Presently, most activities and practices are enabled by ICT through a variation of information, computation and communication services (Selwyn, 2003). Moreover, Friemel (2016) suggested that in many developed countries, the diffusion of technology has reached a level between 80% and 90%. However, one of the negative consequences of the presence of ICT in the society is the digital divide (Warschauer, 2004). The infiltration of ICT into major parts of society such as economic, political, cultural and private life along with the discrepancy in its use has given rise to variations among individuals, social groups and nations (Friemel, 2016). For readers, the disparity or inequalities existing among those who have access to digital technology and those who do not is defined as the digital divide (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). Moreover, van Dijk and Hacker (2003) described access as a term ranging from possessing a computer (material access), being interested in technology (mental access) to having the knowledge and opportunity to use the technology (skill and usage access). Similarly, Norris (2001) summarised the digital divide as any and every inequality associated with and existing in the Internet community. There are several reasons causing the inequalities in access to ICT, which include age, gender, income, ethnicity, education and experience (Choudrie et al., 2010; Zickuhr and Smith, 2012). In addition, negative outcomes associated with the digital divide have been discussed in relation to health and wellbeing, political information and participation, social inclusion and support (Selwyn, 2003;
Warschauer, 2004; Friemel, 2016; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007).
Furthermore, the digital divide has also been described as a multifaceted and dynamic phenomenon and as a result it is difficult to clarify the pattern and strategies for dealing with this social drawback (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). This issue has created a vast controversy
among, academics, government and industry. With the intention of ensuring social inclusion and equality in the distribution of resources, several studies have emphasised on the need to bridge the gap created by the digital divide (Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Choudrie et al., 2010; van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). Moreover, in literature, the interpretation of the digital divide has varied. For instance, some studies have linked it to demography in terms of income whereby ICT uptake has grown fastest among the affluent members of society (Gilleard and Higgs, 2008). On the other hand, Norris (2001) suggested that there are three distinct forms of the digital divide and these include:
• Global divide: This is related to the difference in Internet access existing between developing and developed nations.
• Social divide: This is related to the uneven distribution of ICT opportunities among individuals within nations.
• Democratic divide: This refers to the disparity existing between those who do and those who do not use the array of digital resources to engage and partake in the general activities of society.
Furthermore, Tsai et al. (2015) suggested that there are two classifications of the digital divide namely:
• First level digital divide which refers to the disparity in technology access
• Second level digital divide which is linked to the disparity in people’s online skills, usage and abilities (van Dijk, 2006).
Explaining further, Friemel (2016) suggested that the first level digital divide addresses the difference in physical access to ICT while beyond this physical access gap, the skills and literacy in relation to use represents the second level digital divide. Concurring, van Dijk (2006); Tsai et al. (2015) also suggested that the focus with regards to the digital divide is now on the actual use of ICT in terms of skills and literacy.
Furthermore, public opinion and policy usually assume that the basic means for combatting the first level digital divide is simply through the provision of physical access to technology
(Choudrie et al., 2010; van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). For instance, Choudrie et al. (2006) found that one of the strategies developed by the UK government to bridge the digital divide was the provision of free Internet access and other facilities in order to prevent the exclusion of individuals who cannot afford to use technology and its devices. Consequently, this implies that once everyone goes online, the digital gap diminishes thus, assuming that people use technology for the same purpose and gain the same benefits from the information society (Helbig et al., 2009). However, in literature, there is a mix of opinions regarding the first and second digital divide and whether it has diminished or not. For example, studies such as that of Madden et al. (2013) have suggested that the first level digital divide is currently on the verge of being eradicated. Meanwhile, Tsai et al. (2015) suggests that bridging the second level digital divide will not only ensure the engagement of older adults with the information society, it will also improve their wellbeing. However, Friemal (2016) found that the first level digital divide still exists when comparing generations.
