Information Systems Management, 29:305–320, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1058-0530 print / 1934-8703 online DOI: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716992
Conceptualizing E-Inclusion in Europe: An Explanatory Study Vishanth Weerakkody1, Yogesh K. Dwivedi2, Ramzi El-Haddadeh1, Ahlam Almuwil1, and Ahmad Ghoneim1 1 2
Business School, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK Business School, Swansea University, Wales, UK
The aim of this article is to conceptualize e-Inclusion and identify factors affecting it. A critical review of the literature is conducted to identify and categorize the factors influencing e-Inclusion into a comprehensive taxonomy. Using a survey questionnaire, the impact of these factors in influencing citizens’ adoption of e-government services was examined. The findings highlight a number of factors under demographic, political, economic social, cultural, and infrastructural dimensions that can have a significant influence on e-Inclusion. Keywords e-Inclusion; electronic government; digital divide; social inclusion; Europe
INTRODUCTION While more services can now be accessed electronically through a range of devices and technologies, significant barriers such as access, service design, personal capacity, trust, skills, willingness, and awareness can prevent the very people who could benefit most from these services (European Commission, 2004; Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Hsieh, Rai, & Keil, 2011; Sipior, Ward, & Connolly, 2011). In addition, despite the fact that commercial enterprises have been exploiting business opportunities offered by the internet for some time by engaging in e-business activities, public sector organizations in particular have until recently failed to capitalize on the potential benefits of e-Enabling their services, due to lack of adoption (Carter & Weerakkody, 2008; Hazlett & Hill, 2003). However, this notion is now beginning to change with many governments initiating e-Services projects with a view of offering better and more accessible services to citizens (Al-shafi & Weerakkody, 2010; Wang & Emurian, 2005). This shift has been facilitated largely because of the availability of cost-effective solutions such as the use of mobile technology, digital television, and social media channels. Although the extant literature identifies
Address correspondence to Vishanth Weerakkody, Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom. E-mail:
[email protected]
digital divide as one of the main challenges that public sector organizations face in their efforts to promote the engagement of online services among citizens (see for example, DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai, 2004), these innovative technologies have the potential to turn “digital divide” into “digital opportunity,” bringing the benefit of information and communication technology (ICT) to all segments of the population, in particular, to those in underserved communities. Achieving a more inclusive society is one of the key ambitions of the information society policy; thus, inclusion and its related themes are of a global concern (Wright & Wadhwa, 2010). As Bélanger and Carter (2009) argue, digital divide and e-Inclusion have been discussed widely in the information society agenda for nearly a decade since the emergence of eServices in the public sector. In addition, citizens’ acceptance of e-Services has been debated in the literature, repeatedly resulting in the identification of various demographic and contextual challenges impeding adoption and diffusion (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Foley, 2004; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). Consequently, progress in e-Inclusion is still lacking and, in some cases, even widening in many countries (Bentivegna and Guerrieri, 2010). Helsper (2008) argues that technological forms of exclusion are a reality for significant segments of the population, and, for some people, they reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages. However, there has been little research on examining these challenges, and, as such, few sources of published normative literature exist that identify the various issues influencing eInclusion. Although previous studies have been done to examine digital divide, there is little evidence of studies that have effectively conceptualized e-Inclusion beyond the various research initiatives and reports published by public bodies such as the European Commission (EC). Interestingly, these projects and reports have been influenced and driven by the fact that in the European context emphasis has recently moved from “digital divide” to “e-Inclusion” (Helbig, Ramón Gil-García, & Ferro, 2009; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Selwyn & Facer, 2007; Warschauer, 2004). In particular, the limitations of the term “digital divide” has been criticized because it is essentially centered on the element of access, neglecting the advantage of other equally important factors. Covering these factors will
305
306
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
therefore help in designing and developing better e-Services that meet the needs of all citizens, irrespective of age, gender, or other demographic variables. It is argued that such a focus will enhance e-Inclusion and consequently result in social inclusion in European countries. The rationale for this study lies in the reasoning that most previous studies on e-Inclusion are concentrated around European policy statement and practitioner perspectives. Given this context, the aim of this article is to conceptualize the key factors that influence e-Inclusion and empirically investigate their impact through a survey-based investigation. To realize the above aim and explore the arguments set out before, this article is structured into four sections. The first section presents a review of the literature pertaining to the contextual aspects of e-Inclusion, the evolution of e-Inclusion, and the challenges highlighting the key European policies and strategies supporting e-Inclusion. In the second section, a conceptualization of the factors influencing e-Inclusion is presented. In the third section, a brief description of the methodology and context of this study is offered, followed by a discussion of the empirical findings. Finally, in the fourth section, the article concludes by highlighting the theoretical and practical contributions and outlining future research directions. BACKGROUND: E-INCLUSION CONCEPTS AND FUNDAMENTALS Reviewing an emerging field with poorly-defined boundaries and research styles such as “e-Inclusion” poses special problems. These problems include both the selection of literature, where, for example, some authors use the term “digital divide” and others use terms such as “digital exclusion” or “digital inequalities” to describe e-Inclusion (Saebø, Rose, & Flak, 2008). Saebø et al. (2008) posit that it may be difficult to understand what kind of analysis model should be adopted and from which supporting disciplines the conceptual models should be drawn. In social sciences, inclusion refers to a process, de facto and/or de jure, of including people in a given social structure, most often, in society at large. Conversely, social exclusion describes “The inability of our society to keep all groups and individuals within reach of what we expected as a society . . . [or] to realize their full potential” (Power & Wilson, 2000, p. 1). In addition, there is a close linkage between Inclusion and e-Inclusion. E-Inclusion is essentially about social inclusion in a knowledge society (Kaplan, 2005). In Europe, e-Inclusion remains one of the three strategic pillars of the i2010 (inclusion) strategic plan which specifies overarching goals of growth, employment, and quality of life (Helbig et al., 2009). The European strategy is to ensure that the benefits of the information society can be enjoyed by everyone, including people who are disadvantaged due to limited resources or by education, age, gender, ethnicity, disability, and location (i2010 European Strategic Plan, 2007). According to Wright and Wadhwa (2010), the term e-Inclusion has its roots in EC documents published in 1999, in which it is stated that the
