to know some of the participants more in depth and learn about their Internet .... computer] would help somewhat, but you'd still have to log everything in So the.
Delving Deeper into Access: Marginal Internet Usage in a Local Community Daniel Dunlap, Wendy Schafer, John M. Carroll, Debbie Denise Reese Center for Human-Computer Interaction, Virginia Tech
Abstract The Internet serves a wide range of citizens but in various ways - so much so that the practical distinctions between those people we label "online" and "non-users" begin to lose their significance as the Internet becomes more and more integrated into our lives, communities, and culture. Access to the Internet does not serve all residents of a community equally. Similarly, a lack of access may not inhibit all non-users equally. Our knowledge, values, and social networks influence how we can and will use the Internet. A great deal of attention has been devoted to the study of who is "online" and who is not, but more needs to be done to explain the nuances of how the Internet gets incorporated in different ways into our diverse lives. As part of a larger study on the local impact of the Internet on community attachment and involvement, we periodically interviewed twenty households in Montgomery County Virginia over the course of a year. The semi -structured interviews focused on participants' involvement in the local community and their experiences with the Internet. In the process of talking to participants about their Internet experiences, we discovered several interesting themes in their reported usage patterns. Although participants in our study classified themselves as users or non-users, they varied considerably in how they fit into to these categories. Marginal users described a number of phenomena and experiences involving exchanges and interactions with Internet resources through indirect or second-hand channels. The themes that emerged from these interviews challenged many of our common sense, naive, and simplistic assumptions about what it means to have or to not have access to the Internet. In this paper, we first describe our study and how we initially categorized and stratified our subject sample in order to represent the range of Internet interactions from heavy users to complete non-users. Next, we inventory a range of phenomena related to interactions with Internet resources that were described by the participants in our study; we summarize the rationale, values, choices, and intervening circumstances that participants conveyed in describing their behaviors and interactions involving the Internet. Based on this analysis, we discuss how Internet usage categories and models might be refined to better describe and account for marginal users and the impact of the Internet on non-users. Finally, we discuss the implications that the refined usage categories might have for research.
Introduction We recognize Internet "access" in contrast to "non-access." Much research about how people use the Internet hinges on describing and explaining differences between people who have access to the Internet (Internet users), and those who do not have access (nonusers). The problem we found was that describing access in a networked community is a complex thing because in many ways having a computer at home or work or elsewhere is neither necessary nor sufficient to having "access" to the Internet. In other words, getting "connected" to the Internet directly, meaning being able to find and use information and resources, requires not only access to a machine but also a variety of complex and diverse background skills and knowledge; however, significant "connection" to the Internet can also be through social networks, connection with people who are connected. There is much to be gained from situating the distinction between access and non-access
historically (and culturally). In many ways the distinction was more clear-cut in the early days of the Internet. Back then, the technical obstacles to getting "on the net" assured that only the gung-ho, determined, bold, and skilled computer users would be able to log in, use gopher, telnet, email, etc., and find the experience worthwhile. Users were characteristically those people who were most likely to enjoy the prophesy of promise that the Internet garnered. When Internet users comprised a small percentage of the population, it was productive to design studies confined to users. However, today the users form the majority of many populations, especially within the United States. Surely the prevailing user culture must have some effect on the non-user; which begs the question: Today, can researchers assume that a non-access individual is, indeed, a nonuser? Many studies focus on users. They are not about access, but about the consequences of the Internet (Kraut, Scherlis, Mukhopadhyay, Manning, & Kiesler, 1996). The danger is not in these studies but in the possibility that they encourage the omission of non-users in related research, that is, encourage the assumption that there can only be consequences for people who partake directly. Currently, few researchers are exploring fine distinctions and asking about particular patterns and styles of Internet access, but researchers are beginning to investigate a wider range of modes of access to the Internet. For example, a recent PEW study (Lenhart 2000) asks: "Do you use a computer at your workplace, at school, at home, or anywhere else on at least an occasional basis?"; "Do you eve r go online to access the Internet or WWW or to send and receive email?"; and "Did you EVER at some point use the Internet or email, but terminate use for some reason?" These questions capture a wide range of possible kinds of direct usage of the Internet, but many people use the Internet indirectly. Though classified as non- users, these individuals may interact closely with the resources, information, and culture of the Internet. It may seem strange or even paradoxical, but it is becoming more and more important to ask "nonusers" about their Internet experiences. We had the opportunity to query users in a variety of different ways about their experiences with computers and the Internet over the course of about a year. In this time we attempted to categorize them according to their Internet usage, and then, in some cases, we met them, surveyed them, and interviewed them about their usage patterns and community involvement. Initially we tried to follow common sense categories and those represented in similar studies. In this paper, we describe the process through which we initially categorized users, and the answers and stories that led us to reconsider those initial categories. Our goal in the end is to describe some exemplary attitudes and experiences related to the Internet of non-users and people with marginal access, First, we will describe our study and how we initially categorized and stratified our subject sample in order to represent the range of Internet interactions from heavy users to complete non-users. Next, we highlight some of the patterns and experiences of non-users that are related to the Internet and some of the reasons and values that our participants described in answering our questions about the Internet and local community. Finally, we
