a variety of state initiatives reflecting diverse state political and economic contexts. After conversations with 300 broadband stakeholders including Internet service providers (ISPs), representatives of state broadband programs, local governments, and broadband coalitions, the study highlights five practices that a number of states have taken that are proving effective. Practices reflect activities that stakeholders identified as central to the progress they have made. These promising practices are mutually reinforcing, frequently done simultaneously, and include (a) a clear plan for stakeholder outreach and engagement; (b) a policy framework with well-defined goals including the creation of tasking agencies or establishing separate offices to lead statewide broadband programs, plans for identifying barriers in unserved and underserved areas, and initiatives that connect broadband to other policy priorities such as economic development, transportation, education, and health care to build partnerships and leverage more funding; (c) planning and capacity building goals that help educate community members, identify needs and goals, and start conversations with ISPs, evaluate options, and move toward implementing infrastructure projects; (d) funding and operations that provide support for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas through grant programs and which include accountability measures to ensure that grantees demonstrate they are providing the service they were funded to deliver; and (e) program evaluations which effectively explore the performance of their efforts and update goals and activities as their programs mature.

When engaging in efforts to increase Internet connectivity, advocates have focused on three key aspects: universality, affordability, and reliability. Regardless of neighborhood location, economic level, legal status, or racial/ethnic identity every resident should be able to connect. Pricing must be affordable and include discounted and free accounts to low-income community members. Finally, Internet speed must be consistent and fast. These should be central goals for any advocacy effort in the area of digital inclusion.

It is also vital that the outcome of digital inclusion efforts does not end with connectivity. Strategies for affordable hardware, technical literacy training, and technical support should also be part of the plan for digital inclusion. Hardware devices are constantly being improved, and as noted earlier, some populations disproportionately rely solely on smartphones. Initiatives are needed to make sure that appropriate hardware for each broadband system is affordable and accessible. Examples include creating affordable computer purchasing plans through local governments or local non-profits, developing partnerships to distribute free and donated hardware to underserved community members, soliciting corporate donations, and including access to hardware with assistive technologies to ensure access by differently abled users.

Affordable and culturally appropriate digital literacy programs are also necessary to guarantee community members know how to access and effectively use the Internet. Examples of best practices to include as outcomes within state agency efforts include collaborating with the local school system to stay current with curricula, including content on digital privacy and security in trainings to reduce predatory outcomes including identity fraud, making a list of resources and a map of training and support programs in local communities, and identifying and making available clear pathways to access online information in many languages spoken in diverse communities.

Identifying a Target Audience

Fourth, Bliss notes that social workers must be clear about the target audience for their advocacy messaging. Advocacy efforts are directed toward specific parties who are considered as capable of bringing about changes and outcomes. In this case, candidates and elected officials in the state legislatures or in statewide offices such as governors, lieutenant governors, and state treasurers are likely to have influence in the creation and implementation of digital access programs. Appointed officials directing state agencies are also going to be key constituencies for the successful development and implementation of digital inclusion policies. The Pew Foundation has noted the importance of strong leadership from governors, legislators, and agency heads in successful development of digital inclusivity initiatives. If a governor’s office lacks focus on broadband as a priority, other state agencies will lack energy around broadband goals, so advocacy efforts should be targeted to them early on. Similarly, successful broadband programs establish strong relationships with multiple stakeholder groups. In order to play a central role in facilitating coordination and advancing broadband projects, community stakeholders must be viewed as trusted partners, and they should be brought on board early in the advocacy process.

Selecting Strategies and Tactics

Fifth, Bliss suggests that advocates must identify strategies and tactics that will be used to influence the target audience and generate the desired outcomes. Media Alliance is a California-based media change and resource organization founded in 1976 that engages in activism including digital inclusion. They offer ideas for engaging with policymakers and the public. Examples include attending public meetings, testifying at public hearings and distributing your comments to the press, inviting your elected officials to visit and witness successful digital inclusion projects in your community, organizing local coalition members to apply for larger city or regional task force seats, and organizing town hall meetings with local organizations and testimonials from people impacted by digital exclusion.