objective of e-Inclusion is to bring every citizen, every school, and every company in Europe online. According to Codagnone, e-Inclusion means “both inclusive ICT and the use of ICT to achieve broader social inclusion objectives and, thus, it is about both inclusive technological innovation and innovative ways to deliver inclusive policies by using ICT” (2009, p. 5). Early research by DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) refers to digital inequality when discussing the theme e-Inclusion. From their perspective, digital inequality encompasses five main variables: technical means (inequality of bandwidth), autonomy (whether users log on from home or at work, monitored or unmonitored, during limited times or at will), skill (knowledge of how to search for or download information), social support (access to advice from more experienced users), and purpose (whether they use the internet for increase of economic productivity, improvement of social capital, or consumption and entertainment). Cullen, Hadjivassiliou, Junge, and Fischer have identified e-Inclusion as a new dimension of social inclusion; they posit that “social inclusion in a knowledge society should focus on people’s empowerment and participation in the knowledge society and economy” (2007, p. 12). On the other hand, Kaplan (2005) focuses on the policies that enhance participation in society by means of ICT defining e-Inclusion as the inclusion of the citizens within the information society at all levels (social relationships, work, culture, and political) by using technology either directly or indirectly to improve their quality of life. Bentivegna and Guerrieri (2010) posit that e-Inclusion is linked to innovation, whereby, when technological applications change, the connected e-Inclusion processes inevitably change. In this respect, e-Inclusion can be seen as social inclusion in a knowledge society. Therefore, beyond access to ICT tools and services, e-Inclusion focuses on the empowerment and participation of people in the knowledge society and the degree to which ICT contribute to equalizing and promoting participation in society. Given the aforementioned context, the e-Inclusion debate—as it is reflected in the literature—has relied on three core concepts, namely digital divide, social exclusion or social inequalities, and social cohesion. In the European context, recently, the concept of e-Inclusion has received much attention. The European Commission and EU Member States have initiated e-Inclusion strategies aimed at reaching out to the those segments of society who are excluded from using e-Services and bringing them into the mainstream of society in the digital economy. The different stages of these strategies over time are depicted in Table 1. Digital Divide In previous studies, the term “digital divide” was merely considered as a problem of lack of access or lack of usage, but in reality it is broader than just simple access to the internet and covers many different forms of technology and activity (Carter & Bélanger, 2005). This view has recently changed; it has become clear that such a dual approach no longer reflects the complexity and multileveled character of digital divide
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE
307
TABLE 1 European strategies to promote e-Inclusion in Europe Year
Source
1999
European policy documents
2000
The European Council meeting Lisbon
2001 2002 2003
The European Council meeting in Nice eEurope Symposium on e-Inclusion
2005 2005
eEurope European Commission
2006
European Commission
2007
European Commission
2010
European Commission
Strategies eEurope: the objective of the eEurope initiative is to bring everyone in Europe online as quickly as possible Set the goal of the European Union’s becoming a more competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion Specific criteria were set out together with a requirement that each member state produce a biennial national action plan on social inclusion eEurope sets a number of targets on e-accessibility Ministers discussed ways to make the Information Society open, inclusive, and accessible to all European citizens E-Inclusion was one of the key priorities of the eEurope action plan EC lunched its i2010 strategy; the key objective was promoting an inclusive European information society Member States should coordinate their policies for combating poverty and social exclusion. Their National Action Plans should set out concrete steps to improve access to ICT and the opportunities new technologies can provide The European Commission launched its i2010 initiative to raise political awareness on e-Inclusion, encourage replication of e-Inclusion success stories throughout the EU, and pave the way for future actions EC lunched a new Europe 2020 strategy with the baseline, “A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,” focusing on developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation and promoting a more resource-efficient, greener, and more competitive economy
(Barzilai-Nahon, 2006; DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai, 2004; Selwyn, 2004; Warschauer, 2004). In this respect, there are many reasons behind the call for changing the terminology from digital divide to e-Inclusion. First, the word “divide” brings the idea that digital divide is a static phenomenon that hardly changes with time, which, in reality, is clearly not the case. It is a dynamic phenomenon that changes whenever technology changes, and it is obvious that technology is changing rapidly. In addition, access, usage, and skills related to ICT are changing continuously (Frissen, 2000). It has also been argued that digital divide is only about focusing on access to online services by the “have” or “have not.” However, as more people are now online, it is more likely that the disparities between access to online services caused by material factors have decreased significantly. For instance, price for computers and other ICT resources have dropped significantly in recent years, and, for most households, the material-access barrier no longer exists (Mariën & Van Audenhove, 2010). Consequently, the remaining fraction of non-adopters of online services are either hard to convince, under skilled, lack the financial resources or simply have other barriers. Another reason is the policies that were successful in increasing internet penetration in the early days may no longer be appropriate, especially in countries where the majority of people are already connected to the internet. The last reason is aging; societies around the world tend to age
and senior citizens are often excluded from access to modern information technology (Anderson & Hussey, 2000). Different researchers therefore call for a change in terminology and bring forward the notion of digital inequality or e-Inclusion, which is a more positive connotation (e.g., DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Hargittai, 2004; Selwyn, 2004). One study done by Hsieh et al. (2011) investigated how digital inequality can be addressed by using income and education as surrogates to classify individuals into advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. The results reveal interesting differences in habitus, cultural capital, and social capital between the socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged, both prior to and after using technology (Hsieh et al., 2011; Sipior et al., 2011). Social Exclusion There is strong evidence that many of those who are affected by digital divide are also socially excluded (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). Therefore, e-Inclusion and social inclusion are highly correlated (Kaplan, 2005). Social exclusion is subject to many and different definitions. Many definitions focus on the “classification” of target groups excluded or at risk of exclusion made on the basis of factors of disadvantage that can, for example, be economic, physical, geographical, or linked to gender, age, and so on. (Mancinelli, 2008). Further, social exclusion is a social process, built on social inequalities and
308
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
