digital divide in education research paper

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2020

Digital divide among higher education faculty

• Kamal Ahmed Soomro 1 , 2 ,
• Ugur Kale 3 ,
• Reagan Curtis 3 ,
• Mete Akcaoglu 4 &
• Malayna Bernstein 3  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  17 , Article number:  21 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

34k Accesses

63 Citations

19 Altmetric

Metrics details

Digital divide centers on access to various dimensions of information and communication technology (ICT) including physical access, motivation, skills, and actual usage of digital technologies. This divide tends to be even wider in the context of developing countries. Yet, there is a lack of literature on the digital divide among the faculty who teach in higher education settings. Thus, as a preliminary effort, by using a 57-item Faculty’s ICT Access (FICTA) scale, we investigated the digital inequalities (at the physical, motivational, skills, and usage levels) among Pakistani faculty in respect of their personal and positional categories. We also examined the relationship between faculty’s instructional usage of ICT and other dimensions of their ICT access. The findings revealed that there were significant differences in the faculty’s access to technology at the four levels in respect of their personal and positional categories. Further, the findings of the study shed light on the theoretical implications of the framework of successive kinds of ICT access suggested by van Dijk (The deepening divide: inequality in the information society, 2005).

Information communications technology (ICT) has the power to raise the quality of people’s lives. It has so much immersed in our life that the digital divide prevents people with no or inadequate ICT access from effective participation in society. The emerging digital technologies embrace the potential of incredible innovation and development prospects (Cruz-Jesus, Vicente, Bacao, & Oliveira, 2016 ). In recent years, they have postured inducements to increase the involvement of individuals in social, political and economic dimensions of life (Nishijima, Ivanauskas, & Sarti, 2017 ). ICTs can serve a vital function in the development of all countries (Wardhani, Dugis, & Saad, 2018 ) and are even more significant for developing countries, for which technology is also being treated as a source to accomplish the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015 ) targets. Nevertheless, to get the most from these technologies, countries should integrate ICT education in their strategic plans (Wardhani et al., 2018 ).

The digital divide refers to the gap between people who have adequate access to ICT and those who have ‘zero’ or poor access to ICT. Rogers ( 2016 ) has referred to this issue as an important issue for social justice in the twenty-first century. Although swift advances in technology have occurred, the digital gap remains ever-present (Centeio, 2017 ). Such inequalities also exist in educational settings (Centeio, 2017 ). The existence of the digital gap in different groups related to education such as among teachers and students should be considered as a matter of concern.

The positive and dynamic role of emerging technologies in education has not remained a veiled idea now. Researchers encourage teachers to utilize technology in order to improve their instruction whenever possible (Centeio, 2017 ). Since technology use in educational settings is considered to be helpful in increasing the access and quality of learning (Domingo & Garganté, 2016 ), teachers’ access to ICT is of utmost connotation. Digital exclusion will prevent them from taking advantage of technology affordances in their teaching practices. Accordingly, the problem of the digital divide among teachers of all settings needs to be examined. Such investigations help taking necessary measures to remove or at least minimize this problem among educators. They would also help to support the SDGs (United Nations, 2015 ) which pursue to redress disparity to global access and participation in education.

Studies investigating teachers’ access to digital technologies, explaining specific access types, have not been sufficiently reported in the existing literature, whereas such research in the setting of developing countries just as in Pakistan is totally absent in the literature. Further, the focus of existing work has been mostly limited to measuring physical access to digital devices. However, this issue is more nuanced, involving different facets - motivational, physical, skills and usage access of ICT.

In the present study, we examined Pakistani higher education faculty’s access to ICT regarding their motivational, physical, skills, and usage access. This study particularly focused on the digital gap in terms of the faculty’s access to ICT with respect to their gender, age, and the type of university they teach in. Additionally, the relationship between instructional usage of ICT and various sub-levels of ICT access was explored. The findings are not only supportive in further understanding the impact of demographic variables on digital divide in educational settings but also have theoretical significance to test the digital divide framework suggested by van Dijk ( 2005 ).

Literature review

Digital technologies in the modern era.

The present period is referred to as the information age when ICTs are thought to be a prime means of production (Rogers, 2016 ) and countries’ socioeconomic development is greatly dependent on their access and creation of information. As a consequence of the advancement of information superhighways, our society has undergone rapid and deep changes in social, cultural, political, and economic aspects (Shafique & Mahmood, 2008 ). ICTs have developed pervasive in society; and they have positively affected every walk of today’s life (Mahmood, 2009 ), transforming the way people do a job, business, entertain, socialize, and educate.

The ubiquity of ICT in society is considered to act as a booster of socio-economic development (Hanafizadeh, Hanafizadeh, & Bohlin, 2013 ; Youssef, Dahmani, & Omrani, 2013 ). However, access to ICT alone does not assure development in society, but it is people’s reaction that matters once they get access to emerging technologies (Alampay, 2006 ). As Sianou-Kyrgiou and Tsiplakides ( 2012 ) have argued, the socio-economic relationships in the society are structured on the exploitation of information and knowledge rather than on the basis of material goods.

ICTs in education

Like other aspects of contemporary society such as business, governance, communication, transportation, and entertainment, ICT has evolved into an essential segment of education. In particular, its positive influence on teaching-learning processes is widely acknowledged (Mahmood, 2009 ). Teachers successfully use technology in their instructional practices for content delivery, reinforcement of students’ skills, complementing the curriculum, and transformation – experimenting, implementing, and refining of new approaches to teaching-learning (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012 ). Another credible characteristic of emerging technologies is their use for collaboration, which transforms learning into an active and engaging process. The read/write aspect of emerging technologies is especially considered to facilitate students’ learning through sharing knowledge and ideas and practicing collaborative writing (Goh & Kale, 2015 ).

Digital divide and its impact on the society

People belonging to different sects of life can contribute their part toward the growth of society in an effective manner if they capitalize on emerging technologies to meaningfully endorse their job and lives. This requires that everyone needs to have physical access to various ICTs and to equip themselves with digital skills. Unfortunately, not all members of society are able to use ICT to participate more effectively for the development of numerous features of the society, due to their uneven access to ICT. This inequality of ICT access generates a multifaceted problem that is known as the digital divide.

Digital divide is a compound and multifaceted problem (Chang, Wong, & Park, 2014 ). It denotes the divide or gap between the subclasses of the population; the ones that enjoy adequate access to ICT, and the others that have ‘zero’ or poor access to computers, the Internet, and other digital devices. The issue of digital divide prevails, at least to some extent from very large to very small scale. It may contribute to the differences in rich and poor countries, rural and urban areas, men and women, competent and incompetent populations, and micro and macro organizations (Hameed, 2007 ).

Adequate access to digital technologies can be influential for people to improve their social position and capital. In contrast, the dearth of access to technology can further coerce the already sidelined class of individuals (Rogers, 2016 ). According to Resta and Laferrière ( 2015 ), not only does digital exclusion lead to a knowledge divide but it also confines openings for intercultural networks, communications, and understandings. Considering the negative effects of digital divide on the economically disadvantaged and other marginalized groups, researchers have referred to the problem of the digital gap as a critical issue for social justice in the modern era (Resta & Laferrière, 2015 ; Rogers, 2016 ). The issue is present across the globe and continues to be an area of social concern (Resta & Laferrière, 2015 ).

The importance of digital equity in education

Initiatives aimed to equip classrooms and build teacher capability in technology use encounter acceptance, sustainability and scalability challenges (Resta & Laferrière, 2015 ). Among all these issues, the most critical challenge is meeting digital equity among students, teachers, and administrations. For ICTs to empower education, there is a need to launch policies and initiatives that provide students and teachers with equitable access to digital technologies (Resta & Laferrière, 2015 ). The first and foremost prerequisite for the exploitation of ICT in education is ensuring adequate ICT access by teachers as well as by students. While universities and other higher education institutes are considered as the key sources of skilled workforce upon which a knowledge society is built, the significance of ICT becomes more vivid in universities to help build a knowledge society, making faculty’s ICT access an important area of investigation. Such investigations carry even more significance in emerging countries such as Pakistan, given the higher prevalence of the digital divide problem in their contexts.

Apart from the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan’s ICT initiatives to amplify the quality, productivity, and efficiency of academic and research activities in Pakistani universities highlighted in its own reports, there is not sufficient literature available which provides much evidence on technology practices in the universities of the country. As a first step, the present study focuses on examining Pakistani faculty’s ICT access at the four levels (van Dijk, 2005 ) – their motivations to adopt information and communication technology, their physical access to ICT, their capabilities to utilize digital technologies, and their actual usage of such devices and services. The four levels are the core of van Dijk ( 2005 )’s theory of digital divide, which presented the model of successive kinds of access to ICT (please see Fig.  1 ), suggesting that there are four successive kinds of access to ICT i.e., motivational, physical, skills, and usage access. The model has classified digital skills into further three types: operational, informational, and strategic skills. The study also provides valuable information on the digital divide among the faculty in respect of their personal and positional categorical variables. Such information would illuminate whether the faculty is in a good position to benefit from the ICT based initiatives taken by HEC Pakistan and to support their teaching and research practices through utilizing emerging technologies.

Successive kinds of access to digital technologies (van Dijk, 2005 , p. 22)

Research questions

The present study was based on the following four questions:

What are the faculty’s access to digital technologies at four levels (motivational, physical, skills, and usage level)?

Are there significant differences among faculty’s access to digital technologies at these four levels?

How does faculty’s ICT-access differ with respect to their age, gender, and the type of university?

How does faculty’s use of ICT to support their instructional practices relate to their motivational access, physical access, skill access, and general usage access?

Research design

To gain insight into the digital divide among higher education faculty, we employed a cross-sectional survey design with a quantitative approach. Data was collected through a self-administered paper-based questionnaire.