discuss the implications that the refined usage categories might have for research, measurement, and outreach related to Internet use.
What do you mean "Internet Access"? Our interest in users and non- users of the Internet stems from a larger study of community networking. EPIC, or Experiences of People the Internet and their Community, is an empirical study evaluating the use and social impact of the Internet within a community. The community of Montgomery County in southwest Virginia is unique because it has an advanced, WWW-based network that has been operational for about ten years. The Blacksburg Electronic Village, or BEV, (http://www.bev.net) currently offers information and forums for local town and county government, social services, public education, libraries, health care, and commercial services, such as access to merchant websites (Cohill & Kavanaugh, 2000). The research questions posed by the EPIC study focus on home use of the Internet. In particular, the study probes the reasons people give for choosing to have Internet access in their home. It investigates the obstacles that residents say prevent them from having access and the consequences of being excluded that they perceive. EPIC also explores the ways people use the Internet at home. It investigates "local" or community-oriented activities and different styles of Internet usage, such as information seeking and communication. The research is also interested in the effects of having Internet access at home. It asks whether the Internet has altered family dynamics, community participation, personal social networks, or community collective efficacy. To investigate these questions, a multifaceted and longitudinal approach was used. The evaluation involved one hundred households in a year long study. A variety of types of households were used including single person and multiple member homes, adult only and adult with children households, and kin and non-kin homes. For most of the households, the study involved individual questionnaires at the beginning and end of the year with some form of Internet activity reporting throughout. Twenty of the homes were also interviewed four times periodically throughout the year. This gave us a chance to get to know some of the participants more in depth and learn about their Internet usage and experiences first hand. Households were recruited based on the location of their home, the head of household's education level, and a classification of household Internet use. The 100 households were chosen so that they represented the population’s demographics proportionately in each of these categories. This ensured that we surveyed a diverse set of the population, including the important group of "non-users". Households we classified as non-users were treated very similar to the other households. They filled out the same questionnaires and were asked parallel, if not identical, interview questions. This approach is different from previous studies, which focus exclusively on Internet users. Four distinct categories were used in the Internet classification. This was based on whether the home had Internet access and whether a household member periodically used
the Internet outside of the home, such as at work, school, or the library. The term "super user" was adopted for the households that used the Internet in both locations. These homes had a computer connected to the Internet and at least one person used the Internet somewhere else. "Household user" refers to the households that only used the Internet in their home. Similarly, "non-household user" corresponds to the households that did not have an Internet connection, but accessed the Internet other places. Lastly, the households that did not have a computer connected to the Internet and claimed that no one accessed the Internet were termed "non- users". Potential participants were first contacted through a short, 10-question survey sent via first-class mail to their home. A letter explaining the purpose of the study accompanied the questions in order to generate interest and encourage accurate responses. The two questions that asked about Internet usage were: a)Does at least one member of your household use the Internet at home? and b)Does anybody in your household use the Internet from another location? These questions directly relate to the classification and the responses provided were used to initially classify the households. Following the mail-out survey, each head of household was phoned to coordinate their participation. The phone calls were similar as each researcher used a script during the conversation. This script followed up on the responses given in the first survey and involved three questions related to Internet use. We first asked the following: "You indicated in your response that you have/do not have Internet access at home. Is this correct?" The second question asked about using the Internet some place else: "Do any members of your household access the Internet elsewhere, such as at school, work, the library, or another public or private place?? The last question asked for more specifics, namely "Do you have a computer in your home? Are any of your home computers currently connected to the Internet? Who is your Internet Service Provider?" The answers to these questions we got from the heads of households determined their Internet use classification into one of the four categories.