People living in digital deserts are unlikely to obtain announcements for local events related to digital equity issues. Thus, it is important to consider distributing copies of digital inclusion meetings and initiatives through local social service agencies and other community meetings. Media Alliance provides a toolkit of resources designed to help those who want to advance digital inclusion. There are several key aspects to reducing the digital divide and all can be entry points for social workers to help advance this cause. Among them are Internet connectivity, affordable and accessible hardware, and training and technical support (i.e., digital literacy) (For a full discussion of toolkit ideas and strategies see: https://media-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Media-Alliance-Digital-Inclusion-Advocacy-Toolkit.pdf ).

Advocacy Process and Outcome Evaluation

Finally, Bliss argues that advocates must identify how they will evaluate advocacy processes and actions. Without an evaluation component, the advocating entity will lack formative and summative feedback to assess their advocacy efforts and share with others. Thus, process goals must be developed and outcomes specified so that social work advocates can document their successes and failures throughout the process and at the outcome level so that the evidence base in macro social work practice can be built and best practices can be disseminated to other state advocates working on digital inclusivity policies. Advocates might consider consulting with or collaborating on evaluation with local universities. For example, the University of Kansas’ Center for Community Health and Development offers useful advice and a toolbox for community practitioners who wish to develop evaluations for their initiatives (University of Kansas 2020 ).

Social work has a long and strong history of engaging in advocacy efforts alongside marginalized segments of society. Digital inclusion is a human right largely overlooked in macro social work practice and policy advocacy. Tackling the digital divide will require an approach that not only expands access but also provides digital skills and encourages people to use the Internet in ways that positively contribute to their social, economic, and political lives. In the simplest sense, social work tasks involve working collaboratively to advance people’s access to resources. In the digital age, access, adoption, and digital literacy are imperative resources. This calls upon social workers to help identify and advocate for communities who continue to experience the digital divide.