Moreover, the digital divide has also been studied in terms of the age-related difference in the adoption and usage of ICT (Gilleard and Higgs, 2008). For instance, some studies have compared the digital divide between the young adults and older adults with regards to the difference in technology adoption and use (Pfeil et al., 2009; Helbig et al., 2009; Selwyn et al., 2003). In assessing these differences, adoption is mostly measured based on the individual’s use or non-use of the Internet while, usage is measured based on the frequency of Internet use (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003; Friemel, 2016). Findings from these studies have revealed that the older adults are often on the negative side of the digital divide in comparison to their younger counterpart (Pfeil et al., 2009; Selwyn et al., 2003). Moreover,
Warschauer (2004) suggested that the digital divide existing between the young generation and the older generation continues to grow and thus warrants special attention.
2.5.1 Older adults and the digital divide
As previously mentioned, not all groups are gaining from the benefits of ICT (Warschauer, 2004). In particular, the digital divide is said to be predominant among the older group of
society (Pfeil et al., 2009). For instance, in UK, there are approximately 3.8 million people aged 65+ who have never used the Internet (Age UK, 2018). This shows that while the rest of the population increasingly use technology to conduct daily task, lack of use of these technologies are excluding these older adults from benefitting from both public and private services such as shopping, accessing government information and accessing care services (Delello and McWhorter, 2017).
Some of the reasons attributed to the lack of engagement among the older population include the difficulties encountered in embracing the changes that these technologies have brought to society especially considering most of these adults were not raised with technology (Damant et al., 2017). Furthermore, Arnott et al. (2004) reckons that some health issues prevent older adults from using technology, which has led to their exclusion from the e-society. Concurring, Choudrie et al. (2010) suggested that in developing most technological applications and features, older adults were not put into consideration in terms of how user friendly these applications were designed to be. Therefore, these identified issues have affected ICT adoption pattern among this group. For example, in terms of health issues, it may be difficult for an older user to read an online article depending on the size of the print and status of their eyesight (Selwyn, 2003). Furthermore, Delello and McWhorter (2017) revealed that the factors hindering older peoples’ use of ICT include cost, lack of experience, unsuitable technology design, lack of awareness, attitude, self-efficacy and lack of interest. Gilleard and Higgs (2008) also stated that one of the reasons older adults are negatively associated with the digital divide might be due to the reluctance by some of them to acknowledge the usefulness of ICT.
Moreover, some studies have revealed that the first level digital divide is gradually becoming history or is improving especially among the older population (Madden et al., 2013; Friemal, 2016). This is evident in the finding that there is an increased adoption of novel technologies such as smartphones, tablet devices and mobile Internet among these older adults (OFCOM, 2015). Regardless of this, there is the suggestion that there still exists a divide among the
termed the ‘grey divide’ (Friemel, 2016). The grey divide is described as the difference in the pattern of adoption and use of technology existing among the older generation (Friemel, 2016). For instance, findings relating to the grey divide revealed that although a great number of older adults do not engage with technology, however, there are many others such as the pre-seniors who are resourceful and proficient in their use of ICT (Damant et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is also a significant difference in the pattern of usage of ICT within the older generation. For instance, Damant et al. (2017) found that the ‘younger’ older people who were classified in their work as those aged 65-74 years use the Internet, used tablet devices and mobile phones more than the over 75s. One of the reasons for this difference is that the ‘younger’ older people had the opportunity to be exposed to ICT as part of their jobs and this in turn influenced their attitude towards technologies (Damant et al., 2017). However, the over 75s did not have the opportunity to experience ICT in the workplace because they must have retired before ICT became mainstream, thus, impacting on their attitude and abilities to use new technologies (Damant et al., 2017).
Furthermore, some studies suggest that public policy strategies can help to close the digital divide over time through the provision of equal opportunities for all citizens to benefit from new information technologies (Mossberger et al., 2006; Choudrie et al., 2010; van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). However, some others argue that government policy intervention is not important in closing the digital divide but instead recommends market forces as a potential remedy to eventually closing the gap (DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Damant et al., 2017). More literature on the digital divide and older adults are provided in appendix 3.
Having provided a general overview of the main aspects surrounding this research study, the next section offers an explanation and understanding of the theoretical foundations of this research.