See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340789917

Digital Inclusion Empowering People Through Information and

Communication Technologies

Chapter · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

4 1,116

2 authors:

Massimo Ragnedda Bruce Mutsvairo

Northumbria University Utrecht University
90 PUBLICATIONS   986 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   457 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Role of city libraries in reducing social inequalities in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Newcastle Upon Tyne View project

Internet Artificial Limitations and Digital Inequalities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Massimo Ragnedda on 20 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Accepted Manuscript

This chapter has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review
but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and
proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and
the Version of Record.

To cite this chapter: Ragnedda, M. and Mutsvairo, B. (2018). Digital Inclusion:

Empowering People Through Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs). In Ragnedda, M. and Mutsvairo, B. (2018), (eds). Digital Inclusion. An
International Comparative Analysis, Lexington.

Introduction
New media technologies are playing a progressively important role in the everyday lives of
citizens. To fully participate in a digitally enabled society, where citizens’ lives are increasingly
mediated by information and communication technologies, access to and use of ICTs has
become vital. More and more services, resources, opportunities, knowledge and social relations
are migrating into the digital realm. Therefore, exclusion from the digital arena has severe
consequences for both private citizens and for society as a whole. The individuals and social
categories at the margins of the digital arena—often those with lower incomes, immigrants,
less educated people, those living in rural areas, seniors or individuals with disabilities—are
missing out on the potential benefits of ICTs. The socially underprivileged position of people
in these categories is further reinforced by their digital exclusion. For these reasons, a growing
number of projects and initiatives are moving towards a digitally inclusive society by aiming
to provide everyone with the potential to be included in the digital ecosystem. However, the
simple possession of ICTs or access to the Internet, though vital, has become insufficient to be
considered as digital inclusion (Ragnedda and Muschert 2013). Accessibility is the first step to
digitally including citizens and bridging the digital divide. However, this does not
automatically guarantee advantages. Indeed, to fully appreciate the opportunities and
advantages offered by ICTs and by the Internet, in particular, it is necessary to acquire a
proficient level of digital literacy (Van Dijk and Hacker 2003).
Digital inclusion, as will become clear throughout the book, means much more than access to
the Internet or the use of digital technologies. A growing body of empirical and theoretical
research has investigated digital inclusion without coming to a common definition. However,
one broadly accepted definition has been proposed by the Building Digitally Inclusive
Communities framework, which defines digital inclusion as “the ability of individuals and
groups to access and use information and communication technologies. Digital inclusion
encompasses not only access to Internet but also the availability of hardware and software;
relevant content and services; and training for the digital literacy skills required for effective
use of information and communication technologies” (IMLS et al. 2011: 1). Therefore, it is
vital not only to invest in infrastructures and technologies to expand the possibilities to access
the Internet but also to provide enough training and support for the digital skills required in an
advanced digitally literate society. Policymakers and private companies, at both local and
international levels, are aware of the importance and centrality of this issue and have proposed
several projects to enhance digital inclusion that involve enhancing infrastructure and
providing digital literacy training. From Europe to the US, from Australia to China, from Brazil
to Ghana, we can find examples of initiatives promoting and funding digital inclusion actions
to support citizens, small businesses and public institutions to embrace digital technologies and
to be involved into the digital realm. Digital inclusion projects are vital to helping individuals
to fully participate in social life and to help private enterprises to gain benefits from the digital
economy. The digital realm also helps to bring public institutions closer to citizens. However,
without a critical discussion and analysis of the ways in which these processes are occurring
around the world, it is difficult to have a clear picture of the social consequences that digital
inclusion policies have in the different contexts. This book moves into this arena, asking what
digital inclusion can mean for individuals and societies in different parts of the world. Using
different narratives, examples and theoretical approaches, the book points out that digital
inclusion is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon and, as such, should be addressed
by scholars and policymakers.
The core purpose of the book is to produce a set of studies that examines digital inclusion from
comparative and international perspectives. In different ways, this book underlines how
inclusion and exclusion from the digital realm are based on resources, length of time and
amount of Internet use, capabilities of technological devices, digital skills and the autonomy of
use (DiMaggio et al. 2004; Hargittai and Hinnant 2008; Howard et al. 2001; Van Dijk and Van
Deursen 2014). We will not only see how diversified and unequal access to the Internet can
create new forms of social segregation, in both national and international contexts, but also
what different actors and policymakers are doing to build digitally inclusive societies.