• Allen KD, Wallace DP, Renes D, Bowen SL, Burke RV. Use of video modeling to teach vocational skills to adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders. Education & Treatment of Children. 2010; 33 (3):339–349. doi: 10.1177/2F001440291308000103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arizona State University (2019). ASU study: much of Indian Country lacks access to Internet, but 5G expansion could be a chance to catch up . Retrieved from https://alumni.asu.edu/20191018-solutions-asu-study-native-americans-lack-internet-access-5g-opportunity-catch-up
• Belluomini, E (2017). Technology in private practice, In S, Walfish, J. Zimmerman, & J. Barnett (Eds.). Handbook of private practice: Keys to success for mental health practitioners . London, England: Oxford University Press.
• Bentley, K. (2020). 9 million students lack home Internet for remote learning . Government Technology, June 11, 2020. Retrieved from  https://www.govtech.com/network/9-Million-Students-Lack-Home-Internet-for-Remote-Learning.html
• Bliss DL. Using the social work advocacy practice model to find our voices in service advocacy. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. 2015; 39 (1):57–68. doi: 10.1080/23303131.2014.978060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burchardt T, Le Grand J, Piachaud D. Social exclusion in Britain 1991–1995. Social Policy & Administration. 1999; 33 :227–244. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00148. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• California Assembly Bill No 1665 (2017). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1665
• Campos-Castillo C. Revisiting the first-level digital divide in the United States: gender and race/ethnicity patterns, 2007–2012. Social Science Computer Review. 2015; 33 (4):423–439. doi: 10.1177/2F0894439314547617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlson, E. & Goss, J. (2016). The state of the urban/rural digital divide . National Telecommunications and Information Administration, August 10, 2016. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/state-urbanrural-digital-divide
• Castro, A. (2020, August 6). Feds move to block California’s net neutrality law . The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357013/justice-department-net-neutrality-fcc-law-throttling-isps
• Close the divide (2020) https://www.idahobe.org/close
• Cosner Berzin, S., Singer, J., & Chan, C. (2015). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: a grand challenge for social work. Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative, working paper No. 12. American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare.
• Council on Social Work Education (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Accreditation/Accreditation-Process/2015-EPAS/2015EPAS_Web_FINAL.pdf.aspx
• Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013, September 16). Cell Internet use 2013 . Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/16/cell-internet-use-2013/
• Fairlie R. The effects of home computers on school enrollment. Economics and Education Review. 2005; 24 (5):533–547. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.08.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Federal Communications Commission (2020). In the matter of extending wireless telecommunications services to tribal lands . Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , WT Docket No. 99–266, FCC 00–209, Adopted June 8, 2000. Retrieved from https://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/fc000209.pdf
• Federal Communications Commission (2019). 2019 Broadband deployment report . Retrieved from https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-44A1.pdf
• Federal Communications Commission (2018). 2018 Broadband deployment report . Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2018-broadband-deployment-report
• Fox, S. (2011). Americans living with disabilities and their technology profile . Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from https://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Disability.aspx
• Gilliard, C. (2016). Digital redlining, access, and privacy . Common Sense Education. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/digital-redlining-access-and-privacy
• Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2018). FCC’s data overstate access on tribal lands . Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-630
• Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2017). U.S. Postal Service: Key considerations for restoring fiscal sustainability . Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682534.pdf
• Government Accountability Office. (2006). Telecommunications: broadband deployment is extensive throughout the United States, but it is difficult to assess the extent of deployment gaps in rural areas (GAO Publication No GAO-06–426) Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Horrigan, J. B. (2016). Lifelong learning and technology . Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/03/PI_2016.03.22_Educational-Ecosystems_FINAL.pdf
• Human Rights Watch (2019). World report 2019: Events of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/world_report_download/hrw_world_report_2019.pdf
• International Federation of Social Workers (2012). Human rights policy . Retrieved from https://www.ifsw.org/human-rights-policy/
• International Telecommunication Union (2016). ICT facts and figures 2016 . Retrieved from  https://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf
• Jaeger PT, Bertot JC, Thompson KM, Katz SM, DeCoster EJ. The intersection of public policy and public access: digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public Library Quarterly. 2012; 31 (1):1–20. doi: 10.1080/01616846.2012.654728. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jayakar, K., Maitland, C., Peha, J., Strover, S., Bauer, J. 2016 Broadband 202: report of the interdisciplinary workshop on the development of a national broadband research agenda Penn State University, State College, PA Institute for Information Policy.
• Jorgensen, M., Morris, T., & Feller, S. (2014). Digital inclusion in native communities: the role of tribal libraries . Oklahoma City, OK: Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums. Retrieved from https://www.atalm.org/?q=node/312
• Kang, C. (2019, February 1). Net neutrality repeal at stake as key court case starts . New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-case.html
• Kang, C. (2016, June 4). Court backs rules treating Internet as utility, not luxury . New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html
• Klein, E. (2014, April 6). Why the government should provide Internet access. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5587138/susan-crawford-internet-public-option
• Kruger & Gilroy (2019). Broadband Internet access and the digital divide: federal assistance programs. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL30719
• Kuilema J. Social workers and broadband advocacy: social justice and information communication technologies. Social Science Computer Review. 2012 doi: 10.1177/0894439312454266. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lecher, C. (2019, May 30). Experts are furious over the FCC’s rosy picture of broadband access: the data the agency uses has been criticized as flawed . The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18644726/fcc-broadband-report-high-speed-rural-statistics-reactions
• McGill, M.H. (2018, February 7). The least connected people in America . Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/02/07/rural-indian-reservations-broadband-access-000628
• Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot (2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007-2011 . American Community Survey Briefs. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acsbr11-17.pdf
• McCabe, D. (2019, October 1). Court upholds net neutrality repeal with some caveats . New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-broadband.html
• Makinen M. Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-learning and Digital Media. 2006; 3 (3):381–395. doi: 10.2304/2Felea.2006.3.3.381. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Media Alliance (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from https://mediaalliance.org/about-us/
• Microsoft (2019). Nextlink Internet and Microsoft closing broadband gap in central US . Microsoft News Center. Retrieved from https://news.microsoft.com/2019/09/18/nextlink-internet-and-microsoft-closing-broadband-gap-in-central-us/