Sampling procedures

The context of the study was the province of Sindh of Pakistan. A purposive sampling approach guided the selection of the universities. We made sure that the selected universities equally represent public and private (non-government) universities. Further, the participating universities included both the general as well as professional universities (medical, engineering, agriculture etc.). After selection of the universities, convenience sampling was used to hire potential participants within the selected universities. The present study employed an anonymous survey – it did not gather any piece of information that might lead to distinctively identify the participants. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary. Moreover, the research method and tool were permitted by the institutional review board of West Virginia University (Protocol# 1412511777).

Participants

A total of 322 teachers of government and private sector universities teaching in different academic disciplines completed the questionnaire. Table  1 highlights the basic characteristics of the participants.

Instruments

This study used the Faculty’s Information and Communication Technology Access (FICTA) scale to measure participants’ ICT access (Soomro, Kale, Curtis, Akcaoglu, & Bernstein, 2018 ). The FICTA scale built on van Dijk’s ( 2005 ) model of access to digital technologies (please see Fig. 1 ). The cronbach alpha confirmed that the scale had acceptable reliability (α = .870).

This section first presents the findings according to each research question.

RQ1. Access levels to ICT

Motivational access.

Participants’ motivational access to ICT was measured by focusing on two different kinds of motivations: endogenous as well as exogenous motivations. Endogenous motivation refers to a person’s desire to adopt ICT that come from the inside of the person and is not directly influenced by external sources. Whereas, exogenous motivation focuses on external and contextual aspects, denoting a person’s desire for ICT adoption that come from the outside sources including social influence, time, and material resources. These two constructs were measured through a series of items formatted on a 5-point Likert scale (starting from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Scores based on participant’s responses to items in the subscale were averaged to measure each motivation type.

The score for participants’ overall motivation ranged from 1.88 to 4.8, with an average of 3.8 ( SD  = 0.565), which reflects the faculty’s high motivation to adopt digital technologies. The results also showed that Pakistani faculty were motivated to adopt ICT significantly more endogenously ( M  = 4.222, SD  = 0.537) than exogenously ( M  = 3.38, SD  = 0.923), t (320) = 15.00, p  < 0.01.

Physical access

The faculty’s physical access to ICT was measured through a checklist comprised of various digital devices, software, etc. Respondents were asked to report whether they had access to the devices given in the list at home and on-campus. Table  2 presents the percentages of faculty who reported to have physical access to various ICT devices and services at home or on-campus. As depicted in Fig.  2 , there are a few technologies including a desktop computer, printer, and office software which were accessible by most of the participants. On the other hand, some technologies such as a laptop, tablet, video and statistical software, and learning management system, were accessible by a small proportion of the faculty.

Percentage of participants having physical access to various technologies

Two separate indexes were computed to reflect participants’ scores for their physical access – access at home and university. Assigning one point to each device, the possible values for a score of physical access at home and university separately ranged from 1 to 13. But, the participant’s score was converted to a scale of 5 points for the purpose of uniformity with other variables. Our results showed that the mean score for the Pakistani faculty’s overall physical access was 2.597 ( SD  = .702). This value within the observed range from .77 to 4.42 indicated faculty’s limited access to a variety of ICT devices and services. Faculty’s physical access was significantly higher at homes ( M  = 2.670, SD  = .849) than on campus ( M  = 2.528, SD  = .889), t (321) = − 2.496, p  < 0.01.

Skills access

Skills access was measured focusing on three types of skills – operational, informational, and strategic skills. The results indicated that participants’ skills level for the three types of skills access differed very slightly, with the mean score of 3.99 ( SD  = .584) for operational skills, 3.904 ( SD  = .549) for informational skills, and 3.8447 ( SD  = .572) for strategic skills.

Further, a composite variable, skills access, was created by computing the average of participant’s score for three kinds of skills, reflecting each participant’s score for his or her overall skills access. The scale ranged from 2.68 to 4.94 and the mean score for Pakistani faculty’s overall skills access was 3.913 ( SD  = .451), indicating their moderate level skills access.

Usage access

Usage access was measured focusing on two types of usage: general usage and instructional usage of ICT. The results showed that the faculty’s general usage access ( M  = 3.687, SD  = .549) was significantly higher than their instructional usage access ( M  = 3.308, SD  = .616); [ t (321) = 9.802, p  < .05]. Further, a composite variable, usage access, was also computed. The scale ranged from 2.19 to 4.53 and the mean score for the faculty’s overall usage access was 3.496 ( SD  = .467), suggesting the faculty had a moderate level of usage access.

The overall score for participants’ access to ICT was calculated by taking the average of their score for each of the four levels described above. The results indicated that the mean score for the faculty’s overall ICT access was 3.448 ( SD  = .316), suggesting that the faculty had a relatively moderate level of ICT access given the scale ranging from 2.77 to 4.21.

RQ2. Differences in ICT access among the four levels

A one-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify potential differences among participants’ ICT access at motivational, physical, skills, and usage levels. The one-way repeated-measures ANOVA compares multiple means when those means have come from the same participants (Field, 2009 ). The results indicated a significant effect of access levels, Wilks’ Lambda = .230, F( 3, 315) = 350.706, p  < .001, eta 2  = .77. The follow-up comparisons using the Bonferroni correction revealed that each pairwise difference was significant ( p  < .01) except for the pair of motivational and skills access. These results suggest that there were significant differences in participants’ scores for different levels of ICT access. Figure  3 highlights the descriptive statistics for faculty’s access to ICT at the four levels.

Participants’ access to ICT at the Four Levels

RQ3. Differences in ICT access by age, gender, and university-type

In order to evaluate how well the faculty’s personal and positional categories predict their ICT access, a standard multiple regression was performed (Field, 2009 ). We performed multiple regressions for each of the four ICT access levels with three predictors: age, gender, and university type (see Table  3 ). All four regression models were found to be significant ( p  < .001).

Model 1 (motivational access) has the least R 2 value ( R 2  = .047, p  < .001), explaining a small but significant amount of variance in the faculty’s score for the motivational access. The only significant standardized regression weight for gender ( Beta  = −.177, p  < .001) indicated that gender explained about 5% of the total variance in motivational access (see Table 3 ). In other words, the model suggested that there were significant differences in the faculty’s motivational access in respect of their gender. The negative sign (−) of the regression weight shows that gender (0 = male and 1 = female) was negatively associated with motivational access, indicating the female faculty members had lower motivational access than their male counterparts.

As Table 3 shows, Model 2 (physical access) explained a significant amount of variance in the faculty’s score for physical access ( R 2  = .366, p  < .001). The model indicated that the university type ( Beta  = .601, p  < .001) explained about 36% of the total variance in physical access. The model suggested that there were significant differences in the faculty’s physical access with respect to the university type. The faculty working in private sector universities had better physical access to ICT than that of those who teach in public universities. The age and gender were not significant predictors for this model.

Similarly, Model 3 explained a significant amount of variance in the faculty’s score for the skills access ( R 2  = .439, p  < .001). The model indicated that the age ( Beta  = −.291, p  < .001) and university type ( Beta  = .513, p  < .001) collectively explained 44% of the total variance in skills access. The model showed that there were significant differences in the faculty’s skills access in respect of the age and university type. In other words, the results suggested that the older the faculty is, the lower their skills access. Similarly, the faculty from private sector universities have higher skills access than their counterparts at public sector universities.

Finally, Model 4 explained a significant amount of variance in faculty’s usage access ( R 2  = .276, p  < .001). The model indicated that the age ( Beta  = −.477, p  < .001) and gender ( Beta  = −.207, p  < .001) collectively explained about 28% of the total variance in faculty’s usage access (see Table 3 ). The model suggested that male faculty’s usage access was higher than the female faculty’s usage access, and younger faculty had significantly higher usage access than that of their older counterpart.

RQ4. Relationship of instructional usage with other ICT access levels

In order to understand the relationship between the faculty’s instructional use of ICT and their other levels of ICT access, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. Table  4 displays two regression models predicting faculty’s instructional usage of ICT. The choice of predictors for these two models was made based on the sequence of the four successive kinds of ICT access (van Dijk, 2005 ). In the first model, Endogenous Motivational Access and Physical Access at University significantly predicted the faculty’s Instructional Usage of ICT (Adjusted R 2  = .196, F (4,313) = 20.348, p  < .001).

In the second model, Operational Skills, Informational Skills, Strategic Skills, and General Usage Access were included in the regression model. Only General Usage Access significantly contributed to the prediction model, with the adjusted R 2 increasing to .221 [ F (8, 309) = 12.220, p  < 0.001]. Model 2 resulted in a minor increment (.025) in the adjusted R 2 . The results revealed that the faculty who had a higher score for endogenous motivation, physical access at university, and general usage access were utilizing ICT to support their instructional practices. Out of these three significant predictors, physical access at university ( β  = .338) was the strongest predictor followed by endogenous motivation ( β  = .188) and general usage ( β  = .163) respectively.

In this study, we examined if the faculty’s access to ICT was significantly different at motivational, physical, skills, and usage levels; and to determine if the faculty’s access to ICT significantly differed due to their personal (age, gender) and positional (the type of university) categories. We also explored the relationship of the faculty’s instructional usage of digital technologies with other levels of ICT access.

A broad view of Pakistani Faculty’s ICT access

The findings of this study provided a broad view of Pakistani faculty’s access to ICT. Our findings suggested that the faculty’s overall ICT access was moderate with an average score of 3.448, while the highest possible score was 5. Despite the emphasis on ICT utilization in educational policies of Pakistan and large investments by higher education commission to initiate various ICT based projects (Ministry of Education, n.d. ; Higher Education Commission, 2014 ; Ministry of Education, 2009 ), there is still room for improvement in terms of increasing faculty’s ICT access.

