Regenerative and Technological Section / Viewpoint
Older People and Digital Disengagement: A Fourth Digital Divide?Olphert W. · Damodaran L.
Department of Information Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Digital technologies are becoming more pervasive in all areas of society. Enabling everyone to have access and capability to use the Internet and associated digital technologies, summed up in the term ‘digital inclusion', is seen to have wide-ranging benefits to the individual, to the economy and to society. For older people, being digitally included can help them to maintain their independence, social connectedness and sense of worth in the face of declining health or limited capabilities, as well as also offering new opportunities to improve their quality of life. At present however, access to the technology and to the benefits is not equally distributed either between or within nations, and older people tend to be on the ‘wrong' side of what is termed the ‘digital divide'. Governments globally are developing strategies to promote digital inclusion and indeed Internet uptake is increasing steadily, including amongst older people. However, such strategies have focussed on getting people online, and there appears to be an assumption that once someone is online they will remain ‘digitally engaged'. In fact statistics show that some users give up using the Internet, and there is emerging evidence that older people are more vulnerable to the factors which can lead to this outcome. The authors see this phenomenon as a potential but largely unrecognised ‘fourth digital divide' which has serious implications for social inclusion. The objectives of this article are (a) to raise awareness of the phenomenon of digital disengagement by considering some of the emerging evidence, (b) to explore some of the potential implications of not recognising and therefore not addressing the needs of the digitally disengaged older population, and (c) to reveal the prevailing gap in knowledge which future research should address.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
Bradshaw HM: Digital Inclusion: economic and social benefits for individuals and wider society. Social research report No. 26/2011 produced for the Welsh Government. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/housingandcommunity/research/community/econsocial/?lang=en (accessed 01.02.13).
UK Cabinet Office: Government Digital Strategy 2012. http://publications.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/digital/ (accessed 01.02.13).
United Nations (UN): World population aging 1950-2050. New York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2006.
Turner K: Telehealth and telecare for older people. Scottish Policy Now, March 2012;2 (accessed 01.06.13).
- Wangberg SC, Andreassen HK, Prokosch H-U, Vagos Santana SM, Sørensen T, Chronaki CE: Relations between Internet use, socio-economic status (SES), social support and subjective health. Health Promot Int 2007;23:70-77.
Dutton WH, Helsper EJ, Gerber MM: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2009 Report. Oxford, University of Oxford, 2009.
Dutton WH, Blank G: Next generation users, the Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2011. Oxford, University of Oxford, 2011.
Internet World Stats Usage and Population Statistics. www.internetworldstats.com (accessed 01.02.13).
Norris P: Digital Divide, Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
UK Cabinet Office: Enabling a digitally United Kingdom. 2004. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/corp/assets/publications/reports/digital/digitalframe.pdf (accessed 01.02.13).
Olphert CW, Damodaran L, May A: Towards digital inclusion - engaging older people in the digital world; in Proceedings of the Conference for Accessible Design in the Digital World, Dundee, August 2005. http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_ad05_s7paper1.pdf (accessed 01.02.13).
Ofcom: Communications Market Report, UK. London, Ofcom, 2010. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr11/UK_CMR_2011_FINAL.pdf.
- O'Brien HL, Toms EG: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 2008;59:938-955.
- Emmanouilides C, Hammond K: Internet usage, predictors of active users and frequency of use. J Interact Marketing 2000;24:17-32.
- Katz JE, Apsden P: Internet dropouts in the USA, the invisible group. Telecomm Policy 1998;22:327-339.
Young W, Clarke J, Klima G, Gadag V, Gien L, Hardill I: Sustaining information and communication technology use among Canadians with at least one activity limitation. Int J Tech Know Soc 2012;7:1-10.
- Rice RE, Katz JE: Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption and dropouts. Telecomm Policy 2003;27:597-623.
UK Office for National Statistics (ONS): Older People. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/population/ageing/older-people (accessed 01.02.13).
- Czaja SJ, Lee CC: The impact of aging on access to technology. Univ Access Inf Soc 2007;5:341-349.
Damodaran L, Olphert CW: Sustaining digital engagement: some emerging issues; in Proceedings of Digital Futures, Nottingham, October 2010. https://www.horizon.ac.uk/images/stories/f50-Damodaran.pdf (accessed 01.02.13).
IBM: Five in five predictions. 2011. http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/presskit/36223.wss (accessed 01.02.13).
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.