Marginal Net Usage: Cases and Rationale In meeting with a cross section of the households in the EPIC study several times over the course of a year, we explored several aspects of residents’ experiences and attitudes toward the Internet. Many homes contained interesting relationships to the Internet, but particularly fascinating were the households we classified as non- users and nonhousehold users. These homes typically had limited, if any, experiences with the Internet. In this section, we present some of the cases of homes we visited with marginal Internet usage patterns. Pandora's Box This case is a typical middle class couple, college-educated, both working professiona ls with several young school-aged children. They do not have access to the Internet at home, and they do not routinely use the Internet elsewhere. The wife has used the Internet on occasion and has even taken a beginning computer course. She works in an educational setting with Internet access and explains, "We have one [computer] at school,
but I don't use it." While they do plan on getting connected at home in the very near future, they are dragging their feet for some very important reasons. "I guess I must not really want one that bad, otherwise I'd go out and get one. We live in a time, economic time, when pretty much if you need something or really want something, you'll find a way to purchase it." One major worry that they note is the effect on their children's activities. "I think we're going to have to head in that direction here in the next year or two. I keep having to tell my kids at school that the library is a great place to go find information, because they'll go 'well, I can find this on the Internet' and I'm like 'well, there are lots of books on the shelf... go over there'." In fact, the family purchased a computer during our study, but, when last we checked, it had been sitting unopened in the new box for several months -- a kind of Pandora's Box waiting to be opened and released. These parents are clearly torn between the value of having access at home and the negative consequences they anticipate, mainly with regard to their children. "Part of the reason we didn't get a computer sooner was with the kids being small, I didn't want them locked into video games. I grew up playing outside and I built this house here so the kids would have a nice place to play and encourage them to go out and play outside and play games. Do creative art things or pretend stuff." On the other hand, the parents also expressed concern about providing the means to prepare their children in their future education, saying on one occasion, "The kids desperately need it for school." In addition to the concern about diverting the children's attention from books and outdoor activities, the parents also worry that computers might cause a decrease in the quality of their own social relationships, a loss of personal contact. "Email is convenient for sure, but I like talking to people because you can tell keywords and voice inflection and so on. I guess that's maybe why, I don't want to say I rebel against it, but I'm not a strong proponent of it at this point in time." This person does not use the Internet or computers despite being a business owner who keeps track of work transactions, billing, taxes, and other accounting. He explains why he is not totally convinced of the convenience of computers. "For compilation, it [a computer] would help somewhat, but you'd still have to log everything in So the difference is me adding it up on a calculator, with the time it takes to do that, and logging it on a separate sheet versus typing it on the keyboard." In addition, he refers to stories of problems with data loss and related drawbacks to electronic bookkeeping. This family is moving toward getting home access, but they are very cautious and wary of the drawbacks of having access, of opening Pandora's Box. They describe tension between these concerns and their worry that the family, especially their children, will be disadvantaged and left behind by a lack of Internet and computer access in their home. Thus, they are definitely planning, but they are reluctant. At least for now, getting connected is more or less a zero-sum gain for them, and so the box stays shut. The educational and other benefits of having the Internet are on par with the risks associated with the Internet and the benefits of not having it, for example, encouraging book reading and outdoor activity.