Participants were found to have relatively high motivation to adopt and utilize computers, the Internet, and other digital devices and services. An examination of faculty’s mean scores for endogenous motivation and exogenous motivation indicated that they were motivated to adopt digital technologies more because of their own perceptions and attitudes that are internally constructed, rather than being based on external sources such as availability of material resources, time, and social or cultural influence.

Our findings also showed that Pakistani faculty’s physical access to ICT is poor, suggesting they do not have access to adequate ICT infrastructure. Because physical access is an essential condition for the growth of the obligatory skills to practice digital technologies (van Dijk, 2005 ), the faculty’s inadequate physical access to ICT is alarming. Results also suggested that the faculty had better physical access at home than on their respective campuses. This further calls for attention by concerned authorities to equip university campuses with adequate and latest technologies.

The faculty’s overall skills access to ICT was of moderate level. The means of the three types of skills access were in the order (from highest to lowest) as suggested by the model of successive kinds of technology access (van Dijk, 2005 ). The faculty’s score for operational skills was highest, followed by informational and strategic skills respectively. Further, the results revealed that the faculty utilizes ICTs mainly to serve general purposes i.e., tasks associated with everyday life other than instructional practices. The faculty’s use of ICT to support their instructional practices such as lesson planning, delivering learning material, facilitating collaboration among students, and evaluating learners’ performance, was relatively low.

Digital divide regarding personal and positional categories

Our findings showed that there are statistically significant differences in faculty’s access to ICT with respect to their personal and positional categories – age, gender, and type of university. In particular, we found that the overall ICT access of the faculty of public sector universities was lower than that of faculty from private universities. These findings confirm the general perceptions prevailing in the country and are consistent with what Burnip ( 2006 ) found in his study with school teachers.

The gap in faculty’s ICT access, between those who work in public-sector and private-sector universities, was prevalent in their physical and skills access, suggesting that the faculty at public sector universities have poorer physical access to ICT devices and services and that they are less competent than their counterparts in the private sector. Lower skills access by the faculty at public sector universities suggests the need for more professional development opportunities in the area of ICT proficiency. With a growing number of universities incorporating technology in teaching-learning, there is a strong need to prepare faculty members for innovative teaching practices (Ranieri, Raffaghelli, & Pezzati, 2018 ). This could be achieved only when they are not only competent in the general usage of digital technologies but they also know how to use such technologies in teaching their specific subject areas.

The results also confirmed that there is a statistically significant difference in faculty’s access to ICT with respect to their age. The age was significantly negatively associated with skills and usage access to ICT, indicating that younger faculty have higher ICT skills and utilize ICT more often than older faculty do. Thunman and Persson ( 2013 ) also found that younger teachers are more inclined to use computers for audio-visual aid in their teaching. Similarly, Soomro, Zai, and Jafri ( 2015 ) found that higher education faculty from lower age groups are more competent with Web 2.0 technologies.

Regarding digital divide with respect to gender differences, significant gender differences were observed in faculty’s motivational and usage access. Female faculty were found to be less inclined to adopt digital technologies and had lower usage access than their male counterparts. Improving the use of ICT by females is also emphasized as an important target to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations ( 2015 ) because it helps to promote the empowerment of women (United Nations, 2017 ). Though previous studies suggested that women are at a disadvantage compared to men in learning computer skills, and more male students use computers at home and university than female students (Cooper, 2006 ; Mahmood, 2009 ), our findings did not confirm significant gender differences at physical and skills access to ICT by the faculty. In other words, the results suggested that there is no gap between males and females regarding physical access and skill access. The issue is more about their motivation and usage. These findings partially support van Dijk’s ( 2005 ) claims that while gap at lower levels may be closing those at a higher level such as usage may be widening.

Relationship of instructional usage with other dimensions of ICT access

This study also attempted to explore the relationship between the faculty’s instructional usage of ICT and other dimensions of ICT access. The findings from this study showed that the faculty’s physical access to ICT at university, endogenous motivation, and general usage of ICT significantly predicted instructional usage of ICT. None of the other dimensions of ICT access, including exogenous motivation or any of the three types of skills access, was found to be a significant predictor of faculty’s instructional use of ICT.

These findings suggest that faculty having better ICT infrastructure at their workplace are more inclined to adopt digital technologies to support various dimensions of their instructional practices. Having access to computers and the Internet in their office or campus lab appears to encourage them to utilize technologies to support their primary professional responsibility. Likewise, the positive association of general usage with instructional usage implies that when faculty uses digital technologies for their general tasks other than teaching, they may feel confident and get more ideas on how they should use technology for their teaching. Thus, faculty should be provided with opportunities to learn about general usage ICTs along with the use of technology for instructional purposes. Learning to use digital tools for general purposes is likely to increase their confidence so that it’ll be easier for them to consider them for teaching.

The relevance of research findings with van Dijk’s theoretical framework (2005)

We found significant differences in the faculty’s ICT access among the four levels. The sequence of faculty’s intensity with the four stages of ICT access (motivational, physical, skills, and usage access) is not in full agreement with what van Dijk ( 2005 ) has suggested in his arguments while proposing the model of successive kinds of ICT access. Particularly, higher skills and usage access along with a lower level of physical access does not appear to be fully compatible with the order of succession of the four ICT access levels suggested by the model.

Van Dijk’s ( 2005 ) multifaceted model of ICT access suggests that after acquiring sufficient physical access to ICT, one develops his or her capabilities to use digital technologies. This assertion does not imply that once an individual has acquired sufficient physical access to ICT, he or she will develop the digital skills without his or her wish, intention, and efforts to learn digital skills. Further, it does not imply that the intensity with the skills access will be lesser than physical access. Our findings suggest that the faculty’s high motivational access may have helped them to develop better skills to utilize digital technologies, despite their lower physical access to ICT. This supports the affirmation by Ghobadi and Ghobadi ( 2013 ) that motivation increases individuals’ skills to utilize ICT.

Ghobadi and Ghobadi ( 2013 ) have argued that van Dijk’s ( 2005 ) multifaceted model of ICT access is somewhat static, as it does not clarify the interrelations between different levels of ICT access as well as how these levels interact with each other and form digital divide as a whole. According to them, the four access levels are not independent concepts but they are formed as a consequence of complex dynamic interplay with each other. The present study provides a limited understanding of the relationships among the different levels of ICT access. Detailed explanations of the causal processes among the four levels and how each level interacts with others was beyond the scope of this study. To dig deeper into how the four levels of ICT access interact with each other, future research that tests the four types of ICT access simultaneously, by employing path analysis and structural equation modeling may help to better explain how they together create the digital divide.

Additionally, although van Dijk ( 2006 ) has affirmed that the digital gap at motivational and physical levels have diminished, and the differences have moved to skills and usage access in the last years, our findings are contradictory to his assertions. The results suggest that the gap exists at all four levels of faculty’s ICT access, including physical and skills access. Even the divide was much bigger in physical access, especially in respect of university type. Therefore, it will be realistic to say that the gap in Pakistani faculty’s physical access to ICT is far from being vanished.

Limitations and paths for future research

Fully reliance on self-reported data is the primary limitation of this research. The accuracy and validity of the findings are congruent with the participants’ correct understanding of the survey items and their honest responses. Faculty might have been reluctant to report the true picture of their digital skills especially in cases where participants have weak ICT skills. The digital skills of individuals can better be assessed with performance tests. However, the research involving performance tests requires a great deal of time and funds, which makes such investigations difficult to be conducted especially with a large population.

Moreover, we concentrated on the role of personal and positional categories affecting the digital divide among faculty but it did not address other barriers that prevent faculty from adoption and utilization of ICT. Future research can continue to contribute toward a further understanding of the digital gap that arises from those barriers such as lack of professional development opportunities. Last but not least, investigations with a qualitative approach may provide an in-depth understanding on the issue of the digital divide.

Conclusions

The present study found that ICT access was not universal among the faculty, highlighting the existence of the digital divide with respect to their personal and positional categories including age, gender, and university type. The digital gap between faculty of public-sector and private-sector universities was found to be more prominent at skills access in respect of the faculty’s age and university type; at the physical level in respect of university type; and at usage level in respect of age and gender. Moreover, regarding the relationship between faculty’s instructional usage of ICT and other dimensions of ICT access, the findings suggested that faculty’s physical access to ICT at university, their endogenous motivational access and their general usage access to ICT are the significant predictors of their instructional usage of ICT.

This study is an initial and significant contribution to the literature by portraying a big picture of Pakistani faculty’s motivation to adopt digital technologies. The findings and information gained from this research study provide valuable implications for plans of action for the professional development of faculty and other ICT initiatives in higher education in Pakistan. The findings of the study are also helpful to other researchers in extending understanding of the demographic variables that predict the digital gap among higher education faculty.

Availability of data and materials

All data of this research project is available with the authors and can be made available on requests if required.

Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: measuring capabilities in the information society. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT , 2 (3), 4–22.

Google Scholar  

Burnip, L. (2006). ICT-mediated study and teachers: do they have access to the infrastructure? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 22 (3), 355–374.

Article   Google Scholar  

Centeio, E. E. (2017). The have and have nots: an ever-present digital divide. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance , 88 (6), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1331643 .

Chang, Y., Wong, S. F., & Park, M. C. (2014). A three-tier ICT access model for intention to participate online a comparison of developed and developing countries. Information Development . https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666914529294 .

Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: the special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 22 (5), 320–334.

Cruz-Jesus, F., Vicente, M. R., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). The education-related digital divide: an analysis for the EU-28. Computers in Human Behavior , 56 , 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.027 .

Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior , 56 , 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023 .

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 .

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS . London: Sage publications.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Ghobadi, S., & Ghobadi, Z. (2013). Digital divide and interrelated access gaps: a cognitive investigation . Utrecht: Paper presented in European Conference on Information Systems Retrieved from http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~vlaan107/ecis/files/ECIS2013-0338-paper.pdf .

Goh, D., & Kale, U. (2015). The urban–rural gap: project-based learning with web 2.0 among West Virginian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 25 , 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1051490 .