• Morton, H. (2019, December 21 ). Net neutrality 2019 legislation . National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/net-neutrality-2019-legislation.aspx
• Mossberger K, Tolbert CJ, Stansbury M. Virtual inequality: beyond the digital divide. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murdach AD. Is social work a human rights profession? (Commentary) Social Work. 2011; 56 (3):281–283. doi: 10.1093/sw/56.3.281. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of Social Workers (2017). NASW, ASWB, CSWE, & CSWA standards for technology in social work practice . Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/Clinical-Social-Work/Technology
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2015). Strategic use of technology in teaching and learning mathematics . Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Strategic-Use-of-Technology-in-Teaching-and-Learning-Mathematics/
• National Digital Inclusion Alliance (2020). A unified voice for digital inclusion policies and programs. Retrieved from https://www.digitalinclusion.org/
• Neidig, H. (2017). Civil rights lawyer accuses AT&T of discriminating against low-income communities . The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/technology/347818-civil-rights-lawyer-accuses-att-of-discriminating-against-low-income
• New York Times Editorial Board (2020). Locked out of the virtual classroom . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/coronavirus-internet-schools-learning.html
• Nyc.gov (2015). One New York: the plan for a strong and just city . Retrieved from https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/reports-resources/
• O’Toole, J. (2014, May 20). Chattanooga’s super-fast publically owned Internet . CNNMoney. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chattanooga-internet/
• Pace, P. (2010, October). Broadband access prioritized: many people are not able to afford the cost . NASW News, 55, 6.
• Perron, B., Taylor, H., Glass, J., & Margerum-Leys, J. (2010). Information and communication technologies in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11 (1), 67–81. 10.18060/241 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Pew Charitable Trusts (2020). How states are expanding broadband access: new research identifies tactics for connecting unserved communities . Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2020/02/how-states-are-expanding-broadband-access
• Pew Research Center (2019). Mobile fact sheet . Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
• Queiro-Tajalli I, Campbell C, McNutt J. International social and economic justice and on-line advocacy. International Social Work. 2003; 46 :149–161. doi: 10.1177/2F0020872803046002002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Real B, Bertot C, Jaeger PT. Rural public libraries and digital inclusion: issues and challenges. Information Technology & Libraries. 2014; 33 (1):6–24. doi: 10.6017/ital.v33i1.5141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rienhart JM, Thomas E, Toriskie JM. K-12 Teachers: technology use and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2011; 38 (3):181–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rideout, V. & Katz, V.S. (2016) Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in lower-income families . A report of the Families and Media Project. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/opportunity-for-all-technology-and-learning-in-lower-income-families/
• Ritzhaupt AD, Liu F, Dawson K, Barron AE. Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2013; 45 (4):291–307. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruiz, R.R. (2015, March 12). F.C.C. sets net neutrality rules . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html
• Ryan, C. (2018). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2016 American Community Survey Reports , ACS-39, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf
• Stuhlmiller C, Tolchard B. Computer-assisted CBT for depression and anxiety: increasing accessibility to evidence-based mental health treatment. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing And Mental Health Services. 2009; 47 (7):32–39. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20090527-01. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarnoff, B. (2016, August 3 ). The Internet should be a public good . Jacobin. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/08/internet-public-dns-privatization-icann-netflix/
• Tomer, A., Kneebone, E. & Shivaram, R. (2017 ). Signs of digital distress: mapping broadband availability and subscription in American neighborhoods. The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/broadbandreport_september2017.pdf
• United Nations General Assembly (2016). Human Rights Council thirty-second session, agenda item 3: promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development . Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf
• United States Census Bureau (2017). The digital divide: percentage of households by broadband Internet subscription, computer type, race and Hispanic origin . September 11, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/internet.html
• United States Postal Service (2011). 2010 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations, 2010 Performance Report and 2011 Performance Plan. Chapter 1: our mission. Retrieved from https://about.usps.com/strategic-planning/cs09/CSPO_09_002.htm
• United States Senate Bill 652 (1996). Telecommunications Act of 1996 . Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/652
• University of Kansas Center on Community Health and Development. (2020). Evaluating the initiative (Community Tool Box). Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/evaluating-initiative
• VanDeMark, N., Burrell, N., Lamendola, W., Hoich, C., Berg, N., & Medina, E. (2010). An exploratory study of engagement in a technology-supported substance abuse intervention. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy , 5 (10), 10.1186/1747-597X-5-10 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Vick, K. (2017, March 30). The digital divide: a quarter of the nation is without broadband . Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/4718032/the-digital-divide/
• Waldman, P. (2020, August 13). Trump’s attack on the postal service is now a national emergency . Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/13/trumps-attack-postal-service-is-now-national-emergency/
• Walravens, S. (2020, June 8). Why online learning is failing our nation’s most vulnerable students . Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/geekgirlrising/2020/06/08/new-report-shows-impact-of-digital-divide-on-low-income-students/#7afe48811701
• Wang, H.L. (2018, December 6). Native Americans on tribal land are the least connected to high-speed Internet . NPR National. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/673364305/native-americans-on-tribal-land-are-the-least-connected-to-high-speed-internet
• Warf B. Contemporary digital divides in the United States. Journal of Economic and Social Geography. 2012; 104 (1):1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00720.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West, D.M., & Karsten, J. (2016). Rural and urban America divided by broadband access . Brookings Institute, July 16, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/07/18/rural-and-urban-america-divided-by-broadband-access/
• West JC. Without a net: librarians bridging the digital divide. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, C. (2017, October 27). To close the digital divide, California approves $330 million broadband infrastructure fund . Statescoop. Retrieved from https://statescoop.com/to-close-the-digital-divide-california-approves-330-million-broadband-infrastructure-fund/
• Wronka J. Human rights and social justice: social action and service for the health and helping professions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Youn E. The relationship between technology content in a masters of social work curriculum and technology use in social work practice: a qualitative research study. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 2007; 25 (1–2):45–58. doi: 10.1300/J017v25n01_03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeke (2014, November 10). Obama bucks FCC in calling for broadband reclassification . TIME. Retrieved from https://time.com/3575842/obama-broadband-internet/

