Theoretical models of digital inequality (E. Helsper, I. Mariën): comparative review
Research Article
How to Cite
Plotichkina N.V. (2024) Theoretical models of digital inequality (E. Helsper, I. Mariën): comparative review. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii (The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology), 27(3): 7–38 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2024.27.3.1 EDN: GKOUUQ
Abstract
The article focuses on explanatory schemes, research logic, heuristic capabilities of the online and offline correlation model of exclusion fields (E. Helsper), as well as the continuum model of social and digital inequality, profiling risk groups of digital exclusion (I. Mariën, L. Van Audenhove, A. Asmar) in the explication of the digital divide three-level construct. It is shown that modern studies of digital inclusion are based on the classical sociological conceptualizations of inequality (A. Giddens, P. Bourdieu), the capabilities approach (A. Sen), the intersectional theory (K. Crenshaw). The models of E. Helsper and Belgian researchers are based on the idea of the relationship between social and digital isolation, the reinterpretation of the Bourdieusian categories of "field", "resource", "capital". According to E. Helsper, the fields of exclusion are differentiated by the amount of resources, they are autonomous, but interconnected, they frame individual actions. The operationalization of the concept of personal resources into an analytical model of exclusion fields allows E. Helsper to take into account the freedom of choice of an individual in the construction of online practices. Socio-digital inequality is characterized as the inequality in digital resources and opportunities. The E. Helsper model is based on A. Giddens' theory of structuration in understanding the relationship between sociotechnical structure and user action. The heuristic potential of the capabilities approach in the explanation of digital inclusion is revealed. The Belgian model is based on the analytical construct of E. Helsper, focusing on the identification of exclusion risk factors relevant to the resources of the individual. The digital divide is interpreted as a continuum, a range of positions on a scale from deep exclusion to deep inclusion. In the model of I. Marien and co-authors, eight profiles of (non)users are identified, social and digital predictors of inequality are identified, the dynamism and procedural nature of digital integration and isolation are emphasized. The model shows that socially and economically vulnerable groups can be active users of online technologies. The differences between continuum model of the social and digital inequality and the conceptual construct of E. Helsper are revealed: instead of mutual influence mediators of online and offline fields of exclusion, indicators of isolation risk are proposed, direct and indirect cause and effect relationships between the determinants of social and digital exclusion are established. It was concluded that it is expedient to use models in the study of digital divide third level.
Keywords:
digital divide, digital inequality, social inequality, digital inclusion, digital exclusion, structuration theory, structuralist constructivism, E. Helsper, I. Mariën
References
Anrijs S., Mariën I., De Marez L., Ponnet K. (2023) Excluded from essential internet services: Examining associations between digital exclusion, socio-economic resources and internet resources. Technology in Society, 73: 1–11.
Archer M.S. (2010) Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 61(1): 225–252.
Asmar A., Mariën I., Van Audenhove L. (2020) A qualitative analysis of the develop-ment of digital autonomy beyond the life course perspective. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Asmar A., Mariën I., Van Audenhove L. (2022) No one-size-fits-all! Eight profiles of digital inequalities for customized inclusion strategies. New Media & Society, 24(2): 279–310.
Bourdieu P. (2001) Le Sens pratique/Practical meaning. St. Petersburg: Aletejya (in Russian).
Bourdieu P. (2005) Social space: fields and practice. Moscow: Institut eksperimental'noj sociologii; St. Petersburg: Aleteya (in Russian).
Burchardt T., Hick R. (2018) Inequality, Advantage and the Capability Approach. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(1): 38–52.
Calderon Gomez D. (2020) The third digital divide and Bourdieu: bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media & Society, 23(9): 2534–2553.
Eynon R. (2023) Utilising a Critical Realist Lens to Conceptualise Digital Inequality: The Experiences of Less Well-Off Internet Users. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3): 1081–1096.
Giddens A. (2018) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt (in Russian).
Grenfell M. (ed.) (2008) Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. L.; N.Y.: Routledge; Acumen.
Helsper E. (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. L.: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Helsper E. (2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication theory, 22(4): 403–426.
Helsper E. (2021) The digital disconnect: the social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. L.: Sage.
Ignatow G., Robinson L. (2017) Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7): 950–966.
Jones M.R., Karsten H. (2008) Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1): 127–157.
Livingstone S., Helsper E. (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4): 671–696.
Mariën I. (2015) De Dichotomie van de Digitale Kloof Doorprikt: Een Onderzoek naar de Oorzaken van Digitale Uitsluiting en naar Strategieën voor een Duurzaam e-Inclusiebeleid. Doctoral Thesis. Brussel: Free University of Brussels.
Mariën I., Baelden D. (2015) 8 profielen van digitale ongelijkheden [8 profiles of digital inequalities]. Onderzoeksrapport voor het federale onderzoeksproject IDEALiC.be. (Research Report for the federal research project IDEALiC.be.). Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Mariën I., Heyman R., Salemink K., Van Audenhove L. (2016) Digital by Default: Consequences, Casualties and Coping Strategies. In: Servaes J., Oyedemi T. (eds.) Social Inequalities, Media and Communication: Theory and Roots. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield: 167–188.
McGillivray D., Mahon J. (2021) Distributed digital capital: digital literacies and everyday media practices. Media Practice and Education, 22(3): 196–210.
Merisalo M., Makkonen T. (2022) Bourdieusian e-capital perspective enhancing digital capital discussion in the realm of third level digital divide. Information Technology & People, 35(8): 231–252.
Neves B.B., Waycott J., Malta S. (2018) Old and afraid of new communication technologies? Reconceptualising and contesting the ‘age-based digital divide.’ Journal of Sociolo-gy, 54(2): 236–248.