Hameed, T. (2007). ICT as an enabler of socio-economic development . Seoul: Paper presented at the Digital Opportunity Forum Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan043799.pdf .

Hanafizadeh, M. R., Hanafizadeh, P., & Bohlin, E. (2013). Digital divide and e-readiness: trends and gaps. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA) , 5 (3), 30–75.

Higher Education Commission (2014). Annual report 2012–13. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from http://hec.gov.pk/MediaPublication/Documents/Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202012-13.pdf

Mahmood, K. (2009). Gender, subject and degree differences in university students’ access, use and attitudes toward information and communication technology (ICT). International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology , 5 (3), 206–216.

Ministry of Education (2009). National education policy 2009 . Government of Pakistan: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (n.d.). National information and communications technology strategy for education in Pakistan . Government of Pakistan: Ministry of Education.

Nishijima, M., Ivanauskas, T. M., & Sarti, F. M. (2017). Evolution and determinants of digital divide in Brazil (2005–2013). Telecommunications Policy , 41 (1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.004 .

Ranieri, M., Raffaghelli, J., & Pezzati, F. (2018). Digital resources for faculty development in e-learning: a self-paced approach for professional learning. Italian Journal of Educational Technology , 26 (1), 104–118.

Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies , 20 (4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z .

Rogers, S. E. (2016). Bridging the 21st century digital divide. TechTrends , 60 (3), 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0057-0 .

Shafique, F., & Mahmood, K. (2008). Indicators of the emerging information society in Pakistan. Information Development , 24 (1), 66–78.

Sianou-Kyrgiou, E., & Tsiplakides, I. (2012). Digital divide: students’ use of the internet and emerging forms of social inequalities. In A. Jimoyiannis (Ed.), Research on e-learning and ICT in education , (pp. 55–68). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Soomro, K. A., Kale, U., Curtis, R., Akcaoglu, M., & Bernstein, M. (2018). Development of an instrument to measure faculty’s information and communication technology access (FICTA). Education and Information Technologies , 23 (1), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9599-9 .

Soomro, K. A., Zai, S. Y., & Jafri, I. H. (2015). Competence and usage of web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty. Educational Media International , 52 (4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1095522 .

Thunman, E., & Persson, M. (2013). Teachers’ access to and use of ICT: an indicator of growing inequity in Swedish schools. Contemporary Educational Technology , 4 (3), 155–171.

United Nations (2015). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved March 12, 2019 from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org

United Nations (2017). Sustainable development goals indicators. Retrieved March 12, 2019 from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics , 34 (4), 221–235.

van Dijk, J. A. J. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: inequality in the information society . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Wardhani, B., Dugis, V., & Saad, M. S. (2018). On the digital divide: role of the University of the South Pacific in enhancing education in the Pacific countries. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education , 16 (1), 36–41.

Youssef, A. B., Dahmani, M., & Omrani, N. (2013). Information technologies, students’ e-skills and diversity of learning process. Education and Information Technologies , 20 (1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9272-x .

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research project has not received any kind of funding from any institution or individual.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, Institute of Business Management (IoBM), Karachi, 75190, Pakistan

Kamal Ahmed Soomro

39/B, Gulshan-e-Hashmat Bano Town, Phuleli, Hyderabad, Sindh, 71000, Pakistan

Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development, College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

Ugur Kale, Reagan Curtis & Malayna Bernstein

Department of Leadership, Technology & Human Development, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 30458, USA

Mete Akcaoglu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author listed above has made substantial contributions to the conception, design of the study, manuscript or substantively revised it. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Ahmed Soomro .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

57-item FICTA scale

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Soomro, K.A., Kale, U., Curtis, R. et al. Digital divide among higher education faculty. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 17 , 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2020

Accepted : 06 March 2020

Published : 20 April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Access to technology
• Digital divide
• Digital equity

• IEEE Xplore Digital Library
• IEEE Standards
• IEEE Spectrum

Impact of the Digital Divide: Economic, Social, and Educational Consequences

Internet connectivity is vital to economic growth. Around the world, millions of people rely on digital devices every day to complete their jobs, study for exams, and communicate with loved ones. Digital technologies can open a world of opportunities, but not everyone has equal access to the internet—or any access at all.

The digital divide, or the split between those with and without reliable internet connectivity and related technologies, has profound implications on society. Lack of internet access affects the economy, social opportunities, and educational equity, and many other areas. The impact of the digital divide can be severe, but some solutions exist that can help bridge the gap.

Understanding the Digital Divide

The digital divide refers to the gap between those with and without access to information communication technology (ICT). According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), approximately 45.2 percent of the world’s households do not have access to the internet.

The digital divide is most apparent among other intersections of inequality, especially race, gender, and class. According to UNESCO’s report, women around the world are 23 percent less likely to make use of mobile internet than their male counterparts. In Asia, Africa, and South America, women are 30–50 percent less likely to use the internet at all.

Many unconnected households live in rural or remote areas without adequate broadband infrastructure. Many people lack the funds to pay for digital devices or internet services. According to the US Department of Education , students from low-income households are more likely to lack internet access due to issues of affordability. Additionally, internet service providers are less likely to invest in fiber broadband infrastructure in lower-income or rural areas, a practice known as digital redlining.

The digital divide also has a severe impact on many daily activities. Those without reliable ICT access miss out on valuable job opportunities and cannot participate in the global digital economy. Students can face significant barriers while completing schoolwork or participating in remote learning programs. Additionally, lack of internet access and poor digital literacy can have a major impact on society, contributing to deeper stratification, inequality, and misinformation.

The Impact of the Digital Divide on Society

The digital divide has deepened social stratification, leading to further segregation and widening disparities. It is thus important for organizations, governments, and other institutions to invest in digital literacy initiatives to close these gaps and improve outcomes for all individuals.

Loss of Social Opportunities

ICT services play an important role in modern social interactions due to the rise of various platforms that enhance personal, professional and business opportunities. Social media websites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter facilitate communication and connectivity between friends, family members, and complete strangers. Over time, this technology has become more and more important for social interactions.

Additionally, digital technologies provide users with an opportunity to express their beliefs and share information. Many digitally enabled users rely on social media websites to learn about current events, engage in civic discourse, and receive important updates from their communities. While harmful misinformation is present on these platforms, many users rely on online content to learn and communicate, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic .

Without access to digital technologies, people can miss out on these social opportunities and feel isolated. They are unable to communicate with loved ones in the same way as digitally enabled individuals. These disparities may increase tensions among connected and disconnected populations in areas where digital access varies from community to community. 

Deepening Stratification

The digital divide is apparent along economic classes. People with lower incomes do not have the resources to purchase digital devices or pay for monthly internet services. Users living in rural, remote areas or less developed countries may not have access to the broadband infrastructure necessary to access the internet. As more and more people gain connectivity, divisions will continue to deepen between those who have internet access and those who do not.

Additionally, internet connectivity enables users to access valuable social, educational, and economic opportunities. Those who are unable to connect to the internet lose out on these opportunities, accentuating social differences, contributing to segregation and perpetuating economic inequalities. This stratification can cause tension among class lines, especially in communities where wealthier individuals have digital access while poorer members do not.

Barriers to Digital Literacy

Digital literacy refers to a person’s ability to use ICTs to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information. To be digitally literate, a user must know how to control the physical components of a computing device. They must also know how to open various programs, such as web browsers, word processors, and messaging applications. A competent digital user will also need to know how to communicate in digital spaces, identify credible information, and avoid scams, misinformation, and other malicious schemes.

However, users who lack access to ICTs do not have the opportunity to develop digital literacy skills, which further exacerbates the digital divide. It can become more difficult to develop these skills as technology advances and becomes more complex. As a result, adults who are not digitally literate are often far less likely to fully engage with digital tools.

Recent technological advancement has been exponential; one new development often spawns multiple innovations. With the growth of 5G and the advanced applications that it unlocks, users who are not already familiar with digital technologies may fall further and further behind. An expansion of digital literacy education is necessary to bridge this gap, especially for older adults and other individuals who are affected by the digital divide.

The Educational Impact of the Digital Divide

According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 1.3 billion children between the ages of three and seventeen do not have access to the internet at home. Lack of digital access can have profound impacts on school-age children, preventing them from accessing the same opportunities and educational outcomes as their connected peers.

Remote Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the disparities present in the digital divide became extremely apparent as schools moved online. Students without reliable internet access did not have the necessary resources to connect to remote learning platforms. This made it difficult for some students to fully participate in their learning environments.

In the United States, for example, nearly 55 percent of disconnected students came from Black, Hispanic, and Native American households, despite making up only 40 percent of the general student population. Additionally, 50 percent of disconnected students came from families with an annual income of less than $50,000 per year.

The digital divide had the most impact on children from rural areas in the southern United States, affecting 40–50 percent of students in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Approximately 25 percent of disconnected students did not have reliable broadband access, and 60 percent of disconnected students could not afford internet services or digital devices at all.

Access to Educational Resources

Reliance on digital technologies in education is becoming increasingly more common. Many students need to use an internet-enabled device to complete homework and research projects or attend remote classes. Colleges and universities often require students to submit applications online, and students often need to use the computer to research scholarships, prepare for standardized tests, and complete other educational tasks.

However, some students lack access to the devices and infrastructure necessary to interact with digital educational resources. As a result, they can struggle to complete homework and fall farther behind in school than their digitally enabled counterparts.

Schools and governments can take action to improve educational outcomes for disconnected students. Aside from prioritizing broader digital access overall, investing in digital technologies for students can have positive impacts. In fact, one study of a Texas school district found that an increase in school district internet access spending improved graduation rates by 4.7 percent.