The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity – Essay Example

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

What is the digital divide, causes of the digital divide, reducing the divide, digital divide: essay conclusion, works cited.

The invention of the computer and the subsequent birth of the internet have been seen as the most significant advances of the 20th century.

Over the course of the past few decades, there has been a remarkable rise in the use of computers and the internet. Sahay asserts that the ability of computing technologies to traverse geographical and social barriers has resulted in the creation of a closer knit global community (36). In addition to this, the unprecedented high adoption rate of the internet has resulted in it being a necessity in the running of our day to day lives.

However, there have been concerns due to the fact that these life transforming technologies are disparately available to people in the society. People in the high-income bracket have been seen to have a higher access to computer and the internet. This paper argues that the digital divide does exist and sets out to provide a better understanding of the causes of the same. Solutions to this problem are also addressed by this paper.

The term divide is mostly used to refer to the economic gap that exists between the poor and richer members of the society. In relation to technology, the OECD defines digital divide as ” the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities.” (5). As such, the digital divide refers to the disparities in access of communication technology experienced by people.

While the respective costs of computers and internet access have reduced drastically over the years, these costs still remain significantly expensive for some people in the population. As a result of this, household income is still a large determinant of whether internet access is available at a home.

Income is especially a large factor in developing countries where most people still find the cost of owning a PC prohibitive. However, income as a factor leading to the digital divide is not only confined to developing nations. A report by the NTIA indicated that across the United States, internet access in homes continued to be closely correlated with the income levels (3).

Education also plays a key role in the digital divide. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration indicates that in America, certain groups such as Whites and Asian Americans who possess higher educational levels have higher levels of both computer ownership as well as access to the internet (3). This is because the more educated members of the society are having a higher rate of increased access to computers and internet access as opposed to the less educated.

A simple increase in the access to computer hardware resources through the production of low cost versions of information technology which is affordable to many does not necessarily result in a reduction in the digital divide. This is because in addition to the economic realities there are other prominent factors.

The lack of technological knowhow has been cited as further widening the digital divide. This means that even with access to technology, people might still be unable to make effective usage of the same. Sahay best expresses this problem by asserting that “just by providing people with computers and internet access, we cannot hope to devise a solution to bridge the digital divide.” (37).

Another cause of the digital divide is the social and cultural differences evident in most nations in the world. One’s race and culture have been known to have a deep effect on their adoption and use of a particular technology (Chen and Wellman 42).

This is an opinion which is shared by Sahay who notes that people with fears, assumptions or pre-conceived notions about technology may shy away from its usage (46). As such, people can have the economic means and access to computers and the internet but their culture may retard their use of the same.