Different gradations of e-inclusion

Having access to the Internet and the skills, confidence and motivation to use it effectively is
now more important than ever. Indeed, some of the most important human, cultural, economic
and social activities occur in the digital realm. For this reason, the exclusion from, or even
limited access to, the digital arena is an important source of inequality. Such inequalities in
accessing and using ICTs may further increase socio-economic differences. Governments, non-
profit organizations and the private sector play important roles in reducing digital inequalities
and, as a consequence, in tackling social inequalities. These inequalities in using ICTs are not
only based on economic factors but also involve multiple dimensions, such as technical access,
autonomy, social support, skills and types of use, which go beyond the simple access to or the
possession of resources. These dimensions include patterns related to social strata and influence
an individual’s usage and interaction with digital technology. How citizens interact and use
ICTs will determine their level of inclusion in the digital world. We should, therefore, underline
both the risks and the opportunities of a digital society characterized by the increasing
importance of knowledge and by the incessant rise and pervasiveness of ICTs.
The importance of digital inclusion goes well beyond the technological and digital aspects. In
a digitally enabled society, being digitally excluded means being at the margins of the whole
society and not only at the border of the digital arena. Social and digital exclusion are deeply
intertwined and reciprocally influence and affect each other. This is not only because exclusion
from the digital realm has, as a consequence, exclusion from resources and knowledge
available online but also because social inequalities affect the gradations of inclusion in the
digital realm. Indeed, types of Internet activity, confidence and motivation in accessing and
using ICTs are shaped by the individual’s position in the social structure (Ragnedda 2017: 78).
Furthermore, socially advantaged individuals tend to use the Internet more frequently since
they usually have greater resources and more time and they also use it in a different and more
efficient manner. Therefore, they tend to have a higher level of engagement and e-inclusion. A
high level of digital inclusion has positive effects on an extensive range of outcomes in life,
such as job markets, leisure, entertainment, educational opportunities, valuable information,
welfare services and so forth. As a consequence, those who efficiently use the Internet can fully
participate in a digitally mediated society (Robinson et al. 2015). People that are digitally
included enjoy the full spectrum of opportunities and advantages offered by ICTs and this has
a positive effect on their quality of life. Different skills and literacy, motivations, support and
confidence in accessing and using ICTs shape online activities, making them a satisfactory
experience or not. Those who have more motivation to be online, better digital skills, greater
self-confidence and are more involved in the digital realm tend to gain greater social benefits
than those who do not actively engage in digital life. By contrast, those who are totally
excluded, or even partially included, are compromised in participating and benefiting from an
information-based society (Ragnedda and Muschert 2016). Digital inclusion refers to the
activities promoted by public or private actors to guarantee that all citizens, regardless of their
socio-economic status, have access and proper use of ICTs. This is a form of democratization
in that access and use of ICTs helps the socially excluded and marginalized to be included in
the digital realm. Digital inclusion boosts social inclusion via ICTs, allowing the most
disadvantaged citizens to fully participate in society, democracy and the economy and to
benefit from the use of ICTs. Accessing and efficiently using ICTs may help citizens in a wide
array of activities that enhance their quality of life and may also improve the quality of
democracy. Indeed, various forms of political participation are tied to ICT usage (Xenos and
Moy 2007).
Digital inclusion initiatives aim to provide everyone with the toolkit necessary for employment,
lifelong learning, civic and cultural participation and access to essential services. To build
digitally inclusive societies and to include the most disadvantaged citizens it is necessary to
reduce institutional and structural obstacles to access and ICT use. The benefits of creating
digitally inclusive societies affect almost all sectors of society, from education to healthcare,
from economic and workforce development to civic participation and public safety. According
to Bradbrook and Fisher (2004), digital inclusion is related to the “5 Cs”: connectivity,
capability, content, confidence and continuity. Therefore, in enhancing digital inclusion it is
necessary to focus on these 5 Cs by improving access (Connectivity), digital skills (Capability),
services and resources provided online (Content), self-efficacy (Confidence) and, finally, the
embeddedness of ICTs in everyday life (Continuity).
Digital inclusion is a matter of access and connectivity but also a matter of skills, knowledge,
opportunities, motivations and capacities to use ICTs to improve quality of life. It is also a
matter of how many relevant services, how much information and knowledge is available
online and how routinized ICTs are in daily life. Digital inclusion is, therefore, not only about
infrastructures and hardware but also includes having the motivation to access and use ICTs,
having proper support and the right digital skills to achieve personal and professional success.
Several features influence and determine the digital inclusion process, such as Internet usage
(van Deursen and van Dijk 2014; Hargittai and Hinnant 2008), digital skills (van Dijk 2005;
Litt 2013), experience, autonomy of use, motivation and self-efficacy (Correa 2010; de Haan
2004; Hassani 2006). Thus, rather than a dichotomous division between digital inclusion and
exclusion, we need to talk about several degrees and levels of digital inclusion. We need to
fully appreciate the multidimensionality of digital inclusion in line with the development of the
concept of the digital divide that has moved away from the early binary division, defined as
the first level of the digital divide, to encompass the second and, recently, the third level of the
digital divide.