leading to the marginalization of individuals and groups as regards societal goals. Social inequalities (related to a series of factors: gender, ethnicity, age, education, employment, income, professional status, housing, family structure, disability, geographical location, etc.) are the basic roots of social exclusion. Exclusion occurs when individuals or social groups are left behind or do not benefit from equal opportunities to achieve societal goals (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). According to Wright and Wadhwa (2010), the e-Excluded refers to those citizens who do not have access to or do not use the internet. Most researchers argue that exclusion is a multidimensional construct. In an attempt to simplify the large number of different dimensions proposed by various scholars (such as Anthias, 2001; Chapman, Phimister, Shucksmith, Upward, & Vera-Toscano, 1998; Phipps, 2000). Table 2 groups three categories of exclusion based on social identity, social location, or social status. Social Cohesion Social cohesion is often used by the EC as an overarching objective, covering various issues related to regional disparities, accession countries, employment strategy, gender equality, poverty, and so on. (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). There is, however, no accepted definition of the concept of social cohesion among the academic community. Moreover, it cannot be defined in relation to any clear counterpart, such as exclusion/inclusion or equality/inequality (Galabuzi & Teelucksingh, 2010). Social cohesion approach in this article focuses on citizenship practice and social exclusion/inclusion based on community engagement and citizen participation as a key to a form of social integration that acknowledges the multiple identities composing modern nation states and societies (Jenson, 2002; Kymlicka, 1998). Jenson (2002) has argued that social cohesion represents the absence of exclusion and marginalization. In essence, social cohesion is therefore a process and outcome that seeks to actively eliminate social exclusion and build social inclusion (Galabuzi, 2006). According to Bentivegna and Guerrieri (2010), e-Inclusion in present-day societies represents the first step along the road leading to the creation of a new form of social cohesion based on the use of ICTs. Further, they argue that the e-Inclusion process aims not only to increase the number of individuals TABLE 2 Mechanisms of exclusion and how people become excluded Social identity Race Ethnicity Religion Gender Age
Social location
Social status
Remote areas Stigmatized ares War Conflict areas
Health situation Migrant status Occupation Level of education
who are able to improve their quality of life as a result of ICT-related developments but also aims to affect the overall level of a country’s economic and social development. This means that e-Inclusion has an impact at the individual level as much as at the social level, and at the micro as much as at the macro level. On the other hand, Kaplan (2005) posits that it is of particular importance to distinguish between e-Inclusion and “e-Adoption.” CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION A review of the literature and secondary policy documents reveal that e-Inclusion is about providing a technology platform to support communities and citizens in their fight against poverty, disease, and exclusion and at the same time facilitate many public sector services such as health welfare and education. Early steps in exploiting ICTs to enable such services include providing access by putting the necessary infrastructure in place, including basic electronic communication services. A number of studies in recent years have argued that e-Inclusion has multidimensional constructs, which adds more complexity when attempting to simplify the concept (e.g. Cullen et al., 2007; Codagnone, 2009; Wright & Wadhwa, 2010). Various researchers have also attempted to conceptualize and define e-Inclusion (see, for example, Becker, Niehaves, Bergener, & Räckers, 2008; Bentivegna & Guerrieri, 2010; Hargittai, 2004; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Helsper, 2008; Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Mancinelli, 2008). Drawing from the literature, demographical, economic, social, cultural, political, and infrastructural dimensions have been identified as key inhibitors for e-Inclusion. Notably, these themes emerged in the literature from actual citizens’ behaviors in their day-to-day life situations while using electronic-government services. These five dimensions that influence citizens e-Inclusion in the public sector services are synthesized and conceptualized in Table 3, offering a taxonomy of factors influencing e-Inclusion. Demographical Dimension It is well documented in the literature that elderly people, especially the over50s, adopt technology less than other younger age groups (Helsper, 2008; Mordini et al., 2009). Given the fact that we are living in an aging community and people are living longer and healthier lives, there is a danger of excluding the ageing population from adopting technology (Kinsella & He, 2009). Further, other studies have identified that men are more likely to adopt technology than women (Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003). Therefore, the disparity of adoption can be further compounded in likelihood to use technology (Mordini et al., 2009) and as a result, women will be more in danger than men of being excluded. Moreover, scholars such as Helsper (2008), Helsper and Eynon (2010), Heim et al. (2007), and Brandtzæg et al. (2011) suggest that family structure, such as having children in the household, may increase the probability that the household will acquire computers and internet
309
SOCIAL Education
Cost
Income
ECONOMIC Employment
Ethnicity & Race
Family Structure
Gender
DEMOGRAPHIC Age
Factors
Differences in education level (i.e., uneducated, primary, secondary, technical college, further education, undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate) and its role in enhancing citizens’ engagements and interests in digital technologies
Variations of employment outcomes (e.g. employed, unemployed, retired, home caretaker, students, and other) in online services engagement and response levels and opportunities which can have an impact on the government/society delivery of support Understanding the impact of economic wealth (i.e., income per capita) in the disparities in computer and Internet penetration rates Understanding the impact of ICT equipment costs in the accessibility of digital technologies in relation to affordability
Understanding the anatomy of families including single, married, and with/without children, and how this can have an impact on the opportunity in acquiring resources and accessibility of online resources Understanding the background and ethnicity structure of the society including poverty, race, religion, deprivation, and immigration status
Age differences in skills and internet self-efficacy in the usability and accessibility of online opportunities that will help in establishing new models of service delivery and care Gender divide in the use of Internet and in technology adoption taking into consideration orientation, physical access, life expectancy differences
Description
References
(Continued)
Helsper (2009); van Dijk (2006); Agerwal et al. (2009); Bélanger and Carter (2009)
Chinn and Fairlie (2007, 2010); Digital Inclusion Team (2007); Wagner and Hanna (1983); Brown and Venkatesh (2005); Agerwal et al. (2009); Bélanger and Carter (2009) Bentivegna and Guerrieri (2010); European Commission (2004)
European Commission (2004)
Helsper (2008, 2009); Digital Inclusion Team (2007); Agerwal et al. (2009); Bélanger and Carter (2009); Mordini et al. (2009)
Digital Inclusion Team (2007); Helsper (2008, 2009); Brandtzæg, Heim, and Karahasanovi´c (2011); O’Sullivan, Mulgan, and Vasconcelos (2010) Hargittai (2010); Bimber (2000); Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003); Helsper (2007, 2008); Brandtzæg et al. (2011); Brown and Venkatesh (2005); Agerwal et al. (2009); Bélanger and Carter (2009); van Dijk (2006); Mordini et al. (2009) Helsper (2008); Heim, Brandtzæg, Kaare, Endestad, and Torgersen (2007); Brandtzæg et al. (2011)
TABLE 3 Taxonomy of Factors Influencing E-inclusion
310
Urbanization
Access
INFRASTRUCTURAL Resources