Digital literacy is another important factor affecting the educational digital divide. A student cannot adequately complete internet-based tasks without knowing how to use a device and navigate a web browser. Schools may be able to alleviate literacy issues by teaching students how to use digital devices from an early age. By implementing computer classes and increasing ICT access at school, students can leverage and develop digital skills even if they experience barriers to access at home.

The Economic Impact of the Digital Divide

The digital divide can seriously impact economic opportunities for disconnected individuals and geographies. Individuals who do not have digital skills may be unable to obtain higher-paying jobs. Additionally, countries without stable broadband access can face challenges to economic development. By investing in widespread infrastructure and digital access, however, the digital divide can begin to narrow and economic opportunities may increase.

Access to Job Opportunities

As of 2021, people were in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This stage describes the ongoing automation and implementation of advanced technology in manufacturing and other industrial practices. As a result, more and more jobs require employees to hold digital skills. The digital divide can make it more difficult for disconnected users to obtain employment.

This gap is apparent for middle-skill jobs, or jobs that require some training beyond high school but do not require a bachelor’s degree. Research shows that over 80 percent of middle-skill jobs require a certain level of digital proficiency. Middle-skill and more advanced jobs often pay higher wages than low-skill positions.

As a result, individuals who do not have digital skills lose access to valuable job opportunities. Additionally, disconnected people are unable to participate fully in the global digital economy and cannot participate in remote or web-based jobs.

These factors can perpetuate the cycle of economic inequality and lead to lower earnings over time. However, digital skills training courses and internal upskilling within organizations can help improve economic outcomes and alleviate these disparities.

Barriers to Economic Development

ICTs have the potential to promote economic growth and social development. In fact, a 2020 study examining digital technology in thirty-nine African countries found a positive correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) and digital adoption. Specifically, social media usage and the importance of ICTs to the government’s vision are significant for economic growth.

Research from the International Telecommunications Union shows that an increase in digitization can have the following impacts on various regions.

• In Africa, an increase of 10 percent in mobile broadband penetration can increase GDP by 2.5 percent per capita .
• In the Arab states, a 10 percent increase in digitization can result in a 2.49 percent growth in GDP by capita.
• In North and South America, an increase of 10 percent in fixed broadband penetration can result in a 1.9 percent growth in GDP per capita.
• A 10 percent increase in digitization in Europe may result in a 1.4 percent growth in GDP per capita.
• In the Asia-Pacific region, a 10 percent increase in fixed broadband penetration may result in a 0.8 percent growth in GDP per capita.

Investments in digital services and a digitally literate population have had positive impacts in many countries, such as South Korea . However, not all countries have had equal access to these technologies, resulting in barriers to economic development.

How to Bridge the Digital Divide

The digital divide continues to have a profound impact on our society, and barriers will likely deepen in the future. Governments, organizations, and institutions around the world will need to develop solutions to bridge these inequalities and encourage greater access to digital technology.

IEEE is searching for ways to alleviate the impact of the digital divide. The IEEE Connecting the Unconnected Challenge solicits solutions from start-ups, nonprofits, universities, and others to bridge the digital divide in innovative ways. To learn more about the challenge and submit a proposal, visit this website .

Interested in becoming an IEEE member ? Joining this community of over 420,000 technology and engineering professionals will give you access to the resources and opportunities you need to keep on top of changes in technology and help you get involved in standards development, network with other professionals in your local area or within a specific technical interest, mentor the next generation of engineers and technologists, and so much more.

New research chair to explore digital thriving in Franco-Ontarian communities

By Education

Communications, Faculté d'éducation | Faculty of Education

Ours is a hyper-connected planet. The pace of technological advancements and the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence are reshaping how we navigate our lives.  It’s an era of unprecedented risk and opportunity. 

The new Chair on Digital Thriving in Franco-Ontarian Communities, an initiative of the Office of the Vice-President, Research and Innovation , and the Collège des chaires de recherche sur le monde francophone , will focus on understanding the issues that affect this evolving digital landscape in minority language settings. 

‘Digital thriving’: A new concept

“Digital thriving is a new concept and an emerging area of research,” says Professor Megan Cotnam-Kappel , the new chairholder. “It goes beyond ensuring equitable access to technology and improving digital literacy skills. Thriving online for a linguistic minority community means cultivating a vibrant digital presence that authentically represents and empowers its members.”  Cotnam-Kappel adds: “As an engaged Franco-Ontarian, the launch of this chair is a call to action. I am honoured to have this opportunity to expose inequalities that disproportionally impact minority language communities online. This role is a springboard for building a large network of researchers, teachers, students, and members of Franco-Ontarian communities.”   

Bridging the digital divide for francophone communities

“Our Chaires de recherche sur le monde francophone program aims to invigorate scholarly inquiry within the Francophonie, ultimately enriching our province, our nation, and the global community,” says Sylvain Charbonneau , vice-president, research and innovation at the University of Ottawa.  “Professor Cotnam-Kappel’s dedication to addressing digital inequalities among minority language groups, particularly within Ontario’s French-language schools, is a critical component of our commitment to fostering equitable societies and shaping a digital landscape that serves the greater good of our communities.” Cotnam-Kappel has worked in the field of educational technology in minority language communities for over a decade. She’s regularly cited in the media for her expertise on pandemic-related social and digital divides, the persistent lack of French-language resources, and the promise of new technologies.   Her research in the areas of digital citizenship, literacy, and inequality underscores how majority languages, mainly English, dominate digital spaces and exacerbate linguistic divisions. This creates opportunity gaps for minority language speakers in education, employment, health care, and other sectors.  “Young people are particularly affected by these disparities, and often turn to English online at the expense of French,” she says. With the emergence of AI — which is trained primarily with data in English — Cotnam-Kappel is concerned about the risks of inaccurate content for and about linguistic minority communities. Yet, this powerful technology also creates opportunities to develop resources in French for Ontarians, which can empower youth to challenge online disinformation or train teachers about the ethical use of AI in classrooms.

“As an engaged Franco-Ontarian, the launch of this chair is a call to action. I am honoured to have this opportunity to expose inequalities that disproportionally impact minority language communities...”

Megan Cotnam-Kappel

— Research Chair on Digital Thriving in Franco-Ontarian Communities

A focus on transformational research in education

As chairholder, Cotnam-Kappel plans to focus on the impact of digital inequalities in Ontario’s French-language schools through collaborative methodologies. In the Faculty's edstudiO (a hub for research, teaching, and community), she and her team will co-develop digital training with and for educators, tailored to their linguistic and pedagogical needs. The chair also will seek to strengthen the digital capacity of Franco-Ontarians, particularly young people, by co-creating open-access educational resources in French.  Cotnam-Kappel’s contributions are particularly relevant in this post-pandemic context, as we rethink the relationships among schools, teachers, students, tech, and the digital world.  While Cotnam-Kappel’s focus is on Franco-Ontarian communities, she also plans to establish international collaborations, fostering the exchange of global perspectives on digital thriving for minority language communities.   Cotnam-Kappel’s work as co-researcher on the Laboratoire vivant sur les technologies d'apprentissage innovantes en enseignement supérieur project is one example of international collaboration. This five-year study (2024–2029), funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Grant, is exploring the potential of innovative learning technologies such as extended reality, digital creation and fabrication, and artificial intelligence.  

About Megan Cotnam-Kappel

Cotnam-Kappel is an associate professor and specialist in educational technology and minority-language education in the Faculty of Education. Over the course of her career, she has received $6 million in research funding, either as a principal investigator or a co-researcher. Her contributions to knowledge have influenced major changes to equity, diversity, and inclusion policies of the Ontario Ministry of Education and UNESCO, and teaching and learning practices in French-language schools in eight Canadian provinces.  Cotnam-Kappel is a member of the leadership team for the Lego Foundation-funded Canadian Playful Schools Network, and was recently appointed as the first associate to the dean of the Faculty of Education, with a special mandate to work on the Francophone portfolio. Cotnam-Kappel earned her PhD in education from the University of Ottawa and the Université de Corse Pascal Paoli , and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She received the Faculty of Education’s New Researcher Award in 2019 .  

La Fondation Lego accorde une subvention de 2,7 millions de dollars à nos cherc…

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Latest science news, discoveries and analysis

The Maldives is racing to create new land. Why are so many people concerned?

Mini-colon and brain 'organoids' shed light on cancer and other diseases

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Monkeypox virus: dangerous strain gains ability to spread through sex, new data suggest

Dna from ancient graves reveals the culture of a mysterious nomadic people, atomic clock keeps ultra-precise time aboard a rocking naval ship, who redefines airborne transmission: what does that mean for future pandemics, ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork chris mantegna, european ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how charlotte e. blattner.

Lethal AI weapons are here: how can we control them?

Living on Mars would probably suck — here's why

Dozens of genes are linked to post-traumatic stress disorder

What toilets can reveal about COVID, cancer and other health threats

How gliding marsupials got their ‘wings’, plastic pollution: three numbers that support a crackdown, first glowing animals lit up the oceans half a billion years ago, how to freeze a memory: putting worms on ice stops them forgetting.

Any plan to make smoking obsolete is the right step

Will AI accelerate or delay the race to net-zero emissions?

Citizenship privilege harms science

We must protect the global plastics treaty from corporate interference martin wagner, un plastics treaty: don’t let lobbyists drown out researchers, current issue.

Surprise hybrid origins of a butterfly species

Stripped-envelope supernova light curves argue for central engine activity, optical clocks at sea, research analysis.

A chemical method for selective labelling of the key amino acid tryptophan

Charles Darwin investigates: the curious case of primrose punishment

Nanoparticle fix opens up tricky technique to forensic applications

Coupled neural activity controls working memory in humans

Robust optical clocks promise stable timing in a portable package, targeting rna opens therapeutic avenues for timothy syndrome, bioengineered ‘mini-colons’ shed light on cancer progression, ancient dna traces family lines and political shifts in the avar empire.