Rethinking the digital divide

Scholars and policymakers interested in the digital divide and in the digital inclusion process
went much further than the simple binary classification of haves and have-nots. This simplistic
approach, which was mainly based on the possession or access to ICTs, is what we can define
as the first level of the digital divide. Over the course of time, researchers introduced several
other variables and factors that may exacerbate digital inequalities (Ragnedda and Muschert
2017). This shift in the analysis from simple access to inequalities in the use of ICTs is defined
as the second level of the digital divide (Attewell 2001). The digital divide began to be analysed
and studied in relation to the digital literacy and skills of citizens with different socio-economic
backgrounds (Hargittai 2010; Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2009), the quality of usage (Benkler
2006) and the different ways in which ICTs are used (Warschauer 2004; Hargittai and Hsieh
2010). The different use of the Internet (van Deursen and van Dijk 2014; Hargittai and Hinnant
2008) has created what van Dijk (2005) has defined as a “usage gap”. The reason why scholars
began to focus their attention on the inequalities of usage, rather than on simple access, is
because it soon became clear that the profits and advantages of using ICTs were not commonly
experienced by all users (Howard, Busch and Sheets 2010; Ono and Zavodny 2008).
Recognition of the importance of studying digital inequalities grew rapidly and it became
evident that different access and use, influenced by socio-economic and cultural factors, has
increased the divisions between users (Hilbert et al. 2010). The second level of the digital
divide, based on the inequalities in using ICTs, is more difficult to tackle and compare than the
first level of the digital divide, which is mainly based on access (or lack of) to ICTs. These
inequalities in Internet usage are at the base of the different levels of digital inclusion. Since
digital and social inequalities are intertwined, the different level of digital inclusion influences
the whole system of social inequalities. As we have seen, personal, political, social, cultural
and economic backgrounds affect both the first (access to) and the second (use of the Internet)
levels of the digital divide.
Recently, several scholars have also focused on the third level of the digital divide (van Deursen
and Helsper 2015; Ragnedda 2017), defined as the social benefits and tangible outcomes users
can gain from access to and use of ICTs. Different backgrounds influence the individual’s
usage of the Internet and are also vital in reinvesting digital advantages in the social fabric. The
different online experience, determined by the social structure, influences people’s life chances
and the opportunities they have in the offline world. In a highly digitalized society, in which
daily life relies on digital technologies, life outcomes and the quality of life are shaped by the
interaction between offline backgrounds and the way in which we use technologies. Indeed,
even if citizens with different socio-economic backgrounds have equal access to the Internet,
only those who have higher social capital, stronger economic backgrounds and real cultural,
political and personal capital are able to turn the access into a social benefit (Ragnedda and
Ruiu 2017).
Despite its openness and democratic vocation, the different access to (first level of the digital
divide) and different uses of (second level of the digital divide) ICTs tend to reinforce the social
privileges of those who are already in an advantaged position in society. Clearly, this is not a
hard and fast rule, but it does underline a trend based on the fact that not everyone exploits the
potentialities offered by ICTs in the same way. Those individuals who already enjoy a
privileged position in society are often those who tend to gain the most from the Internet,
further reinforcing their privileges. ICTs have a positive influence on the possibilities for
citizens in economic, political, social, personal and cultural fields but, following a vicious
cycle, this is based on the individual’s original social, economic and cultural position. This is
in line with the third level of the digital divide, defined as the interaction between offline
socially advantaged positions and digital inequalities in relation to the socially valuable
resources we stand to gain from the Internet (Ragnedda 2017). The idea of the third level of
the digital divide is based on the assumption that social and digital inequalities are strongly
intertwined and influence each other. Digital inequalities are, indeed, deeply embedded in
social structures. The level of digital inclusion is, therefore, influenced by socio-economic and
cultural variables.
Despite the unique qualities of the Internet and its potential to connect all the inhabitants of the
world, many barriers prevent its full integration. The misleading idea that homogeneity exists
in access to ICTs may lead to the undermining of the social, cultural and economic
consequences produced by differences usage of ICTs. Digital exclusion, based on the three
different levels of the digital divide, namely, lack of or limited access to ICTs (first level),
capacities to use (second level) and to get the most from ICTs (third level), strongly increases
the risk of social exclusion, exacerbating social inequalities. By contrast, by digitally including
citizens, providing affordable access and competencies and reasons for use, social
marginalization may be reduced, and social inequalities may be tackled.