Accessible Information
POLITICAL Legislation & Regulation
Skills, IT Literacy
Traditions
Knowledge
CULTURAL Language
Motivation
Investing in national infrastructure to increase the social impact of technology The availability of various Internet access technologies (including dial-up, broad- band, or wireless) to accommodate citizens’ demand Understanding Internet connectivity particulars of communities in different geographic locations including rural, urban, isolated and remote areas
The policies and strategies, coordination, implementation and support that is put in place to support social and digital inclusion Providing citizens with a platform to participate and understand their rights as well as promoting values of accountability, transparency, openness, and responsiveness in the affairs of government institutions
Understanding language barriers that may prevent communities from accessing the relevant information online Understanding the variations in citizens’ ICT experience and knowledge on the services available online The impact of the ICT on society traditions and values in re-engineering their way of thinking from technology-driven innovation toward user and society driven innovation Understanding differences in citizens’ ICT skills People with ICT skills including the development of basic skills with digital technologies
Understanding the impact of health and well-being on improving citizens’ accessibility of health information and services online enabling them to live independently Understanding the impact of citizens’ social statuses and their individual interests and interactions online Inspiring citizens and nudging them towards trying the Internet and understanding their specific needs, perception, trust, and knowledge of specific services
Health
Lifestyle
Description
Factors
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Digital Inclusion Team (2007); Mordini et al. (2009)
Brandtzæg et al. (2011); Mordini et al. (2009)
Digital Inclusion Team (2007); Epractice.eu (2010)
European Commission (2004)
Kaplan (2005); European Commission (2004)
European Commission (2004); Ferro et al. (2011); Warschauer (2004); Hargittai (2002, 2009); Bélanger and Carter (2009)
Verdegem (2011); Helsper (2008)
Worcman (2002); Verdegem (2011)
European Commission (2004); Epractice.eu (2010)
Mariën and Van Audenhove (2010); Helsper (2008); Verdegem (2011); Digital Inclusion Team (2007) Epractice.eu (2010; e-Inclusion factsheet—UK)
Helsper (2008, 2009); Digital Inclusion Team (2007)
References
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE
access. Similarly, ethnic groups often depend on group-wide action and coherence rather than purely individual incentives (O’Sullivan et al., 2010). Economic Dimension Another societal challenge that has been identified in the literature relates to economic aspects. While the affordability and cost of ICT equipment in different European countries vary, the discrepancy of income and employment levels among citizens across European countries can also have an impact. This is further compounded by the employment status of individuals (Agerwal et al., 2009; Brown & Venkatesh, 2005). Policy makers have argued that e-Inclusion initiatives can create job opportunities for the unemployed through access to a variety of resources (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). Simultaneously, it could also enhance the employment status for those already employed and help to increase their earnings/income (ibid). Social Dimension Access to ICT and the internet, for example, provides a platform for enabling and encouraging citizens to re-engage with learning, increasing their skills and qualifications. Further, e-Inclusion initiatives can enable citizens with special needs and/or the elderly to lead independent lifestyles. A prime example is the delivery of electronic health services; this not only reduces delivery costs for the government but also improves accessibility of essential services for citizens. However, studies have also raised concern regarding the adoption of such e-Services, due to issues such as trust and motivation (Wang & Emurian, 2005). Culture Dimension Verdegem (2011) and Helsper (2008, 2010) posit that in certain ethnic minority groups, cultural traditions and norms may prevent them from adopting technology and new ways of engagement with public services (i.e., some may prefer face-to-face communication to e-Services). Developing the required ICT skills requires investment in both time and effort to cope with use of new technologies (Ferro et al., 2011; Hargittai, 2002, 2009; Warschauer, 2004). Political Dimension Within the European context, studies have positioned political support in the core of the European Strategies for e-Inclusion (European Commission 2004; Kaplan, 2005). Moreover, information accessibility gives the opportunity for citizens to be included as part of their society by knowing their rights. Infrastructure Dimension Brandtzæg et al. (2011) and Mordini et al. (2009) argue that poor access to an appropriate technical infrastructure and facilities alienates citizens from benefiting from technology
311
and widens e-Exclusion. Further, the development of wireless technology can also enable seniors/special needs citizens to be more independent through the use of home based devices such as home-based health, wellness measurement and monitoring, location technology, emergency calls, alarm systems, and so on. (Cullen et al., 2007). Moreover, multi-channels such as mobile phones, digital TV, and kiosks allow access to a wider variety of digital content that is now widely available to citizens. Ultimately, such infrastructures will maximize benefits and convenience for all citizens and enable them to engage actively, so that no one excluded in the information society. METHODOLOGY In order to evaluate the conceptual taxonomy and factors proposed in this research (in Table 3), we used a questionnaire that was prepared based on a comprehensive review of e-Inclusion literature. Since it is difficult to collect data from a large number of respondents in order to make generalizations using interviews, focus groups, or any other qualitative method, a quantitative approach was deemed appropriate due to the fact that it increases generalizability, facilitates the ability for replication, and provides statistical rigor (Dooley, 2000). Further, the conceptual taxonomy proposed within this study requires quantitative data in order to evaluate the impact of the factors on e-Inclusion. Keeping these points in mind, a survey method was adopted (Creswell, 2003; Saunders et al., 2003 ). Following the questionnaire design, a pilot study was conducted using two researchers and one practitioner. The pilot had two main aims: to improve the questions and to test respondents’ comprehension and clarity before the actual survey was administered (Saunders et al., 2003). This helped to eliminate and identify redundancies in the questionnaire structure/design before it was sent to the target sample (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To obtain citizens’ perceptions of e-Inclusion, the final survey was administered in Greater London (south, west, north, and east) in the United Kingdom between the period of September 2011 and February 2012. The researchers handed out the questionnaire physically to the participants using three types of locations—concentrated community markets, community schools, and public transportation (trains)—and collected the completed questionnaires subsequently. This enabled the researchers to clarify any ambiguity to participants enabling them to understand the importance of the research, which, according to Heje, Vedsted, and Olesen, (2006), can encourage a higher response rate. A representative sample is required to make conclusions about the whole population (Zikmund, 2002). For this study, a total sample of 245 participants was targeted, resulting in 221 completed questionnaires being collected. Out of these completed questionnaires, 201 were validated and 20 were deemed invalid, due to incomplete answers or respondents outlining more than one answer to a question that expects only one answer. The responses were analyzed using the SPSS v.16 (SPSS Inc., 2008) and are presented in the next section.