Email Gratis This young married couple is difficult to categorize. They have a computer at home with a free service that provides email but not Web access. They do not use the Internet at work, and they consider themselves very unskilled and barely beginners with it. One of them rarely, if ever, uses the Internet directly. However, the individual has used it with friends to shop and browse. The other only uses the Internet occasionally when helping at the church office. One the other hand, email is integrated into their lives in notable ways. For example, they act as sources and a resource for email transactions for their community. They help out at the church by receiving and answering email for their church leaders and use it for community group with which they are involved. They share an email address, but both use email for important work and related purposes. For them, Internet access at home is a "luxury" that does not warrant the expense at this point in their lives, but their email is free and well utilized. Moreover, they express no concerns other than expense about getting access at home, and they both indicate that the Internet is a useful resource. Net Limbo This household consists of a resident in his thirties with a college education and a fulltime job working with youths. For most of our discussions, he was living alone in an apartment without a computer or Internet access. At the end of the study, he moved into a home with a computer online. He has access the Internet at work, although he uses it infrequently. He described how the Internet and computer systems are used where he works, but then he added, "I have access to [the system] if I want, but I usually don't concern myself with it." Originally, he had indicated that he did not use the Internet and our study classified him as a non- user, but in talking with him we learned that he occasionally gets online. For instance, he explained, "I play [guitar] for the kids all the time ... That's what I use the Internet for pretty much, so I know what I'm singing." Yet, he describes himself as someone who does not use it when he explains in his feelings about the Internet: "It is a good thing. I'm all in favor of it. I just don't use it." He currently does not use email, but he does receive messages from his brother, including pictures. They have an arrangement so that his brother sends the messages to either his friend or supervisor's email address at work. A couple of years ago he regularly used a web-based email account when he lived with someone who owned a computer, but recently he has not felt the need for email. In addition to looking up lyrics online, this participant also gains some very important information from the Internet. Since he competes in professional tournaments at the regional, state, and national level, results from many distant tournaments are relevant to his and his local chapter’s overall place in the association's yearly standings. Results and standings are delivered online along with much other information about tournaments and events. As a top ranked competitor, he is frequently listed on these web pages, but he does not usually look at them. He explained, "I get copies of it from people. I don't
actually go get it myself. They always pull it up and check it. I get the hard copy of it." One of his partners works in the same building, and he often has the partner look up the information and song lyrics. This participant has gotten into the practice of obtaining information relating to work, family, and entertainment on the Internet without having to go online himself. “Instead of me doing it, I just ask, ‘can you get it online’?" Previously, he was an email user but has since stopped. His Internet needs are particularly focused and practical. He has specific reasons to want Internet access at home, but he was not considering taking this step for himself. He has developed a functional means of regular, proxied Internet connection. He was content with the benefits of second- hand use and expressed little need for a more direct connection. Net Maybes This case is a senior couple with one working and both active in the community. They consider themselves up and coming users but not yet quite there. They do not send email directly, and they do not have an Internet connection at home. On the other hand, they are involved with family and groups that use the Internet in important ways. At church, they transact second- hand with missionaries overseas. At work, they interact with colleagues who "access the Internet." They even "get on it" and "try to learn it," despite the claim that they are "non-users." They have used it, in a small way, but they do not use it regularly or extensively. Their children are well connected and recently gave them a used computer. They exchange Internet information with their children, and their grandchildren even "gave [the couple] a lesson" on the computer. They are planning on getting access at home at some point if they learn and gain confidence in using the Internet. They say, "We are just playing with it right now." They do not express any great need, but they do point to advantages they would enjoy such as "communications with the family" and "quick and easy to get [information] without having to