Digital technologies as a tool for social inclusion

The intertwined relationship between social and digital inequalities is so complicated that no
easy solutions are available. Although inequalities in accessing ICTs between different social
strata have been partly reduced, the most socially disadvantaged social categories still struggle
to access, use and gain advantages from the Internet. Hence, in tackling social and digital
inequalities it is necessary to implement the digital rights as part of a basic human rights toolkit.
Without these rights, some individuals are excluded from the full range of opportunities and
resources offered by the Internet. As defined by the United Nations, the Internet is a basic
human right that should be extended to all citizens of the world (UN 2016). This right, as noted
above, is not only the right to access but also the right to fully enjoy the potential offered by
ICTs. However, in terms of physical access, use of online resources or skills and competencies,
not everyone has the opportunity to participate in the Internet. The more privileged social strata
tend to enhance their already privileged position in society by better exploiting the advantages
that derive from a particular level of inclusion in the digital realm. Inequalities in access to and
use of information, therefore, should not only be seen in terms of a black and white division
but also with respect to how to use them successfully to achieve social, personal, cultural,
political and economic goals.
Furthermore, given the prominence and core importance that the use of ICTs has in everyday
life, a proper and efficient use of the information and resources that are available online is vital
to succeed in most careers. There are several levels of use of online resources and only some
of these are able to satisfy the user’s needs and desires and improve their life chances. Digital
skills form the basis of a safe, satisfactory and efficient way to use ICTs. Since the Internet is
becoming an increasingly embedded part of everyday life for many citizens and private
enterprises, there is a need to foster the mastery of digital skills and to encourage the use of
technology for economic and social development. There are many approaches to
conceptualizing and measuring digital skills (Litt 2013) and it is difficult here to provide a full
overview. However, some conceptualizations are particularly pertinent to this context, such as
the definition provided by DiMaggio et al. (2004: 378) who defined it as the “capacity to
respond pragmatically and intuitively to challenges and opportunities in a manner that exploits
the internet’s potential”. This approach stresses practical and rational capacities to make the
most of the Internet’s possibilities. More specifically, in an attempt to operationalize this
concept, van Deursen and van Dijk (2010) categorized four types of skills: operational,
strategic, information and formal. The first two categories of digital skills refer to the abilities
to use the devices and to the capacities to operate hardware and software (operational) and the
capacities to strategically use the devices to achieve specific goals (strategic). The other two
categories, information and formal skills, are, respectively, the abilities to select and process
information and skills in navigating the multimedia context. Such skills, however, evolve and
need to be adapted to new scenarios.
Skills and competencies in accessing, finding and decoding information are crucial in the
information society. To guarantee a full digital engagement, other important skills are required
in the digital age, such as critical thinking. Indeed, access to information is not sufficient
without critical thinking and the capacity to distinguish between good and harmful content or
true and fake news. Critical thinking is a skill that is not automatically acquired through access
to the Internet but through the life-long education process. Critical thinking is also vital to
distinguish between trustworthy and doubtful contacts online and, therefore, to feel safe and
protected in the digital realm. The sense of fear and risk keeps some citizens away from access
to the digital realm, excluding them from a world where part of our daily life is occurring.
Another skill that is required in the digital age, which is connected to the skill of critical
thinking, is cyber-security management. It is vital to be able to protect one’s data to prevent
them from being stolen or used in illegal activities. Doing so is not only a matter of creating
stronger passwords but also developing the ability to manage various cyber attacks, protect
online identities and make safer online payments.
Although high skill levels, technical abilities and positive attitudes are vital, they are not
sufficient conditions for a successful engagement with technology. To become a fully digitally
included citizen, an individual should not only be technically capable of accessing and moving
around in the digital arena but should also be able to create meanings and feelings in it.
According to Warschauer (2004), the ability to access, adapt and generate new knowledge by
using ICTs is pivotal for digital and social inclusion. Exclusion, the lack of confidence to adapt
to the digital realm and the incapacity to create new information exacerbate social inequalities
and marginalization. The capacities to produce or co-produce new content and the ability to
transform ideas into reality by using digital tools is increasingly important in the digital age.