312
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The results obtained in the survey revealed a number of interesting aspects which clearly explains the impact of how the key demographic, economic, social, cultural, political, and infrastructural factors can influence e-Inclusion. Demographic Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion The normative discussion presented above identified four demographic determinants: gender, age, family structure, and ethnicity. However, from the findings, only gender and age (see Table 4) emerged as significant determinants of e-Inclusion (i.e., adoption of electronic government). In terms of gender differences on e-Inclusion, Table 4 illustrates that more females (C = 71) compared to the males (C = 55) have undertaken government transaction online. In the non-adopters category, females (C = 52) exceeded the males (C = 20). This confirms the literature (e.g. Mossberger et al., 2003) where it is predicted that males are more likely to adopt technology than females. Pearson’s chi-square test (Table 4) confirmed that there was a significant difference between the gender of the adopters and
non-adopters of e-government (df [1, N = 198] = 4.906, p = .033). Although, the numbers of male respondents were fewer than female respondents, this is an interesting observation that needs to be investigated further, in which the data collection should focus on collecting data from equal number from both genders to confirm if the observation of this research is a true reflection of current trends. These findings confirm the results reported in many other studies, which indicate gender differences in the adoption of technology and internet (e.g., Bimber, 2000; DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; DiMaggio et al., 2004; Igbaria, 1993; Venkatesh et al., 2003).The findings also show that the adoption of online government transaction amongst surveyed respondents appears to decrease with age. The majority of respondents who undertook government transactions online were between 18 and 44 years. The findings in Table 4 clearly suggest that adopters belong to the youthful and middle-aged aged groups. Pearson’s chi-square test (Table 4) confirmed that there was a significant difference between the ages of the adopters and non-adopters of e-government (df [5, N = 197] = 11.458, p = .038). These findings generally comport with the results of earlier studies where older citizens have been found
TABLE 4 Demographic dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
Value
df
p (twosided)
Significance at 5% level
Gender
Male Female Total 18–24 25–34 35–44 44–54 55–64 65–74 Total Single Partnered Married Separated Divorced Widowed Total White Black or Black British Mixed Chinese Asian or Asian British Other Total
20 52 72 37 12 10 7 2 2 70 35 10 21 1 3 1 71 25 6 3 4 26 8 72
55 71 126 41 46 20 16 2 2 127 60 14 44 3 3 1 125 52 13 3 2 37 20 127
75 123 198 78 58 30 23 4 4 197 95 24 65 4 6 2 196 77 19 6 6 63 28 199
4.906
1
.033
Significant
11.458
5
.038
Significant
1.630
5
.915
Non-significant
4.954
5
.434
Non-significant
Age
Family structure
Ethnicity
313
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE
less likely to adopt e-government (Kinsella & He, 2009; Norris, 2001). Therefore, the age variable is anticipated to have a negative coefficient, where age is negatively related to the adoption of electronic government (i.e., as age increases, citizens are less likely to choose e-government over off-line modes of contact). In terms of other two factors (family structure and ethnicity), although clear differences can be seen in the proportion of adopters and non-adopters, the difference was found to be statistically insignificant (See Table 4). This is consistent with prior studies. For instance, the study of Bélanger and Carter (2006) did not find a dominant influence of ethnicity on e-government use, which supports our findings. Although many researchers (for example, Brandtzæg et al., 2011; Heim et al., 2007; Helsper, 2008) suggest that family structure may increase the probability that the household will acquire computers and internet access, our study found that family structure seems to be less relevant.
Economic Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion All three factors identified within this category were found to be statistically significant (See Table 5). The survey findings also reveal that, although over 74 respondents are in full-time employment, in comparison with a large number of adopters (C = 55), only 19 respondents were not engaged with electronic-government services. Pearson’s chi-square test (Table 5) confirmed that this difference was significant (df [3, N = 197] = 8.045, p = .044).The high rate of employment in the selected sample indicates that the majority of citizens are able to afford internet access from home and consequently engage with e-Services provided by the government. Clearly, this relates to the annual income of the surveyed participants in this study as outlined in Table 5. In terms of cost, both number of computers at home and who pays for the internet access were found to be significant determinants of e-Inclusion (see Table 5). These findings confirm results of previous empirical studies that suggest certain groups of citizens are more likely to
TABLE 5 Economic dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable Employment
Income
Cost: Number of computers at home
Cost: Who pays for the internet?
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
Full time Part time Unemployed Student Total £300,000 Total None One Two More than two Total Self Parent Work School Spouse Don’t know Other Total
19 13 8 31 71 26 19 14 4 0 0 63 1 31 17 23 72 30 27 1 3 5 1 5 72
55 22 5 44 126 22 31 48 11 5 2 119 1 30 45 53 129 81 31 2 2 9 0 3 128
74 35 13 75 197 48 50 62 15 5 2 182 2 61 62 76 201 111 58 3 5 14 1 8 200
Value 8.045
16.45
9.069
12.16
df
p (twosided)
Significance at 5% level
3
.044
Significant
5
.004
Significant
3
.022
Significant
6
.42
Significant
314
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
adopt electronic-government services, including younger, better educated, and higher income citizens (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Dimitrova & Chen, 2006; Montoya-Weiss, Voss, & Gruwel, 2003; Rice & Katz, 2003; Warkentin, Gefen, Pavlou, & Rose, 2002; Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005). Social Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion Education and motivational factors were found to be significant determinants of e-Inclusion (See Table 6). Findings clearly indicate that education is an important vehicle for increasing e-Inclusion. This might be due to the fact that educational institutions provide the opportunity for citizens to use computers and the internet without incurring any cost. Furthermore, confirming previous research, self-satisfaction was found in this study to be a significant factor in motivating citizens to use electronic-government services for their own internal contentment and fulfillment. The findings also indicate that time saving was considered by most citizens as an important determinant for engaging with electronic-government services. This confirms previous studies that have identified time saving as an influencer of electronic-government services adoption (e.g., Kumar, Mukerji, Butt, & Persaud, 2007).