The digital divide leads to a loss of the opportunity by many people to benefit from the tremendous economic and educational opportunities that the digital economy provides (NTIA 3). As such, the reduction of this divide by use of digital inclusion steps is necessary for everyone to share in the opportunities provided. As has been demonstrated above, one of the primary causes of the digital divide is the income inequality between people and nations.

Most developing countries have low income levels and their population cannot afford computers. To help alleviate this, programs have been put in place to reduce the cost of computers or even offer them for free to the developing countries. For example, a project by Quanta Computer Inc in 2007 set out to supply laptops to developing world children by having consumers in the U.S. buy 2 laptops and have one donated to Africa (Associated Press).

Studies indicate that males are more likely than females in the comparable population to have internet access at home mostly since women dismiss private computer and internet usage (Korupp and Szydlik 417). The bridging of this gender divide will therefore lead to a reduction in the digital divide that exists.

In recent years, there has been evidence that the gender divide is slowly closing up. This is mostly as a result of the younger generation who use the computer and internet indiscriminately therefore reducing the strong gender bias that once existed. This trend should be encouraged so as to further accelerate the bridging of the digital divide.

As has been illustrated in this paper, there exist non economic factors that may lead to people not making use of computers hence increasing the digital divide. These factors have mostly been dismissed as more attention is placed on the income related divide. However, dealing with this social and cultural related divides will also lead to a decrease in the divide. By alleviating the fears and false notions that people may have about technology, people will be more willing to use computers and the internet.

A divide, be it digital or economic acts as a major roadblock in the way for economic and social prosperity. This paper set out to investigate the digital divide phenomena. To this end, the paper has articulated the issue of digital divide, its causes and solutions to the problem.

While some people do suggest that the digital divide will get bridged on its own as time progresses, I believe that governments should take up affirmative action and fund projects that will result in a digitally inclusive society. Bridging of the digital divide will lead to people and nations increasingly being included in knowledge based societies and economies. This will have a positive impact to every community in the entire world.

Associated Press. Hundred-Dollar Laptop’ on Sale in Two-for-One Deal. 2007. Web.

Chen, Wenhong and Wellman, Barry. The Global Digital Divide- Within and Between Countries . IT & SOCIETY, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 7. 2004, PP. 39-45.

Korupp, Sylvia and Szydlik, Marc. Causes and Trends of the Digital Divide. European Sociological Review Vol. 21. no. 4, 2005.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Falling Through the Net: Towards Digital Inclusion . 2000. Web.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Understanding the Digital Divide . 2001. Web.

Sahay, Rishika. The causes and Trends of the Digital Divide . 2005. Web.

• The Digital Divide Challenges
• Bridging Uncertainty in Management Consulting
• Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap in Nursing
• Excess Use of Technology and Motor Development
• People Have Become Overly Dependent on Technology
• Technology and Negative Effects
• The Concept and Effects of Evolution of Electronic Health Record System Software
• Americans and Digital Knowledge
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 7). The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/

"The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." IvyPanda , 7 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example'. 7 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Digital Divide Essay: the Challenge of Technology and Equity - Essay Example." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-digital-divide/.

• IEEE Xplore Digital Library
• IEEE Standards
• IEEE Spectrum

Impact of the Digital Divide: Economic, Social, and Educational Consequences

Internet connectivity is vital to economic growth. Around the world, millions of people rely on digital devices every day to complete their jobs, study for exams, and communicate with loved ones. Digital technologies can open a world of opportunities, but not everyone has equal access to the internet—or any access at all.

The digital divide, or the split between those with and without reliable internet connectivity and related technologies, has profound implications on society. Lack of internet access affects the economy, social opportunities, and educational equity, and many other areas. The impact of the digital divide can be severe, but some solutions exist that can help bridge the gap.

Understanding the Digital Divide

The digital divide refers to the gap between those with and without access to information communication technology (ICT). According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), approximately 45.2 percent of the world’s households do not have access to the internet.

The digital divide is most apparent among other intersections of inequality, especially race, gender, and class. According to UNESCO’s report, women around the world are 23 percent less likely to make use of mobile internet than their male counterparts. In Asia, Africa, and South America, women are 30–50 percent less likely to use the internet at all.