This digital creativity helps citizens to become active participants in producing content and in
boosting their confidence to navigate the digital arena. The capacities and ability in using
digital technologies are pivotal for creating new opportunities that go beyond the digital
ecosystem. In a digitally enabled society, to become full citizens and to feel part of the e-
community it is necessary to continually update and enhance skills to be able to comfortably
move around in the cyber-world (Van Dijk and Hacker 2003). Digital inclusion is an on-going
and dynamic, rather than a static process. Once citizens enter cyberspace, there is a need to
make their digital experience valuable and satisfactory by updating their capabilities and also
by providing content and services based on their interests in order to stimulate their motivation
to go online and use ICTs as inclusive tools.
For the sake of clarity, we are not underestimating the potential of the Internet and ICTs in
general. Rather the opposite. We fully appreciate the importance of digital technologies as a
tool for social inclusion. We recognize that the advent of ICTs and the Internet, in particular,
may positively enhance citizens’ quality of life. However, the benefits of the Internet are not
equally distributed, either at the local or the global level. Factors such as poverty, lack of
infrastructure, lack of technological culture, the absence of relevant content and political
restrictions determine how different areas of the world use ICTs. Clearly, technological and
economic differences persist, affecting citizens’ adoption of ICTs. Less developed areas of the
world are trying to catch up with the most developed countries by implementing infrastructures,
financially helping those at the margins of the social and digital arenas and providing training
and specific support to confidently access and use digital technologies.
The unequal distribution of resources produces unequal access to ICTs (the first level of the
digital divide). However, even if saturation point were to be reached, this would not be enough
to eliminate digital inequalities. Indeed, as we have seen, inequality in access also depends on
both the intrinsic characteristics of ICTs and the different paths to the adoption of ICTs, which
result in differences in competences, skills and the autonomy of use (the second level of the
digital divide), as well as the capacities to reinvest online experiences to enhance social position
(the third level of the digital divide). These inequalities determine important differences both
between states (the global digital divide) and between citizens within individual nations (the
democratic digital divide).
In order to shed light on these timely questions, this edited book comprises a number of
chapters contributed by respected scholars from a variety of countries that bring together new
scholarship addressing what the process of digital inclusion means for individuals and places
around the five continents. The volume underlines the risks and opportunities of a digital
society characterized by the increasing importance of knowledge and by the incessant rise and
pervasiveness of ICTs. At a global level, the pivotal role of ICTs has made it necessary to
rethink ways to avoid forms of digital exclusion or digital discrimination. A comparative
international perspective drives the analysis of digital inclusion. From this unified perspective,
the book proceeds with an introductory section and four region-focused sections. The first
section includes case studies that examine digital inclusion in highly modernized countries
(EU, Australia and the USA), while the second section focuses on rapidly emerging countries
(South Africa, China and Brazil). The third section examines some Middle Eastern countries
(Jordan, Israel and Iran), and the fourth focuses on some of the less developed countries in
Africa (Kenya, Ghana and Cameroon).
Each country has its own strategy to guarantee that people can access and enjoy the benefits of
the information society. While this book does not presume to map all the countries in the world,
it does shed light into these strategies, underlining what each country is doing in order to reduce
digital inequalities and to guarantee that socially disadvantaged people (in terms of disabilities,
availability of resources, age, geographic location, lack of education or ethnicity) are digitally
included. This has been evident, for instance, in the European Commission’s policy on digital
inclusion, since the beginning of the 2000s. In the first chapter, Ragnedda underlines how e-
inclusion is one of the three strategic pillars of the EC’s i2010 plan (Millard 2006) and how the
European strategy aims to guarantee that those who are socially disadvantaged are also digitally
included. In the third chapter, Reisdfor and Rhinesmith focus on digital inequalities in the US,
presenting findings from a nationwide study of digital inclusion programmes that, among other
aspects, highlight how race is a significant factor shaping digital inequalities. Malta and
Wilding examine the Australian context in which the high rate of digital access might suggest
that digital inclusion is widespread. However, the authors highlight the disparities in
Australia’s digital inclusion process, particularly amongst those living in rural and remote
communities, older adults of low socio-economic status or those from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds. The second section focuses on digital inclusion in the fast-
growing countries and, specifically, in Brazil, South Africa and China. The section begins with