Ragnedda M., Ruiu M.L., Addeo F. (2022) The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics, 72: 1–13.
Robinson L., Schulz J., McClain N., Hale T., Pait H., Ragnedda M. et al. (2020) Global perspectives on digital inequalities and solutions to them. First Monday, 25(7) [https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10840/9560] (дата обращения: 20.06. 2023)
Sallaz J.J., Zavisca J. (2007) Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1): 21–41.
Savage M., Warde A., Devine F. (2005) Capitals, assets, and resources: Some critical issues. British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 31–47.
Scheerder A.J., van Deursen A.J.A.M., van Dijk J.A.G.M. (2020) Taking advantage of the Internet: A qualitative analysis to explain why educational background is decisive in gaining positive outcomes. Poetics, 80: 1–12.
Sen A. (2004) Development as Freedom. Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo (in Russian).
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Helsper E.J. (2018) Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 20(7): 2333–2351.
Zheng Y., Walsham G. (2021) Inequality of What? An Intersectional Approach to Digital Inequality under Covid-19. Information and Organization, 31(1): 1–6.
Archer M.S. (2010) Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. British Journal of Sociology, 61(1): 225–252.
Asmar A., Mariën I., Van Audenhove L. (2020) A qualitative analysis of the develop-ment of digital autonomy beyond the life course perspective. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Asmar A., Mariën I., Van Audenhove L. (2022) No one-size-fits-all! Eight profiles of digital inequalities for customized inclusion strategies. New Media & Society, 24(2): 279–310.
Bourdieu P. (2001) Le Sens pratique/Practical meaning. St. Petersburg: Aletejya (in Russian).
Bourdieu P. (2005) Social space: fields and practice. Moscow: Institut eksperimental'noj sociologii; St. Petersburg: Aleteya (in Russian).
Burchardt T., Hick R. (2018) Inequality, Advantage and the Capability Approach. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(1): 38–52.
Calderon Gomez D. (2020) The third digital divide and Bourdieu: bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media & Society, 23(9): 2534–2553.
Eynon R. (2023) Utilising a Critical Realist Lens to Conceptualise Digital Inequality: The Experiences of Less Well-Off Internet Users. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3): 1081–1096.
Giddens A. (2018) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt (in Russian).
Grenfell M. (ed.) (2008) Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts. L.; N.Y.: Routledge; Acumen.
Helsper E. (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. L.: Department for Communities and Local Government.
Helsper E. (2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication theory, 22(4): 403–426.
Helsper E. (2021) The digital disconnect: the social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. L.: Sage.
Ignatow G., Robinson L. (2017) Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7): 950–966.
Jones M.R., Karsten H. (2008) Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1): 127–157.
Livingstone S., Helsper E. (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4): 671–696.
Mariën I. (2015) De Dichotomie van de Digitale Kloof Doorprikt: Een Onderzoek naar de Oorzaken van Digitale Uitsluiting en naar Strategieën voor een Duurzaam e-Inclusiebeleid. Doctoral Thesis. Brussel: Free University of Brussels.
Mariën I., Baelden D. (2015) 8 profielen van digitale ongelijkheden [8 profiles of digital inequalities]. Onderzoeksrapport voor het federale onderzoeksproject IDEALiC.be. (Research Report for the federal research project IDEALiC.be.). Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
Mariën I., Heyman R., Salemink K., Van Audenhove L. (2016) Digital by Default: Consequences, Casualties and Coping Strategies. In: Servaes J., Oyedemi T. (eds.) Social Inequalities, Media and Communication: Theory and Roots. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield: 167–188.
McGillivray D., Mahon J. (2021) Distributed digital capital: digital literacies and everyday media practices. Media Practice and Education, 22(3): 196–210.
Merisalo M., Makkonen T. (2022) Bourdieusian e-capital perspective enhancing digital capital discussion in the realm of third level digital divide. Information Technology & People, 35(8): 231–252.
Neves B.B., Waycott J., Malta S. (2018) Old and afraid of new communication technologies? Reconceptualising and contesting the ‘age-based digital divide.’ Journal of Sociolo-gy, 54(2): 236–248.
Ragnedda M., Ruiu M.L., Addeo F. (2022) The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics, 72: 1–13.
Robinson L., Schulz J., McClain N., Hale T., Pait H., Ragnedda M. et al. (2020) Global perspectives on digital inequalities and solutions to them. First Monday, 25(7) [https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10840/9560] (дата обращения: 20.06. 2023)
Sallaz J.J., Zavisca J. (2007) Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1): 21–41.
Savage M., Warde A., Devine F. (2005) Capitals, assets, and resources: Some critical issues. British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 31–47.
Scheerder A.J., van Deursen A.J.A.M., van Dijk J.A.G.M. (2020) Taking advantage of the Internet: A qualitative analysis to explain why educational background is decisive in gaining positive outcomes. Poetics, 80: 1–12.
Sen A. (2004) Development as Freedom. Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo (in Russian).
Van Deursen, A.J.A.M., Helsper E.J. (2018) Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 20(7): 2333–2351.
Zheng Y., Walsham G. (2021) Inequality of What? An Intersectional Approach to Digital Inequality under Covid-19. Information and Organization, 31(1): 1–6.
Article
Received: 20.06.2023
Accepted: 15.08.2024
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
ACM
[1]
Plotichkina, N.V. 2024. Theoretical models of digital inequality (E. Helsper, I. Mariën): comparative review. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii (The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology). 27, 3 (Aug. 2024), 7–38. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2024.27.3.1.
Section
Social Theory
" />