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

How ground glass might save crops from drought on a caribbean island, deadly diseases and inflatable suits: how i found my niche in virology research, books & culture.

How volcanoes shaped our planet — and why we need to be ready for the next big eruption

Dogwhistles, drilling and the roots of Western civilization: Books in brief

Cosmic rentals

Las boriqueñas remembers the forgotten puerto rican women who tested the first pill, dad always mows on summer saturday mornings, nature podcast.

Latest videos

Nature briefing.

An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research

• Published: 06 January 2021
• Volume 25 , pages 955–969, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5947-4070 1 &
• Eli Hustad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-1850 1  

38k Accesses

72 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Extant literature has increased our understanding of the multifaceted nature of the digital divide, showing that it entails more than access to information and communication resources. Research indicates that digital inequality mirrors to a significant extent offline inequality related to socioeconomic resources. Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. Ιn this paper, we present a literature review of Information Systems research on the digital divide within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies over the last decade (2010–2020). The review results are organized in a concept matrix mapping contributing factors and measures for crossing the divides. Building on the results, we elaborate a research agenda that proposes [1] extending established models of digital inequalities with new variables and use of theory, [2] critically examining the effects of digital divide interventions, and [3] better linking digital divide research with research on sustainability.

Similar content being viewed by others

An Upward Spiral Model: Bridging and Deepening Digital Divide

Understanding Digital Inequalities in the Global South

Revitalizing the Quantitative Understanding of the Digital Divide: An Uptake on the Digital Divide Indicators

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Digital inequalities have emerged as a growing concern in modern societies. These inequalities relate to disparities in access, actual use and use efficacy of digital resources. Digital resources including transformative technologies, such as business analytics, big data and artificial intelligence are key for the transition of societies towards sustainability (Pappas et al. 2018 ; United Nations 2018 ). Reducing digital inequalities is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. At a high level, all types of digital inequalities are encompassed in the term digital divide . One of the first uses of the term is traced back in a US government report published in 1999 referring to the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without (NTIA 1999 ). The term was soon broadened to signify the “gap between those who can effectively use new information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot” (Gunkel 2003 ). Overall, the term digital divide includes digital inequalities between individuals, households, businesses or geographic areas (Pick and Sarkar 2016 ; OECD 2001 ). The conceptual broadness of the term aims to capture a multifaceted economic and civil rights issue in an era of continuous efforts to digitalize society. The ongoing digitalization poses a challenge for individuals who are not fully capable of using digital resources and may feel partially excluded or completely left out of the society.

Extant research has contributed insights on the different aspects of the digital divide phenomenon. In the past, the digital divide literature was mostly driven by policy-oriented reports that focused on access. Nevertheless, scientific research expanded to digital inequalities beyond access. Researchers foregrounded digital inequalities related to knowledge, economic and social resources, attributes of technology such as performance and reliability, and utility realization (DiMaggio et al. 2004 ; Van Dijk 2006 ; Van Deursen and Helsper 2015 ). In technologically and economically advanced settings, digital divides seem to be closing in terms of access, but inequalities that affect people’s ability to make good use of digital resources persist (Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Bucea et al. 2020 ). As digitalization becomes increasingly pervasive in work and everyday life, concerns are rising about continuing inequalities within societies that are at the digital forefront. At the same time, in low-resource settings there are still significant access issues. For instance, in the least developed countries (as defined by the United Nations) only 19 per cent of individuals had online access in 2019 while in developed countries, close to 87 per cent of individuals access the internet (Int.Telecom.Union 2019 ). Beyond big differences across settings in terms of access, low-resource settings are tormented by particular political, economic and social conditions inflicting digital divides (Venkatesh et al. 2014 ; Srivastava and Shainesh 2015 ; Luo and Chea 2018 ). Overall, prior research has shown that the modalities of digital inequalities are context-specific and it is important to be explicit about the context when researching the digital divide (Barzilai-Nahon 2006 ). This work is focused on digital divide research within settings with advanced technological infrastructures and economies.

The digital divide is an exemplary sociotechnical phenomenon and has attracted the interest of Information System (IS) researchers. IS research examines more than technologies or social phenomena, or even the two side by side; it investigates emergent sociotechnical phenomena (Lee 2001 ). Hence, IS researchers are well-positioned to study the digital divide phenomenon and have been producing a significant volume of related research. Nevertheless, no systematic review of the IS body of literature on the digital divide exists. Our study identifies, analyses, and integrates a critical mass of recent IS research on the digital divide focused on settings where the technological infrastructures and economies are advanced. To ensure a robust result, we performed a systematic literature review (Kitchenham 2004 ) guided by the following question: What are the key findings identified in extant IS research related to the digital divide in contemporary technologically and economically advanced settings?

Our contribution is threefold. First, we identify recurring digital divide factors for population groups threatened by digital inequalities. The factors identified indicate that digital inequalities frequently mirror offline inequalities (for instance, in terms of socioeconomic resources, knowledge and physical abilities). Second, we present measures proposed in the literature and organize them in three key intervention domains that can contribute to closing the gap (related to policies, training initiatives and tailored design). Finally, as a third contribution, we identify areas for future research providing a research agenda.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we present the method used for selecting and analyzing the articles for this review. Then, we offer a synthesis of our findings related to digital divide factors and related measures and present them in a concise concept matrix. We continue by discussing the implications for further research and we end with overall concluding remarks.

The literature review is conceptual providing a synthesis of prior research and identifying areas for future research (Ortiz de Guinea and Paré 2017 ; Schryen et al. 2015 ). It includes research published during the last decade (2010–2020). The approach followed is based on the three-step structured literature review process proposed by Kitchenham ( 2004 ). Specifically, the three-step process includes: (a) planning the review, where a detailed protocol containing specific search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria is developed, (b) conducting the review, where the identification, selection, quality appraisal, examination and synthesis of prior published research is performed and (c) reporting the review, where the write-up is prepared. We used these steps as our methodological framework. In addition, we utilized principles suggested by Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) for sorting the articles included in the review. Following these principles, we identified key concepts and created a concept-centric matrix that provides an overview of the literature reviewed.

To identify articles to be reviewed, we searched for “Digital” and “Divide” in the abstract, title or keywords within published Information Systems research. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to reduce selection bias, guarantee the quality of the papers selected and increase the review validity. Peer-reviewed, empirical papers, written in English were included. Conceptual papers that lack empirical evidence and papers focusing on the digital divide in developing countries were excluded. Figure 1 provides an overview of the selection process. To ensure a good coverage of Information Systems research we searched within the eight top journals in the field i.e. the basket of eight (AIS 2019 ). The journals included in the basket are: European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of AIS, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of MIS, Journal of Strategic Information Systems and MIS Quarterly. Additionally, we searched within the journal Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS) which has a key role within the IS research community communicating swiftly novel, original research. We also included in our search the journal Information Technology (IT) & People because it focuses on IS research that explores the interplay between technology individuals and society and the journal Information Systems Frontiers because it covers behavioural perspectives on IS research. Both journals are high quality IS outlets especially relevant for research on the digital divide. Furthermore, we included in our search the conferences of the Association of Information Systems (ICIS, ECIS; AMCIS; PACIS) and the Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). We utilized Scopus as our search engine.

The literature selection process

In Scopus, we searched for papers from the selected journals and conferences excluding books, book chapters, commentaries, letters and short surveys. For the journal article search, the ISSNs of the selected journals were used for filtering the search results in Scopus. In total, 45 journal papers were identified. For the conference article search, the conference names were used in Scopus and 91 conference papers were identified. Overall, the search yielded 136 unique articles in total. The next step was to read the titles and abstracts of the articles identified checking their relevance to the research question. For this step, the exclusion criteria were used. Specifically, we excluded papers that only casually mentioned the digital divide but had a different focus, literature reviews and conceptual papers and papers focused on developing countries. After this step, 79 articles were shortlisted. The full text of each of the shortlisted articles was assessed for relevance applying the inclusion-exclusion criteria to the full content. Additionally, the quality of the research reported was assessed. For the quality assessment, each article´s method description was first checked. At this stage, conference papers reporting early stages of ongoing research were removed. In several cases of conference papers that were removed, we found that more mature and extensive results from the same studies were reported in journal articles that were already included in our shortlist and were published after the conference papers. After this step, a final corpus of 33 articles was defined (Table 1 ). A detailed overview of the reviewed articles is included in an electronic supplementary file that can be accessed in the journal´s web site (see Online Resource 1 ).

After selecting the papers, we analyzed their content. We started with extracting meta-data of the papers such as type of study, year of study, study context, research method and theoretical framework applied. In addition, we identified the study subjects for each paper distinguishing between papers that engage with the general population, or specific groups of people including the elderly and marginalized population groups (e.g. refugees, migrants). We continued with an intra-analysis of the content of the papers by looking for core themes in each paper. The themes that were identified for each paper were registered, and as a next step, we performed an inter-analysis and comparison across papers. Based on the comparison, recurring themes and patterns across the papers were discovered and further categorized. The outcomes of the papers´analysis are presented in the " Results " section that follows.

This section presents the key findings from the literature reviewed. First, we present the theoretical premises and the methodological approaches of extant publications on the Digital Divide within IS research and their evolution from 2010 to 2020. Table 2 provides an overview of the theories and concepts, methods and data sources in the literature reviewed. Then, recurring digital divide factors are presented for population segments that are particularly digitally challenged (the elderly and marginalized population groups) and also, for the general population. Finally, measures for addressing the digital divide are presented and organized in three key intervention domains (policy measures, education/training and design tailoring). The section also includes a concept matrix which provides an overview of digital divide factors and related measures identified in the literature reviewed (Table 3 ).