a reconceptualization of digital inclusion in a rural area in South Africa. Lorenzo Dalvit stresses
that for the vast majority of South Africans, physical access to the Internet is mobile-first,
mobile-centric and often mobile-only and examines the consequences of this in terms of cost,
network coverage and so on. These patterns make the Internet experience very different across
socio-economic and geographical divides. Andrea Limberto focuses on changes in knowledge
acquisition according to proximity to digital media networks. Her analysis concentrates on
Brazil and she highlights the social consequences of having (and not having) access to
technology both in terms of being informed and of being knowledgeable. This section
concludes with a chapter written by Jianbin Jin, Fanxin Men, Anfan Chen, Lin Shi and Tao
Wang. Their chapter explores the evolution of the digital divide in China over the past decade
and, in so doing, they draw on data from a series of national surveys conducted by the China
Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). The chapter empirically maps out the
trajectories of digital divides in China using Gini coefficient metrics to quantify the divides
and inequalities.
The third section opens with a chapter about digital exclusion in Israel. This case study, written
by Amit M Schejter, Orit Ben-Harush and Noam Tirosh describes and analyses the evolution
of the digital divide in Israel over time and, in so doing, acknowledges the digital divide as a
dynamic process. Their chapter demonstrates that despite the massive penetration of ICTs in
Israel, those with the least access to digital technologies remain at the bottom of the divide and
the gap is not closing. The second chapter in this section analyses digital inclusion in Jordan.
Hanna Kreitem examines the main efforts used to enhance the lives of people in Jordan through
digital inclusion and its impact, taking into consideration the impact of laws that may affect the
openness of the Internet. The chapter also focuses on the consequences of the recent refugee
influx and the associated digital inclusion initiatives. Finally, Hamid Abdollahyan and Mahin
Sheikh Ansari’s chapter deals with the question of how Facebook affects social cohesion and
social/digital inclusion in Iran. Their research indicates that Facebook users share their views
on rights in order to select their own lifestyles, something that contributes to strengthening ties
and social inclusion.
The final section of this book deals with digital inclusion in some African countries. Kehbuma
Langmia and Christiana Hammond open this section with an analysis of digital inclusion in
Ghana and Cameroon. Their case studies highlight how students at universities in both
countries have been provided with amenities to increase the rate of participation in ICTs
(inclusion) by narrowing the digital divide gap (costs, affordability, literacy). However, they
also emphasize that there have been social challenges, as evident in women’s Internet access
and literacy in Douala, Cameroon. In his chapter on Kenya, Norbert Wildermuth starts out with
a data-based attempt to determine the specific nature and extent of the structural asymmetries
that are subsumed under the concept of the digital divide. The chapter stresses the idea that
Kenya’s high Internet usage rates do not necessarily mean that the country is best placed in
Africa to capitalize on the Internet. Finally, the book concludes with an afterwards written by
Gerard Goggin.
The book presents new empirical materials and theoretical approaches to help guide the reader
through some of the most alive and critical debates of the digital age. By providing different
case studies and different approaches, this book shows how digital inclusion not only involves
physical access or possession of ICTs but that other factors and variables are also required for
an effective use of digital technologies. In different ways, policymakers are attempting to
address the different levels of the digital divide by supporting the development of infrastructure
to enhance accessibility, by providing relevant services and content and also by proposing
training and the necessary support to act and to move comfortably in a digital society. The
social cost of digital exclusion is high and it affects almost every area of society, from political
engagement to educational purpose, from the health service to the growing economy.
In conclusion, we want to restate that the use of digital technologies affects social inequalities
in many ways and, therefore, digital inclusion projects and initiatives are effective socio-
economic policies. To repeat once again, digital exclusion is a social issue and not a
technological problem. Making the Internet and other digital services accessible to everyone is
just the first step in the process of digital inclusion. Policymakers at all levels, from local
institutions to international organizations, have a responsibility to promote and stimulate digital
inclusion, not only by overcoming barriers and personal issues to encourage digital interaction,
but also by providing digital skills-training and by removing digital fear. The advent of ICTs
offers concrete opportunities to improve citizens’ lives. However, such potential often goes
unnoticed, especially among the most disadvantaged people. Private and public institutions and
private societies involved in enhancing the digital inclusion process should not only propose
basic training to improve digital skills but should also explain the potential of ICTs, especially
to those who need them most.
References