Many unconnected households live in rural or remote areas without adequate broadband infrastructure. Many people lack the funds to pay for digital devices or internet services. According to the US Department of Education , students from low-income households are more likely to lack internet access due to issues of affordability. Additionally, internet service providers are less likely to invest in fiber broadband infrastructure in lower-income or rural areas, a practice known as digital redlining.

The digital divide also has a severe impact on many daily activities. Those without reliable ICT access miss out on valuable job opportunities and cannot participate in the global digital economy. Students can face significant barriers while completing schoolwork or participating in remote learning programs. Additionally, lack of internet access and poor digital literacy can have a major impact on society, contributing to deeper stratification, inequality, and misinformation.

The Impact of the Digital Divide on Society

The digital divide has deepened social stratification, leading to further segregation and widening disparities. It is thus important for organizations, governments, and other institutions to invest in digital literacy initiatives to close these gaps and improve outcomes for all individuals.

Loss of Social Opportunities

ICT services play an important role in modern social interactions due to the rise of various platforms that enhance personal, professional and business opportunities. Social media websites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter facilitate communication and connectivity between friends, family members, and complete strangers. Over time, this technology has become more and more important for social interactions.

Additionally, digital technologies provide users with an opportunity to express their beliefs and share information. Many digitally enabled users rely on social media websites to learn about current events, engage in civic discourse, and receive important updates from their communities. While harmful misinformation is present on these platforms, many users rely on online content to learn and communicate, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic .

Without access to digital technologies, people can miss out on these social opportunities and feel isolated. They are unable to communicate with loved ones in the same way as digitally enabled individuals. These disparities may increase tensions among connected and disconnected populations in areas where digital access varies from community to community. 

Deepening Stratification

The digital divide is apparent along economic classes. People with lower incomes do not have the resources to purchase digital devices or pay for monthly internet services. Users living in rural, remote areas or less developed countries may not have access to the broadband infrastructure necessary to access the internet. As more and more people gain connectivity, divisions will continue to deepen between those who have internet access and those who do not.

Additionally, internet connectivity enables users to access valuable social, educational, and economic opportunities. Those who are unable to connect to the internet lose out on these opportunities, accentuating social differences, contributing to segregation and perpetuating economic inequalities. This stratification can cause tension among class lines, especially in communities where wealthier individuals have digital access while poorer members do not.

Barriers to Digital Literacy

Digital literacy refers to a person’s ability to use ICTs to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information. To be digitally literate, a user must know how to control the physical components of a computing device. They must also know how to open various programs, such as web browsers, word processors, and messaging applications. A competent digital user will also need to know how to communicate in digital spaces, identify credible information, and avoid scams, misinformation, and other malicious schemes.

However, users who lack access to ICTs do not have the opportunity to develop digital literacy skills, which further exacerbates the digital divide. It can become more difficult to develop these skills as technology advances and becomes more complex. As a result, adults who are not digitally literate are often far less likely to fully engage with digital tools.

Recent technological advancement has been exponential; one new development often spawns multiple innovations. With the growth of 5G and the advanced applications that it unlocks, users who are not already familiar with digital technologies may fall further and further behind. An expansion of digital literacy education is necessary to bridge this gap, especially for older adults and other individuals who are affected by the digital divide.

The Educational Impact of the Digital Divide

According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1.3 billion children between the ages of three and seventeen do not have access to the internet at home. Lack of digital access can have profound impacts on school-age children, preventing them from accessing the same opportunities and educational outcomes as their connected peers.

Remote Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the disparities present in the digital divide became extremely apparent as schools moved online. Students without reliable internet access did not have the necessary resources to connect to remote learning platforms. This made it difficult for some students to fully participate in their learning environments.

In the United States, for example, nearly 55 percent of disconnected students came from Black, Hispanic, and Native American households, despite making up only 40 percent of the general student population. Additionally, 50 percent of disconnected students came from families with an annual income of less than $50,000 per year.

The digital divide had the most impact on children from rural areas in the southern United States, affecting 40–50 percent of students in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Approximately 25 percent of disconnected students did not have reliable broadband access, and 60 percent of disconnected students could not afford internet services or digital devices at all.