3.1 Trends, Methods and Theoretical Frames in IS Research on the Digital Divide

The work of Information Systems´ researchers on the digital divide has been influenced by policy-oriented reports that tend to be based on macro-level analyses. This influence is clear in the first half of the 2010–2020 period while in the second half, research extends towards a more complex and contextualized picture of digital divides. Newer papers tend to ask a wider range of questions related to access and use of information technologies and investigate a greater variety of factors. For instance, skill related factors are explored in about half of both earlier and later studies, but, newer studies tend to additionally explore motivation and personality aspects (about half of the newer studies include such aspects). Interestingly, several of the newer papers only focus on technology use. In these papers, researchers explore the second order digital divide and the extent of inclusion or involuntary exclusion of those that already have access to technologies. Furthermore, most earlier papers tend to investigate the general population while the majority of newer studies focus on specific population groups.

Overall, most of the studies employ quantitative research methods utilizing well-established survey instruments adapted for studying digital inequalities for certain groups (e.g. older adults) or re-using existing data sets from organizations like the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and the United Nations. A few studies use a mixed-method approach combining interviews with survey data, while the rest employ qualitative approaches. Well-known technology acceptance models such as TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) and MATH (Model of Adoption of Technology in Households) and theories on motivation and human behavior have been used to explore the digital divide. Typical variables included in the investigations are self-efficacy, performance and effort expectancy. Furthermore, social cognitive theories, social support theories and social capital conceptualizations have been used while some of the papers utilize selectively digital divide conceptualizations combined with constructs from social, sociotechnical or economic research.

3.2 Factors Contributing to the Digital Divide

The digital divide is often characterized as a digital divide cascade which is nuanced into different types of inequalities including unequal capabilities, engagement, and use outcomes in addition to inequalities of access and use. This points to the importance of identifying and aiming to remedy inequalities in what people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies (Burtch and Chan 2019 ; Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). In settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, physical access is not a key source of digital inequalities and IS studies that examine issues of unequal access show that access gaps are closing with the exception of marginalized population groups. Nevertheless, there is still a stark difference between access (first-order divide) and actual use (second-order divide) (Bucea et al. 2020 ). The latter relates to differences in digital skills, autonomy, social support and the aims of digital technology use (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Going beyond socioeconomic demographics, additional personal contributing factors have been identified in the literature related to: (a) motivation, (b) personality traits (e.g. openness, extraversion, conscientiousness), (c) digital skills. Many of the studies reviewed focus on the elderly who are also referred to as “digital immigrants” (as opposed to digital natives that have been interacting with digital technology since childhood). Additionally, several studies focus on marginalized population groups. In the paragraphs that follow, we present research findings organizing them according to the different groups studied.

Elderly Population

Although digital technologies have been around for several decades, some of the elderly members of society have difficulties familiarizing with and adopting digital tools and services. Nevertheless, although a decade ago age-related underutilization of IT was significant (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ), over the years, information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been gradually better integrated in the lives of elderly adults. A recent study on the digital divide related to mobile phone use among old adults in UK found that more than 70% have adopted smartphones (Choudrie et al. 2018 ). Specifically, research findings indicate that older adults frequently use internet-related smartphone features such as emailing and browsing although only very few use smartphones to access public services such as the National Health Service. One potential reason for the limited use of specialized web-based services among the elderly despite the wide adoption of smartphones, is that their former workplaces may have been characterized by low IT intensity causing a lower exploratory IT behavior when seniors are retiring (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Niehaves and Plattfaut ( 2014 ) used the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the model of adoption of technology in households (MATH) to explain internet acceptance and usage by the elderly. Performance expectancy was found to be the main use driver among senior citizens. These models were able to predict how the elderly could be encouraged to learn to use digital technologies.

When asked, the elderly themselves identified several key impeding factors for their digital involvement: fear and anxiety of using digital technology and services, negative attitude, a sense of feeling too old for learning, lack of knowledge, difficulties understanding digital terminology (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). Family support is key for developing mobile internet skill literacy and mobile internet information literacy among older adults (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Seniors become better positioned to take advantage of digital resources when they have cognitive and emotional support. Cognitive support from family facilitates learning and digital skills´ development, and also, the development of skills for judging, analyzing and selecting information (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support based on patience, praise, encouragement and comfort can help the elderly avoid computer anxiety and stress (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ). Emotional support is important because unwillingness to adopt advanced digital services by the elderly was found to stem from mistrust, high-risk perceptions, and privacy concerns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ).

Overall, older people are a heterogeneous group, and it is important not to overlook their differences in digital skills and digital practice. Klier and colleagues conducted a survey on older unemployed individulas in Germany and showed that they can be grouped into four different types of digital media users ranging from very active users (digital contributors) to sceptics with limited or no use (digital sceptics) characterised by their negative attitude towards digital media (Klier et al. 2020 ). Digitalization efforts should take into account “the various shades of grey in older adults’ ability to draw on IT-based innovations” (Lameijer et al. 2017 , p. 6).

Marginalized Population Groups

Language barriers as for instance, in the case of refugees and immigrants, and practical resource limitations as in the case of distressed urban areas and remote rural areas can cause social exclusion and hinder the process of digital technologies´ assimilation throughout society. Several researchers have studied specifically issues related to the digital divide within marginalized population groups. Alam and Imram ( 2015 ) found in their research that although refugees and immigrants in the US are motivated to learn about new technology, many are not able to do so because of unaffordable cost, language barriers and lack of skills. Refugees and immigrants realize that technology is helpful for finding new jobs or facilitating social engagement. Digital technologies are of particular value to refugees for multiple reasons: to participate in an information society; to communicate effectively; to understand a new society; to be socially connected; to express their cultural identities (Díaz Andrade and Doolin 2016 ). A study on mobile communications by labor migrants (Aricat 2015 ) showed that mobile phones may also facilitate the development of ghettos and the lack of integration in the new countries by easing communications between the migrants and their home countries. The study identified a visible divide in the framing of the prospects and potentialities of mobile phones related to acculturation.

Enhancing the relationship between citizens and government through digital services requires reaching out to individuals and communities on the unfortunate side of the divide. Digital technology access and use in the context of e-government services were explored within one of the most distressed cities in the US (Sipior et al. 2011 ). This study showed that socioeconomic characteristics (educational level and household income) have significant impact on access barriers, but they also found that employment plays a critical role and is associated both with perceived access barriers and with perceived ease of use. A study conducted among governmental participants representing rural communities in Australia suggests that rural digital exclusion can result from three intertwined layers: availability (elements of infrastructure and connectivity), adoption, and digital engagement (Park et al. 2015 ). Among these layers, availability is probably not as important as one could expect. Similarly, one large household study conducted across the US found that the availability of Internet Supply Providers (ISP) had little impact on Internet adoption, and that Internet adoption can almost exclusively be attached to differences in household attributes and not to ISP availability (Ma and Huang 2015 ).

As access gaps are closing in settings with advanced infrastructures and economy, those who do not have access are easily overlooked (Davis et al. 2020 ). Nevertheless, the first-level digital divide still requires attention for marginalized population groups. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors that were found to affect uptake more than two decades ago (for instance, education level and income) are still relevant in today’s context for particular segments of our societies. Contrary to traditional views, the availability of digital solutions does not always facilitate the resolution of long-standing problems for those that are less well-off in our societies (for instance, immigrants or financially troubled individuals). What people are actually able to do and achieve with digital technologies relates to their greater positioning in society (Burtch and Chan 2019 ) and affects their potential for improvement. As digital technologies are becoming indispensable for participating in the economy and engaging in society, sustained digital divides amplify marginalization.

General Population

A study by Pick and colleagues ( 2018 ) showed the positive influence of managerial/science/arts occupations, innovation, and social capital on the use of digital technologies (Pick et al. 2018 ). Nevertheless, unreasonably high expectations are found to have a negative impact on ICT acceptance (Ebermann et al. 2016 ). Findings from a study conducted within White and Hispanic-owned SMEs in the US (Middleton and Chambers 2010 ) indicate some level of inequality related to ethnicity and age (younger white SME owners being better positioned). Davis and colleagues (Davis et al.  2020 ) analyzed the influence of income, income distribution, education levels, and ethnicity on levels of access to Internet in the US. The findings show that low levels of education and levels of income below the poverty line still tend to lead to higher proportion of people with no Internet access (Davis et al. 2020 ). Even when individuals do have equal access to digital technologies, differences in skills can lead to digital inequalities (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Taking a differentiated view on skills is needed to understand technology use and no-use (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Physical skills matter; users with disabilities can be digitally disadvantaged and despite the benefits promised by specialized assistive technologies their adoption rate falls short of expectations (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ).

Some groups may be challenged because they are too far embedded in older systems, which makes it difficult for them to adopt newer ICTs (Abdelfattah 2012 ). Social capital can trigger ICT awareness changing individual dispositions, thus converting social capital into cultural capital (Reinartz et al. 2018 ). An interesting study on crowdfunding showed that the benefits of medical crowdfunding accrue systematically less to racial minorities and less educated population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). One of the reasons for this is the communication-rich nature of the context: less educated persons are not always capable of producing polished, persuasive pitches to solicit funds. Furthermore, digital inequality manifests on the efficacy of using crowdfunding platforms, due to a lack of critical mass in the number of potential transaction partners (donors). The results show the importance of looking beyond access or connectivity to investigate efficacy (in this case, expressed as success in fundraising), and how it associates with different population segments (Burtch and Chan 2019 ).