In contrast, disability and lifestyle appears not to have a significant effect on accessing online public services (See Table 6). Such findings are consistent with those reported in previous studies which identified education as significant predictors of access to technology (Mossberger et al., 2003; Thomas &Streib, 2003). Cultural Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion Findings from the chi square test illustrated in Table 7 suggest that a number of factors—namely, knowledge, tradition, and ICT skills—are significant determinants of e-Inclusion. In particular, gender was found to be a significant factor in using and developing the necessary ICT skills to engage with electronic-government services. In addition, as indicated in Table 7, family orientation and peer influence (profession) were also seen to significantly affect the use of electric government services. These later findings are consistent with previous studies (e.g., Digital Inclusion Team, 2007; Mancinelli, 2008; i2010 European Strategic Plan, 2007). However, language was found to be insignificant. In terms of knowledge, familiarity with services and their benefits and awareness of benefits through government was found to be significant for explaining
TABLE 6 Social dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable Education
Disability
Lifestyle
Self-satisfaction
Time saving
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
Primary Secondary Undergraduate Postgraduate Other Total Yes No Total Become MORE connected with people like me Become EQUALLY connected with people like me Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
2 17 25 16 10 70 2 66 68 36
1 22 51 48 7 129 6 121 127 69
3 39 76 64 17 199 8 187 195 105
14
25
39
50 20 52 72 26 46 72
94 20 109 129 86 43 129
144 40 161 201 112 89 201
df
p (twosided)
9.764
4
.040
Significant
0.358
1
.716
Non-significant
0.033
1
1.00
Non-significant
4.367
1
.43
Significant
17.486
1
.000
Significant
Value
Significance at 5% level
315
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE
TABLE 7 Cultural dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable Language
Knowledge: Familiarity with online services and their benefits
Knowledge: Convenience Knowledge: Time saving Tradition: Being part of community
Tradition: Gender influence Tradition: Family structure Tradition: Peer influence ICT skills level
Assistance for Using ICT
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
English Others Total I am familiar with both the services AND their benefits I am familiar with the services BUT not their benefits I am familiar with NITHER the services NOR their benefits Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Never Sometime Always Don’t want to answer Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Proficient Intermediate Beginner Poor Total On my own Need Assistance Sometimes need assistance Prefer not to ask for assistance Total
53 19 72 19
95 34 129 61
148 53 201 80
18
42
60
35
26
61
72 28 44 72 24 48 72 4 34 27 7 72 0 72 72 13 59 72 13 59 72 26 35 7 3 71 53 5 8
129 79 50 129 81 48 129 4 61 62 2 129 9 120 129 55 74 129 55 74 129 76 45 7 1 129 117 2 5
201 107 94 201 105 96 201 8 95 89 9 201 9 192 201 68 133 201 68 133 201 102 80 14 4 200 170 7 13
3
4
7
69
128
197
df
p (twosided)
Significance at 5% level
0.000
1
1.00
Non-Significant
18.284
2
.000
Significant
9.273
1
.03
Significant
16.071
1
.000
Significant
8.755
3
.028
Significant
5.259
1
.028
Significant
6.448
1
.012
Significant
12.472
1
.001
Significant
10.852
3
.010
Significant
9.387
3
.021
Significant
Value
316
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
differences between adopters and non-adopters (See Table 7). These findings are similar to those reported by AlShihi (2005), Beynon-Davies (2005), and Baker and Bellordre (2004), which indicate the necessity of awareness of electronic-government services and associated benefits in their use. In terms of how citizens’ computer skills may impact their engagement with public e-Services, there are significant differences between proportion of adopters and non-adopters in terms of ICT skills level, assistance needed for using ICT, and ability to change cookie preferences (See Table 7). Political Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion Legislation was found to be significant in explaining differences between adopters and non-adopters (see Table 8). However, in contrast, the second factor in this category, which is frequency of accessing information from the internet, was found to be insignificant for explaining differences between adopters and non-adopters (See Table 8). This finding is consistent with the findings of Bélanger and Carter (2006) who stated that frequency of internet shopping was an insignificant predictor of electronic-government use. Infrastructural Dimensions as Determinants of e-Inclusion It is important to note that a large number of the participants live in urban and sub-urban communities. This has enabled them to obtain fast broadband including digital subscriber lines (DSL) and fiber-optics services (41 out of the 42 e-Services adopters). As a result, many citizens surveyed appeared to fully embrace the internet, as most of them have personal computers in their households. Interestingly, urbanization still fails to explain significant differences between adopters and non-adopters. This result might be a sampling issue, which underlines the necessity of further research in this field. In contrast, three areas related to resources and access were found to significant (See Table 9). As such, citizens believe that paying for online services or information is a critical issue that is facing the internet. In addition, the ability to access and transact
with electronic-government services from work as well as from a variety of locations and sources (e.g. multi-channel using a mobile device) are found to be significant determinants of e-Inclusion (e.g., Mordini et al., 2009). CONCLUSION This research attempted to highlight the influences that social, demographic, cultural, political, infrastructural, and economic factors may have on citizens’ engagements with ICT and electronic-government services in the information society. It looks at e-Inclusion from a European context and reflects on how research and policies can help in the development of a sustainable participatory information society for all communities. The focus of this article is on citizens’ engagement with public e-Services and how the increase in such services poses new challenges with regard to digital and social inclusion. The various factors identified in the conceptual taxonomy presented in this article show that e-Inclusion is multidimensional and affects socially and materially handicapped societies more than others. This indicates that researchers have an ethical responsibility to consider the impact of ICTrelated innovations on the least powerful in society. In addition, the following factors outline the significance of this research: • Progress in studies of ICT e-Inclusion is still lacking and in some cases even widening (Bentivegna & Guerrieri, 2010). • Research has shown that e-Inclusion has a significant impact at the individual level as much as at the social level, and at the micro level as much as at the macro level. • Recent research in Europe has shown that access to digital resources can promote social inclusion. • There is a lack of theoretical frameworks for eInclusion. In digital divide research, the notion of inequality mostly refers to inequality of technological opportunities (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008).