go somewhere else, through someone else." If left to their own devices, this couple would not feel a great impetus to gain access, but they are surrounded by friends, family, and colleagues who provide subtle support and encouragement to get access. They are planning, but while they are somewhat ambivalent about it, they are very "connected" to people who are "connected" to the Internet. This couple is older in age and they are taking things very slowly and deliberately. They don't want to make a mistake. They feel a considerable amount of apprehension, but they also see the utility. They seem to be part way through a plan to become users. Proxy Web User This case is a middle-aged woman who works part-time at her family's local business. She and her husband do not own a computer at home, although she uses one at work for bookkeeping that is not online. While discussing computers, it was clear that she struggles with the technology: "I use the computer at work and I would say that I'm warming up a little bit more all the time." This participant gets access to the Internet through her sister. Early in the study, she
described how her sister would email their brother in San Diego, California, and pass on the information to her. She explained, "If he has told her anything vital, she tells me. Most of the time it isn't worth passing on, but that is how I learn things." More recently, she and her husband have asked her sister to look up information. The sister has printed "pages and pages" about their business, the breed of their dog, her favorite racecar driver, vacation destinations, appraisers, and so on. In short, she stated, "My sister looks up anything we need to know." Given her sister's Internet finds, she is somewhat curious about the Internet. For example, when asked how computers might change her life, she responded, "It might streamline it a little bit. I could do stuff for myself instead of getting somebody else to do it for me. I might go on to the little dirty websites and nobody would know but me." Yet, she also has strong feelings against computers: "I have all of it that I want at work. I don't want anymore." This non- user household is potentially generating and benefiting from as many searches online as a typical household who uses the Internet. They have requested information about family members, business, and leisure activities all through an online user. In the course of the study, she claimed to have softened her stance against getting online a little, but they still are not considering it. Yet, this couple's reservations about technology will probably prevent them from getting a computer at home and online anytime soon. Like "Net Limbo," this person uses the Internet through a proxy and has no plan to get directly online. She has deeper reservations about the Internet and computers than "Net Limbo." Reactionary Reactionary is a single male in his thirties who does not have a computer at home. He works full-time and has access to the Internet at work. One of the main reasons his job requires the Internet is to look up technical information that is not in the workplace's books. He explains, "It's not like you talk to anybody on it or type to anybody, but they give you a good troubleshoot chart, better than what the books have." He has also made Internet purchases via his girlfriend. For instance, he has found that he can look up items on eBay while at work and ask his girlfriend to bid on them. He also has asked his girlfriend to look up concerts and make travel arrangements. He describes it as: "Yeah, sometimes I make her do stuff. Like we went [on vacation] and I made her book all the reservations." He has enjoyed these interactions with Internet, yet he has concerns about its usefulness and social implications. He told us how he found a radiator for about half the price he expected to pay and how he found a crazy hat for "$6 bucks" that he had to have. But when we discussed him not having a computer, he commented, "I'll take the $1200 and buy something really useless like a junk car." His view of the Internet became more evident when he told us about his friends' use of
email. He is concerned about loosing personal face-to- face communication as he explained: "A lot of them have email and a lot of them talk to each other, but I guess I'm a little bit out of that loop. From what I can see about email they are basically just conversations, and it's something that you want to do in person." He also observed how the Internet has changed people's lives in a negative way. "I think people are a little bit more in a hole. I know my girlfriend's father, all he does is: come home, have dinner, and then go play on the computer until, you know, it's time to go to bed. I got some friends who have some younger kids and they do the same damn thing. Instead of read to the kid or whatever, most of their wives kinda of take care of the kids and their like I got to go look at the computer." He claims he does not own a computer because of the number of hours he works and because of financial reasons. He has enjoyed the Internet but prefers to have his girlfriend do things online for him, and he resents the way the technology has caused people not to meet in person and socialize with their families. Like Pandora's