Access to Educational Resources

Reliance on digital technologies in education is becoming increasingly more common. Many students need to use an internet-enabled device to complete homework and research projects or attend remote classes. Colleges and universities often require students to submit applications online, and students often need to use the computer to research scholarships, prepare for standardized tests, and complete other educational tasks.

However, some students lack access to the devices and infrastructure necessary to interact with digital educational resources. As a result, they can struggle to complete homework and fall farther behind in school than their digitally enabled counterparts.

Schools and governments can take action to improve educational outcomes for disconnected students. Aside from prioritizing broader digital access overall, investing in digital technologies for students can have positive impacts. In fact, one study of a Texas school district found that an increase in school district internet access spending improved graduation rates by 4.7 percent.

Digital literacy is another important factor affecting the educational digital divide. A student cannot adequately complete internet-based tasks without knowing how to use a device and navigate a web browser. Schools may be able to alleviate literacy issues by teaching students how to use digital devices from an early age. By implementing computer classes and increasing ICT access at school, students can leverage and develop digital skills even if they experience barriers to access at home.

The Economic Impact of the Digital Divide

The digital divide can seriously impact economic opportunities for disconnected individuals and geographies. Individuals who do not have digital skills may be unable to obtain higher-paying jobs. Additionally, countries without stable broadband access can face challenges to economic development. By investing in widespread infrastructure and digital access, however, the digital divide can begin to narrow and economic opportunities may increase.

Access to Job Opportunities

As of 2021, people were in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This stage describes the ongoing automation and implementation of advanced technology in manufacturing and other industrial practices. As a result, more and more jobs require employees to hold digital skills. The digital divide can make it more difficult for disconnected users to obtain employment.

This gap is apparent for middle-skill jobs, or jobs that require some training beyond high school but do not require a bachelor’s degree. Research shows that over 80 percent of middle-skill jobs require a certain level of digital proficiency. Middle-skill and more advanced jobs often pay higher wages than low-skill positions.

As a result, individuals who do not have digital skills lose access to valuable job opportunities. Additionally, disconnected people are unable to participate fully in the global digital economy and cannot participate in remote or web-based jobs.

These factors can perpetuate the cycle of economic inequality and lead to lower earnings over time. However, digital skills training courses and internal upskilling within organizations can help improve economic outcomes and alleviate these disparities.

Barriers to Economic Development

ICTs have the potential to promote economic growth and social development. In fact, a 2020 study examining digital technology in thirty-nine African countries found a positive correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) and digital adoption. Specifically, social media usage and the importance of ICTs to the government’s vision are significant for economic growth.

Research from the International Telecommunications Union shows that an increase in digitization can have the following impacts on various regions.

• In Africa, an increase of 10 percent in mobile broadband penetration can increase GDP by 2.5 percent per capita .
• In the Arab states, a 10 percent increase in digitization can result in a 2.49 percent growth in GDP by capita.
• In North and South America, an increase of 10 percent in fixed broadband penetration can result in a 1.9 percent growth in GDP per capita.
• A 10 percent increase in digitization in Europe may result in a 1.4 percent growth in GDP per capita.
• In the Asia-Pacific region, a 10 percent increase in fixed broadband penetration may result in a 0.8 percent growth in GDP per capita.

Investments in digital services and a digitally literate population have had positive impacts in many countries, such as South Korea . However, not all countries have had equal access to these technologies, resulting in barriers to economic development.

How to Bridge the Digital Divide

The digital divide continues to have a profound impact on our society, and barriers will likely deepen in the future. Governments, organizations, and institutions around the world will need to develop solutions to bridge these inequalities and encourage greater access to digital technology.

IEEE is searching for ways to alleviate the impact of the digital divide. The IEEE Connecting the Unconnected Challenge solicits solutions from start-ups, nonprofits, universities, and others to bridge the digital divide in innovative ways. To learn more about the challenge and submit a proposal, visit this website .

Interested in becoming an IEEE member ? Joining this community of over 420,000 technology and engineering professionals will give you access to the resources and opportunities you need to keep on top of changes in technology and help you get involved in standards development, network with other professionals in your local area or within a specific technical interest, mentor the next generation of engineers and technologists, and so much more.