TABLE 8 Political dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
Value
df
p (twosided)
Legislation
Yes No Total Never Sometimes Always Total
20 51 71 1 42 26 69
60 69 129 2 75 44 121
80 120 200 3 117 70 190
6.420
1
.016
Significant
0.041
2
.945
Non-significant
Accessible Information
Significance at 5% level
317
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE
TABLE 9 Infrastructural dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion Pearson χ 2
Adoption of e-gov transaction Variable
Categories
Non-adopters
Adopters
Total
Affordability
Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total Urban Sub-urban Rural Total
2 70 72 23 49 72 0 72 72 40 27 3 70
14 115 129 75 54 129 9 120 129 69 50 8 127
16 185 201 98 103 201 9 192 201 109 77 11 197
Availability
Multi-channel Access
Urbanization
In order to address the above research gaps from a theoretical angle, this article has contributed by conceptualizing e-Inclusion through a review and synthesis of the limited normative sources available and policy documents. In this respect, the more traditional definitions of digital divide, social exclusion and inequality, and social cohesion were examined to relate and draw from. This resulted in the formulation of a conceptual taxonomy of the key demographic, social, cultural, political, infrastructural, and economic factors that can influence e-Inclusion. Indeed, the theoretical contribution of this research was focused on extending the current boundaries of knowledge in the area of e-Inclusion. It was found that the lack of conceptual definitions and theoretical frameworks for e-Inclusion has prevented the development of reliable measurement and identification of specific factors that influence e-Inclusion. To this end, it is hoped that the developed taxonomy offers greater elaboration and refinement of the variables that can be used to assess e-Inclusion and will thus contribute towards addressing these gaps in the literature and current e-Inclusion research. From a practical perspective, the study has empirically investigated the impact of these factors and extrapolated their potential impact on citizens’ engagements with electronicgovernment services. The results offer policy makers and practitioners a better overview of the broader dimensions of e-Inclusion as well as the most critical factors that prevent people from being part of the information society. In this respect, policy makers should take into account factors of a political dimension, such as legislation, in addition to economic dimensions such as employment, income, and the cost of internet access and related equipment. Further, from demographic, social, and cultural dimensions, gender and age differences,
df
p (twosided)
4.112
1
.056
Significant
12.691
1
.000
Significant
5.259
1
.028
Significant
0.40
2
.856
Non-significant
Value
Significance at 5% level
education, self-satisfaction, time saving, traditional influences such as family and peers, and the need to maintain support and assistance for the use of ICT should be taken into consideration when introducing electronic services. Finally, from an infrastructural dimension, it is imperative for policy makers to ensure the availability and affordability of electronic-government services by utilizing multiple channels (e.g., mobile phones, televisions, kiosks) to accommodate the diverse needs of citizens. It is hoped that these findings will help policy makers to define new policies that meet both users and non-users’ needs when faced with the task of deciding the delivery of electronic-government services to their communities. We acknowledge that this research has limitations, and therefore the conclusions drawn should be interpreted as such. The empirical conclusions in this study are drawn from a sample of 201 surveys. We acknowledge the fact that this sample may not be fully representative, as eInclusion should consider a wide range of citizens such as those often excluded from society due to social, economic, and/or physical handicap reasons. Nevertheless, the research approach taken was purposeful for this study, as the key empirical objective was to evaluate the conceptual taxonomy and associated factors among a sample of citizens who were conversant with ICT and electronic-government services. Moreover, the demographic analysis indicates that the above e-Inclusion criteria are realistically covered within the survey sample used. The next step in this research will be to refine the conceptual taxonomy in the light of the results and develop a research model and set of hypotheses that will be investigated using a larger and more representative sample of citizens.
318
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
AUTHOR BIOS Vishanth Weerakkody is a senior lecturer in the Business School at Brunel University, UK. His current research interests are focused on service transformation and electronic-services implementation and diffusion in the public sector. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and guest-edited special issues of leading journals on these themes. He chaired related sessions at international conferences and has edited a number of books on digital services adoption in the public sector. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Electronic Government Research and is currently an investigator in several European Commission funded research projects on digital service adoption in the public sector. Yogesh K. Dwivedi is a senior lecturer (IS/E-Business) and Director of Postgraduate Research Students in the College of Business, Economics and Law, Swansea University, UK. He obtained his PhD and MSc from Brunel University, UK. He has co-authored several papers which have appeared in international referred journals such as CACM, DATA BASE, EJIS, ISJ, ISF, JIT, and JORS. He is Associate Editor of EJIS, Assistant Editor of TGPPP & JEIM, Managing Editor of JECR, and member of the editorial board/review board of several journals. He is a member of the AIS and IFIP WG8.6. He can be reached at
[email protected]. Ramzi El-Haddadeh is a full time faculty in the Business School at Brunel University, UK. He holds a PhD in data communication and information technology. His current research interests include technology infrastructure adoption and evaluation, in addition to information-security management and electronic-government adoption and diffusion. He currently serves as the managing editor for the International Journal of Electronic Government Research. He has published peer reviewed articles, guest-edited a number of special issues of international journals, and co-chaired sessions at international conferences. He is currently an investigator in several European Commission-funded research projects on technology usability and adoption. Ahlam Almuwil is a PhD researcher in Management at Brunel University Business School in the UK. She received her MSc in Information Systems Management from University of Greenwich and BSc in Information Technology and Computing from the Open University in the UK. Her current research focuses on e-government, e-inclusion, and technology adoption. She is particularly interested in understanding the factors that influence e-Inclusion. Ahlam is a professional member of the British Computer Society and a member of British Academy of Management. Ahmad Ghoneim is a full-time faculty member at Brunel Business School, UK. He holds a PhD in Information Systems Evaluation and an MSc in Information Systems. He has published his work in well-acclaimed journals, including the European Journal of Operational Research, as well as in international conferences and book chapters. He is on the editorial team of both TGPPP and IJEGR journals. He
co-edited special issues for journals such as the European Journal of Information Systems. He is Chair of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems conference. His research interests include ICT adoption and investment evaluation in the public sector, knowledge management, and Web 2.0 applications.
REFERENCES Agerwal, R., Animesh, A., & Prasad, K. (2009). Social interactions and the “digital divide”: Explaining variations in internet use. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 277–294. Al-Shafi, S., & Weerakkody, V. (2010). Adoption and diffusion of free wireless internet parks in Qatar. International Journal of Value Chain Management, 4(1–2), 68–85. AlShihi, H. (2005). E-government development and adoption dilemma: Oman case study. Proceedings of the 6th International We-B (Working for eBusiness) Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 23–25. Anderson, G. F., & Hussey, P. S. (2000). Population aging: A comparison among industrialized countries. Health Affairs, 19(3), 191–203. Anthias, F. (2001). The concept of social division and theorising social stratification: Looking at ethnicity and class. Sociology, 35(4), 835–854. Baker, P. M. A., & Bellordre, C. (2004). Adoption of information and communication technologies: Key policy issues, barriers and opportunities for people with disabilities. Proceedings of 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 5–8. Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269–278. Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Bergener, P., & Räckers, M. (2008). Digital divide in eGovernment: The eInclusion gap model. Proceedings of Electronic Government 7th International Conference (EGOV 2008), Turin, Italy, August 31–September 5. Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2006). The effects of the digital divide on e-Government: An empirical evaluation. Proceedings of 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Hawaii, USA, January 4–7. Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on eGovernment use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135. Bentivegna, S., & Guerrieri, P. (2010). Analysis of e-Inclusion impact resulting from advanced RandD based on economic modelling in relation to innovation capacity, capital formation, productivity and employment. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Beynon-Davies, P. (2005). Constructing electronic government: The case of the UK inland revenue. International Journal of Information Management, 25(1), 3–20. Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly 81(3), 868–76. Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanovi´c, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide: A typology of internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69(3), 123–138. Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government adoption: A cultural comparison, Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482. Chapman, P., Phimister, E., Shucksmith, M., Upward, R., & Vera-Toscano, E. (1998) Poverty and exclusion in rural Britain: The dynamics of low income and employment. York, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd. Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and Internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16–44. Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2010). ICT use in the developing world: An analysis of differences in computer and internet penetration. Review of International Economics, 18(1), 153–167.
CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE Codagnone, C. (2009). Vienna study on inclusive innovation for growth and cohesion: Modelling and demonstrating the impact of eInclusion. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cullen, J., Hadjivassiliou, K., Junge, K., & Fischer, T. (2007). Status of eInclusion measurement, analysis and approaches for improvement. Topic Report, 2. Digital Inclusion Team. (2007). The digital inclusion landscape in England: Delivering social impact through information and communications technology. London: Digital Inclusion Team. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality: Studying internet use as penetration increases. Princeton Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number 15. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Dimitrova, D. V., & Chen, Y.-C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-Government information and services: The influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and information channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 172–188. Dooley, D. (2000). Social Research Method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Epractice.eu. (2010). eInclusion factsheet—The United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://www.epractice.eu/files/eInclusion%20in%20UK-July%2020102.0_0.pdf. European Commission. (2004). eInclusion@EU: Strengthening eInclusion & eAccessibility across Europe: Analytic framework-eInclusion and eAccessibility priority issues. Retrieved from http://www.empirica.com/ themen/einclusion/documents/eInclusion_Analytic-framework.pdf Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10. Foley, P. (2004). Does the internet help to overcome social exclusion?. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(2), 139–146. Frissen, V. A. J. (2000). ICTs in the rush hour of life. The Information Society, 16(1), 65–75. Galabuzi, G.-E. (2006). Canada’s economic apartheid: The social exclusion of racialised groups in the new century. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press. Galabuzi, G.-E., & Teelucksingh, C. (2010). Social cohesion, social exclusion, social capital. Regional Municipality of Peel. Retrieved from http://www. peelregion.ca/socialservices/pdfs/discussion-paper-1.pdf. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ article/view/942/864 Hargittai, E. (2004). internet Access and Use in Context. New Media and Society, 6(1), 137–143. Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of web–oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 130–137. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the ‘Net generation’. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. Hazlett, S.-A., & Hill, F. (2003). E-government: The realities of using IT to transform the public sector. Managing Service Quality, 13(6), 445–452. Heim, J., Brandtzæg, P. B., Kaare, B. H., Endestad, T. & Torgersen, L. (2007). Children’s usage of media technologies and psychosocial factors. New Media and Society, 9(3), 425–454. Heje H. N., Vedsted, P, & Olesen F. (2006). A cluster-randomized Trial of the significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey in general practice. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 18(3), 232–237. Helbig, N., Ramón Gil-García, J., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.
319
Helsper, E. J. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Helsper, E. J. (2009). The aging internet: Choice and exclusion from digital services of the elderly. Working with Older People, 13(4), 28–33. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence?. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., 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. i2010 European Strategic Plan (2007). i2010 - A European information society for growth and employment. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/ information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm Jenson, J. (2002, April). Citizenship: Its relationship to the Canadian diversity model. Presentation at the Forum for Program and Policy Officers of the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cprn.org/documents/28971_en.pdf Igbaria, M. (1993). User acceptance of microcomputer technology: An empirical test. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 21(1), 73–90. Kaplan, D. (2005). E-Inclusion: New challenges and policy recommendations. Brussels, Belgium: eEurope Advisory Group. Kinsella, K., & He, W. (2009). An aging world: 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, International Population Reports, P95/09-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ prod/2009pubs/p95-09-1.pdf Kumar, V., Mukerji B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successful e-Government adoption: A conceptual framework. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 63–76. Kymlicka, W. (1998). Introduction: An emerging consensus? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1(2), 143–157. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9(4), 671–696. Mancinelli, E. (2008). E-Inclusion in the Information Society. In R. Pintér (Ed.), Information society: From theory to political practice [Course book] (pp. 171–182). Budapest, Hungary: Gondolt–Új Mandátum. Mariën, I., & Van Audenhove, L. (2010). Embedding e-Inclusion initiatives in people’s daily reality: The role of social networks in tackling the digital divide. Digitas Conference Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Digital Asylum-Seekers: The Clash of Cultures, Sibiu, Romania, June 21–23. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Voss, G. B., & Gruwel., D. (2003). Determinants of online channel use and overall satisfaction with a relational, multichannel service provider. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 448–458. Mordini, E., Wright, D., De Hert, P., Mantovani, E., Wadhwa, K. R., Thestrup, J., & Van Steendam, G. (2009). Ethics, e-Inclusion and ageing. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 3(1), Article 5. Morris, M.G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force, Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwide. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. O’Sullivan, C., Mulgan, G., & Vasconcelos, D. (2010). Innovating better ways of living in later life. Retrieved from http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/ images/novating_better_ways_of_living_in_later_life.pdf Phipps, L. (2000). New communication technologies: A conduit for social inclusion. Information, Communication and Society, 3(1), 39–68. Power, A., & Wilson, W. J. (2000). Social exclusion and the future of cities. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics.
320
V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: Digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27(8–9), 597–623. Saebø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students (3rd Ed.). Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media and Society, 6(3), 341–354. Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide: Rethinking digital inclusion for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/ resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf Sipior, J., Ward, B., & 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), 303–323 SPSS Inc. (2008). Helping consumers with low literacy interpret the new food label. SPSS for Windows: Version 16. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83–102. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Verdegem, P. (2011). Social media for digital and social inclusion: Challenges for information society 2.0 research & policies. Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 9(1), 28–38. Wagner, J., & Hanna, S. (1983). The effectiveness of family life cycle variables in consumer expenditure research. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 281–291. Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 105–125. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P., & Rose. G. (2002) Encouraging citizen adoption of e-Government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157–162. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Welch, E., Hinnant, C., & Moon, M. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-Government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. Worcman, K. (2002, March). Digital division is cultural exclusion. But is digital inclusion cultural inclusion? DLib Magazine, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march02/worcman/03worcman.html Wright, D., & Wadhwa, K. (2010). Mainstreaming the e-excluded in Europe: Strategies, good practices and some ethical issues. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(2), 139–156. Zikmund, W. G. (2002). Business research methods (7th ed.). New York: Southwestern College Publishers.
Copyright of Information Systems Management is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