Box, Reactionary sees Internet access as roughly a zero-sum gain. He enjoys some of the benefits, but he does not want to be eaten by the Internet. He is particularly concerned about losing the warm, personal touch if he embraces computermediated communication. He recognizes he is losing something by not being online directly, but he is able to searches and buys online with the help from a friend. His need to get connected is partially met by indirect connections, so the trade-off he describes favors his holding out on Internet access at home. Email Proxy / Second-Hand User This couple has Internet access at home. The wife uses it extensively at school and during her work- hours. The husband does not use the Internet at all, but the wife acts as a proxy to email for him. "He has a couple of friends he likes to email, but he doesn't do it. He tells me, and I type it out." She also shares information from their hometown newspaper online. The husband has no plans to become an Internet user. As long as his wife continues to act as proxy and messenger, he anticipates little gain from learning how to use it himself, and he does not want to put forth the effort and frustration in learning. Bystander Bystander is a college educated senior who has a daughter living with her. Her husband had been a Computer Scientist. She jokes about the progress she has made in getting online. "I have a monitor and a mouse.” Although she has access to a lab of computers at the local and Senior Center which is very active online, she does not use a computer: "I just watch people do it. I don't." The daughter who lives with her does own a computer and uses it online, but Bystander usually does not get involved. Occasionally, the daughter will look up information on the Internet for her. One story she mentioned was, "[She] has been doing a lot of things like that on hers lately for some things we were thinking about. She was looking for bargains." Bystander also has thought about using her daughter's email address to communicate with a friend. Her friend is having trouble writing and so "she is on the
computer." Having married a Computer Scientist and raised children who also work with closely with computers, she has significant experience with computers. She told us how she used to work with computer punch cards and used one of the first public kiosks in town. Nevertheless, she is not convinced of the value of getting a computer. "If I got [a computer], it would probably be playing solitaire. ... I don't think I would get any work done. I would be playing on it all the time." Like Pandora’s Box above, she describes a zero-sum gain from the Internet. For example, she suggests that the time the Internet might save her in doing useful activities will probably be wasted doing useless activities. Yet, she does look forward somewhat to using the Internet to communicate. "There are possibilities that some day, I think the kids would love it if Grandma could send them an email and get email." Bystander is surrounded by connection. She receives printed out emails with jokes from her friend in Georgia. She has contact with some of the most technologically advanced people in the community. Her children work in Information Technology. She indicates that she could probably easily get online and get help, but she expresses no pressing need to do it.
Discussion Each of these cases is unique. Each household has a different set of beliefs and attitudes about the Internet and different practices related to accessing information and communicating through the Internet. Our study had classified four of these cases, Net Limbo, Net Maybes, Proxy Web User, and Observer, as non- users. Yet, clearly these homes are not as disconnected from the Internet as one might expect from a non-user household. On the other hand, other cases were categorized more fittingly but still triggered concerns. Pandora's Box, Email Gratis, and Reactionary were all categorized as non-household users. These are homes that do not have an Internet connection, but do have someone in the house that goes online elsewhere. But again, their usage of the Internet is complex and somewhat unexpected. For example, one of the adults in the Pandora's Box family does have Internet access at work in and education setting, but she explained that she does not make use of it. The Email Gratis only mentioned their use of email in the context of volunteering at the church, and Reactionary almost always has his girlfriend conduct his interactions. These cases do not invoke images of someone who has Internet access at work. Lastly, the Email Proxy/Second-Hand User case is a household that was classified as super user. Super users are defined as homes that have an Internet connection and also contain someone who accesses the Internet elsewhere. The wife in this example qualified the home for this categorization, but the husband, who reported no Internet usage in the questionnaire, defies this categorization. These issues motivated us to think about other ways to describe and classify users, and a PEW study of "Who's Not Online" (Lenhart 2000) provided some direction. We developed an inventory of styles of usage that helped us describe many of the cases of marginal usage that we found and discussed above.