Attewell, P. (2001). The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of Education. 74(3): 252-
259.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bradbrook, G., Fisher, J. (2004). Digital Equality: Reviewing digital inclusion activity and
mapping the way forwards. Retrieved from
http://www.citizensonline.org.uk/site/media/documents/939_DigitalEquality1.pdf.

Correa, T., (2010). The participation divide among ‘‘online experts’’: experience, skills and
psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1): 71–92.

Institute of Museum and Library Services, University of Washington, & International

City/County Management Association. (2012). Building Digital Communities: A framework
for action. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

De Haan, J. (2003). IT and social inequality in the Netherlands. IT & Society, 1(4): 27-45.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E.,Celeste, C., and Shafer, S. (2004), Digital Inequality, From Unequal
Access to Differentiated Use, in K. Neckerman (editor) Social Inequality, pp. 355 – 400. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

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. and Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the
internet. Communication Research, 35(5): 602–621. Retrieved December 2017, from
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/35/5/602.
Hargittai, E. and Hsieh, Y.P. (2010). From Dabblers to Omnivores: A Typology of Social
Network Site Usage. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.). A Networked Self (pp. 146–168). London:
Routledge.

Hassani, S.N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics
34(4–5): 250–272,

Hilbert, M., López, P. and Vasquez, C. (2010). Information societies or “ICT equipment
societies”? Measuring the digital information processing capacity of a society in bits and bytes.
The Information Society, 26(3): 157-178.

Howard, P., Busch, L. and Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing digital divides: Internet access and
social inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1):
109-128.

Howard, P.E.N. Rainie, L. and Jones, S. (2001). Days and Nights on the Internet: The Impact
of a Diffusing Technology. American Behavioral Scientist. 45(3): 383-404.

Litt, E. (2013). Measuring Users’ Internet Skills: A Review of Past Assessments and a Look
Toward the Future. New Media & Society, 15 (4): 612–630.

Ono, H. and Zavodny, M. (2008). Immigrants, English Ability, and the Digital Divide. Social
Science Quarterly, 36(3): 1135-1155.

Ragnedda, M. (2017). The third Digital Divide: a weberian approach to digital inequalities.
Oxford: Routledge.

Ragnedda, M. and Muschert, G.W. (2016). Theorizing Digital Divides and Digital Inequalities,
in Jan Servaes and Toks Oyedemi (editors) Social Inequalities, Media and Communication: A
Global Perspective, London: Lexington Books, pp. 23-35.

Ragnedda, M. and Muschert, G.W. (2017) (eds). Theorizing the Digital Divides. Oxford:
Routledge.
Ragnedda, M. and Muschert, G.W. (Eds.) (2013). The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social
Inequality in International Perspective. Oxford: Routledge.

Ragnedda, M. and Ruiu, M.L. (2017). Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. In
Ragnedda M., Muschert G. eds. (2017), Theorizing Digital Divides. Oxford: Routledge, pp.
21-34.

Robinson L., Cotten, S.R., Ono H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch G., Chen W., Schulz J., M. Hale
Timothy, Stern M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information,
Communication & Society, 18(5): 569-582.

UN (2015). Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, Retrieved
December 2017, from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1579SDGs%20Proposal.pdf.

van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences
in usage. New Media and Society, 16(3): 507–526.

van Deursen A.J.A.M. and van Dijk J.A.G.M (2010). Measuring internet skills. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 26(10): 891-916.

van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. (2009). Improving digital skills for the use
of online public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2): 333–340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002.

Van Deursen, AJAM, Helsper, EJ (2015) The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from
being online? In: Robinson, L, Cotton, SR, Schulz, J. (eds) Communication and Information
Technologies Annual. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 29–52.

van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2005). The deepening divide. Inequality in the information society.
London: Sage.

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., and K. Hacker. 2003. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic
phenomenon. The Information Society.19(4): 315–26.
 van Dijk, J.A.G.M. and van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the
information society. Palgrave Macmillan.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.
London: The MIT press.

Xenos, M. and Moy, P. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the internet on political and
civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57(4): 704–718.

View publication stats