Proxy Use Many of the households we had classified as non-users used their friends and families as proxies for doing things on the Internet. The friends and family went online and performed a task for them, such as Internet searching, emailing, shopping, or even posting on the Web. These are tasks the user would not otherwise have done. The Proxy Web User and the Email Proxy/Second-Hand User cases are prime examples. The Proxy Web User repeatedly asks her sister to look up information for herself and her husband. These searches are often directly for the Proxy Web User (e.g., the sister probably has little interest in a particular dog breed because she has no pets). Similarly, the Email Proxy/Second-Hand User often requests that his wife use her email address to send messages to his friends. The Reactionary and the Bystander also exhibit this style of use. The Reactionary often "makes his" girlfriend do his Internet tasks, while the Bystander is considering receiving messages from her ailing friends through her daughter's computer. In each of these examples, people are requesting their friends and family, or their "proxies", to do things on the Internet. Second-Hand Use We also found a wide variety of second-hand information exchange, where an Internet user distributed information obtained from the Internet to a group or individual that might want or need it. Second-hand exchange is generally initiated by the user who receives an email or gets information from the Web and then distributes it. Examples include church meetings, tournament results/standings, email postcards to a group, stories, and jokes. The Net Maybes and the Email Proxy/Second-Hand User cases are good examples. The Net Maybes learn about their church's missionaries in Africa through second-hand use. The church prints out each email they receive and distributes to the congregation. Similarly, the Email Proxy/Second-Hand User hears the news from his hometown as his wife relays the stories she has read online. The Bystander also exhibits this behavior when she receives a letter via first class mail with a print out of jokes, originally passed around online. Spectator Non-users were also "spectators" of the Internet. They watched as friends and family showed them things on the Internet, and they listened to and looked after children playing games and navigating websites. They "incidentally" interacted with co-workers and friends who were online, talking to them about the online content, and doing business with clients and information obtained from the Internet. Both the Net Maybes and the Bystander fall under this style of use. They each recounted experiences of watching others use the Internet while they sat close-by. The Net Maybes experience was with their grandchildren, and the Bystander mentioned watching other seniors use the Internet. Net Dropouts Net Dropouts had access at some point and then lost or got rid of it typically because of the loss of a computer due to change in residence, change in job, or economic reasons. Net Dropouts can be "in between" or planning to get access again, but they sometimes describe a disillusionment and slight resistance to the Internet that, along with economics, justifies their present state as non-users. The Net Limbo case above is a Net Dropout, one
that is on the way to greater access. Net Limbo previously had an email address, but he no longer does. Since he has gotten greater access, he has begun to get more information directly from the Internet rather than relying on his cohorts to pass it on to him. For example, he gets his associations competition standings online but also asks a friend in the group to look this information up. InterNots InterNots are computer users who do not have Internet access. Some of our participants used computer systems casually or for business but did not access the Internet. At work, some employers discouraged Internet browsing. For example, the Proxy Web User uses computers daily at work. She learned an accounting system years ago and says she has little need or desire to go online. WebNots In addition to NetDropouts and InterNots, we interviewed "WebNot's", those who use computers and email but do not access the Web (use Web browsers). For example, the Email Gratis typifies this behavior. When we interviewed them about their Internet usage, they mainly recounted email stories. These cases illustrate some of the attitudes and patterns at the margins of Internet nonusage. For some groups on the periphery, usage is a moving target. Younger non-users tend to cite economic reasons for their lack of access. Older non-users tend to be more concerned about dangers and confusion present online and less convinced that they are missing out on something. Thus, younger non- users are more eager to get online, and older non-users more reluctant. Likewise, the "nevers," non-users that say they do not plan to go online, tend to be much older and less educated than the "reluctants" (Lenhart 2000). But those findings should not keep researchers from investigating reluctance and resistance to the Internet from younger would-be users. In fact, we expect older citizens to be resistant to new technologies. What is more interesting to us is when younger citizens who grew up entrenched within an Internet- mediated culture convey these critical attitudes. Within their stories and attitudes, these marginal users explain their connection to the Internet in terms of close social ties rather than publicly available community resources. Friends and family promote, support, and enable their efforts to gain access and use Internet resources by teaching, demonstrating, donating computers, and setting up the connection. Increased communication with friends and family also stands out as a primary motivation for wanting an Internet connection. One of the most interesting attitudes conveyed by these marginal users concerns their resistance to the Internet. Such attitudes are reflected in Appalachian culture which influences the population from which the EPIC sample was drawn. These attitudes were often expressed as tentativeness toward communication technologies such as the Internet, but while the population reflects some of these values, the region also contains a mix of diverse and eager users.
Researchers are beginning to ask about the transactions between non-users and the Internet. These are budding shifts in Internet research. On the other hand, as the Internet becomes more ubiquitous and integrated into other systems and practices, the distinction between access and non-access changes and in some cases fades. This is not to say "the digital divide is disappearing." Instead, our observations of the marginal user motivate attention to careful operationalizing and defining what “access” and “user” in Internet researcher. Communities, social relations, educational opportunities, and culture are relevant to specifying the effects of access or non-access. During the course of our study, we have recognized several possible pitfalls. First, the exact wording of questions matters. This is well known to survey researchers, but it is easy to misinterpret how new users perceive their own usage. We found that participants forgot about past incidents, and they were reminded when we cued them to think about contexts in which they might have interacted with computers and computer users. Second, questions can be easily asked and interpreted as "either-or" when they might be more accurately formed as a question of degree. A recent Pew report (Lenhart 2000) provides some nice examples of nuanced questions, such as "Do you use a computer...on at least an occasional basis", "Do you ever go online...", and "Did you EVER at some point use the Internet or email...." Third, it should be no surprise that those that report no direct Internet usage themselves may be quite connected to Internet resources and tools. Information is shared second- hand, and non-users have friends who act as proxy users for them. These phenomena appear to be much more common than we had originally suspected. Fourth, Internet access is not the same thing for everyone. What they are accessing, what they are producing, and what they are doing with the access is critical to making sense of their usage of the Internet. This is also relevant to non-users. "If we are going to take advantage of developments in information access, we have to begin by being honest about the kind of information that is available, the ability of information to move, and our own ability to process it" (Wresch 1996). Despite the Appalachian setting of Montgomery County Virginia, its citizens are probably more aware of the Internet than those in Anytown, USA. It enjoys a relatively long and early history of active online community networks. If there are people who are unaware of the Internet here, we did not find them. If there are people with no way to access the Internet, either directly or indirectly, we did not find them. What we did find is direct use and a wide range of indirect access and usage. Our study also reveals a problem with defining access at the household level of granularity. We classified each home based on whether it had a computer with Internet access and whether a member of the household accessed the Internet from outside the home. The fallacy is in the way that this classification system suggests that if the home has a computer is online, everyone in the house has “access” to it and therefore uses it. Both the Email Proxy/Second-Hand and Bystander represent cases of people who do not use a computer but do live in a house with someone who is online. This discussion has focused on the unique patterns of Internet usage we observed in a study of a Virginia community. Particularly interesting were the households surveyed that
claimed that did not use the Internet or used it only minimally. Eight cases of behaviors and attitudes toward the Internet were reviewed as they suggested the need for new ways to define usage. Various styles of usage were also presented in response along with suggestions for future approaches for defining user categories.
Acknowledgements This work was made possible through National Science Foundation grant NSF-IIS 0080864. We are also grateful for the assistance from Andrea Kavanaugh, Philip Isenhour, Dennis Neale, Mary Beth Rosson, Lucinda Willis, Jennifer Thompson, Robert Kraut, and Ann Bishop.
References Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet, 1995-2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 405-419. Cohill, A. & Kavanaugh, A, eds. (2000). Community Networks : Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia. Boston, M.A.: Artech House. Kavanaugh, A., Kirn, K., & Willis, L. 2000. Demographic profile - Blacksburg community trends: Summary of Findings 1996-2000. Retrieved September 13, 2001 from http://www.bev.net/project/research/ BEV.Demographics.00.pdf. Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., Mukhopadhyay T., Manning, J. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The HomeNewt field trial of residential Internet services. Communications of the ACM 39, 55-63. Lenhart, A. (2000, September 21, 2000). Who's not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org. Wresch, W. (1996). Disconnected: Haves and Have-nots in the Information Age. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