At the country level, a number of studies examined socio-economic influences on access and use of particular forms of technologies as for instance, personal computers and broadband internet (Zhao et al. 2014 ; Pick and Azari 2011 ; Dewan et al. 2010 ). A world-wide study found complementarities in the diffusion of PCs and the Internet leading to narrower digital divides (Dewan et al. 2010 ). These findings challenge the dominant understanding of characteristics such as country wealth, education levels and telecommunications infrastructure leading to the widening of the digital divide. Country-level studies are based on the analysis of data from census surveys, national statistics, and datasets from organizations like UNDP and ITO. The use of such datasets is helpful for performing comparisons across countries but due to the generic nature of data the purpose of digital technology use has been scarcely examined in country-level studies. This may be attributed to the fact that comparable data on specific online activities are not easy to collect across countries (Zhao et al. 2014 ). A study conducted by Bucea and colleagues ( 2020 ), is an exception to this. The study assessed specifically the use of e-Services and Social Networks within the 28 member-states of the European Union analyzing four socio-demographic factors (age, education, gender, and income). The findings showed that for e-Services, disparities relate mostly to education while for Social Networks age is the most important factor (Bucea et al. 2020 ). Overall, country level studies are important for assessing disparities across countries and can lead to the identification of factors reinforcing inequalities. At the same time, macro studies can not bring insights about digital inequalities across different population segments within countries.

3.3 Overcoming Digital Divides

Policy-making is considered instrumental for closing the digital gap and a mix of policy measures has been suggested in prior research. In general, policy initiatives can include subsidies targeting specific digitally disadvantaged segments as for instance rural populations (Talukdar and Gauri 2011 ). For instance, governments can apply strong intervention policies to provide equitable ICT access also in rural areas (Park et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, digital divides may be addressed at scale by crafting policies to equip underprivileged groups with better communication skills (reading, writing, and software use) enabling meaningful engagement with digital platforms (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Government policy makers can collaborate with schools to support students from low-income households through the provision of home computers aiming to reduce the effect of socio-economic inequalities among students (Wei et al. 2011 ). Policies raising the priority of IT, protecting property rights, and enhancing freedom of the press and openness, can help to stimulate educational advances, labor-force participation and income growth, all of which contribute to advancing technology use (Pick and Azari 2011 ). Policy measures should allow room for local adaptations, as contextual and local elements seem to play a role for technology users and could influence policy success (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Effective evaluation mechanisms make it easier to develop new policies addressing digital divides (Chang et al. 2012 ) helping policy-makers to refine initiatives targeting certain segments of society, such as elderly people and socio-economically disadvantaged groups (Hsieh et al. 2011 ).

Contemporary workplaces can help by taking greater responsibility for IT education of their employees even when they are close to retirement. Developing the digital skills of seniors while they are still employed is important for preventing digital exclusion after retirement (Rockmann et al. 2018 ). Overall, employment has a pivotal role in explaining citizen usage of e-government initiatives (Sipior et al. 2011 ). As an employee, an individual may have access to the Internet at the place of employment. Furthermore, employment demands may increase the confidence of an individual in performing new tasks. Thinking beyond workplaces, policies that leverage existing communities, social structures, and local actors can also help in reducing digital inequalities (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Such policies can stimulate public/private partnerships with grassroots organizations that already have “hooks” in local communities. Moreover, long-term government policies could set a goal of encouraging growth in social capital within communities (Pick et al. 2018 ).

Proper training and education can help mitigate digital inequalities (Van Dijk 2012 ). For instance, platform operators can provide coaching services for underprivileged populations (Burtch and Chan 2019 ). Furthermore, information campaigns also have a significant role to play, digital divides may be narrowed if vendors engage in trust-building campaigns (Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Integrating digital education into curricula can also contribute to reducing digital inequalities (Reinartz et al. 2018 ), and education campaigns can stimulate the adoption and usage of ICTs bridging rural-urban digital gaps. Rural communities typically lag in digital skills, and digital literacy training programs can improve digital engagement in rural communities. Digital literacy programs targeting senior citizens can help them develop the necessary skills and abilities to use digital mobile devices so that they could be part of the Digital Society (Carvalho et al. 2018 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ; Klier et al. 2020 ). Educational efforts for the elderly must be practically oriented in order to show directly what is to be gained by becoming more digital (Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ). In addition, social networks, friends and family are important for supporting the training of disadvantaged people in technologies; family emotional and cognitive support can increase the elderly’s digital capabilities, reduce computer anxiety and increase trust and motivation for learning (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ).

The design and development of ICT solutions should take into account individual differences for creating proper stimuli to different user groups. For instance, the use of governmental e-services can be improved by making them more engaging, interactive, and personal to address a country’s or region’s cultural norms (Zhao et al. 2014 ). This makes the role of appropriate design for overcoming the digital divide a center of attention. Lameijer et al. ( 2017 ) propose that design-related issues should be considered and evaluated to better understand technology adoption patterns among elderly. Also, the study by Klier and colleagues showed that there is a potential to shift older individuals towards a more active engagement with digital media by ensuring ease of use in the design of digital services (Klier et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the needs of groups with disabilities ought to be taken into account when designing information systems for the general public (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). It is important to integrate assistive functionalities in general IS to emphasize authentic inclusiveness. Overall, research points to the importance of functionalities that suit the needs of specific user groups to stimulate the use of digital technologies.

4 Crossing Digital Divides: a Research Agenda

The evolution of IS research on the digital divide during the last decade shows the richness of this research area. As digitalization becomes pervasive in our societies, digital inequalities emerge in different contexts and communities renewing the interest on digital divide research. In recent years, researchers have been shifting away from macro-level studies and are re-orienting towards developing nuanced and contextualized insights about digital inequalities. The analysis of published research allows the identification of gaps and opportunities for further research. Furthermore, there are specific research directions proposed in several of the reviewed papers. The synthesis of suggestions from the papers reviewed with the results of our analysis led to the identification of three research avenues that bring exciting opportunities for researchers to engage with topics that are highly relevant with our digitalization era. Specifically, we suggest a research agenda that proposes: [1] extending established digital divide models with new variables and use of theory, [2] examining the effects of interventions, and [3] addressing societal challenges and especially sustainability goals through the lens of digital divide. Social inclusion and digital equality are crucial for a sustainable digitalized society.

4.1 Avenue I: Extending Established Digital Divide Models and Use of Theory

Extant research shows that physical access divides are being reduced in technologically and economically advanced societies but, inequalities in use persist (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ). These use inequalities are found to be related to socioeconomic characteristics and also, personality traits, motivation and digital skills. A better understanding of the complex phenomenon of digital divide is needed combining multiple aspects to form comprehensive models (Choudrie et al. 2018 ) and further explore the concept itself to get more explanatory power (Lameijer et al. 2017 ). The emphasis, to date, has been on describing the digital divide by identifying gaps between actual technology access and use against an ideal situation. Work should be undertaken to investigate different national, social and cultural settings (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) across geographical contexts (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ) and the influence of institutional and environmental factors on individuals’ ability and motivation to access and use technology (Racherla and Mandviwalla 2013 ). Furthermore, researchers may explore the values and interests of those abstraining from the use of digital resources and the implications of the overemphasis to digital inclusion (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ).

Further research is also needed to extend established models with new variables. Future investigations may add variables related to social theories (Abdelfattah et al. 2010 ; Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ), personal traits models (Ebermann et al. 2016 ), and capital theory (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). Additionally, future research should consider testing psychological variables (Niehaves and Plattfaut 2010 ) and additional socio-economical aspects (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ) including support from friends and family (Xiong and Zuo 2019 ; Holgersson and Söderström 2019 ) to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the association between the digital divide phenomenon and contributing variables (Hsieh et al. 2011 ; Niehaves and Plattfaut 2014 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Qualitative research is important for revealing factors that influence inequalities and can become the basis for model building and testing using quantitative data.

Interestingly, fully developed theoretical frameworks that have been extensively used in other streams of exploratory information systems research related to the introduction and use of ICTs were not present in the papers reviewed. For instance, Activity theory and Institutional theory can be used as lenses for understanding and analyzing the digital divide phenomenon. Activity theory (Allen et al. 2011 ; Engeström 1999 ) can help in developing a nuanced understanding of the relationship between ICT artifacts and purposeful individuals taking into account the environment, culture, motivations, and complexity of real-life settings. Institutional theory (Jepperson 1991 ; Scott 2005 ) can contribute to developing insights related to societal structures, norms and routines shifting attention to units of analysis that cannot be reduced to individuals’ attributes or motives. Overall, we observed that digital divide research could benefit from better leveraging theory to extend established digital divide models.

4.2 Avenue II: Examining the Effects of Interventions to Cross the Digital Divide

Measures for crossing digital divides include policy interventions, training and design. Information Systems research can be especially relevant by developing design knowledge for the development and deployment of digital technology artifacts in different settings. Although several measures are proposed in the literature, further work is required to research the effect of interventions to avoid the exclusion of citizens from the digital realm addressing inequalities (Alam and Imran 2015 ; Reisdorf and Rikard 2018 ; Reinartz et al. 2018 ). In particular, appropriate design approaches for digital technologies should be investigated and tested to avoid involuntary exclusion of marginalized groups, elderly people or any other group of individuals affected by digital inequalities (Rockmann et al. 2018 ; Lameijer et al. 2017 ; Alam and Imran 2015 ; Fox and Connolly 2018 ). Additionally, comparative research can be undertaken investigating the effects and attractiveness of different design solutions in different cultural settings (Pethig and Kroenung 2019 ). Overall, although many studies include insights related to measures for bridging digital divides, there is a clear need for studies with a longitudinal research design to investigate the impact of measures over time. Interestingly, little research has been performed up to now on the potentially negative unexpected effects of measures for bridging digital divides (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). This is certainly an area that needs to be further developed. The use of technologies might lead to advantages or disadvantages, which are unevenly distributed in society. Focusing only on benefits, researchers miss the opportunity to connect to emerging literature on the dark side of Internet and unexpected outcomes of digitalization including privacy risks. Scholars of information systems can develop novel avenues of critical thinking on the effects of interventions to cross the digital divide.

4.3 Avenue III: Linking Digital Divide Research With Research on Sustainability

There were no studies in our literature review that focused specifically on sustainability topics, and future research should pay attention to this gap. The United Nations´ sustainability goals focus on reducing inequality within and among countries to avoid biased economic development, social exclusion, and environmentally untenable practices. Important dimensions of sustainable development are human rights and social inclusion, shared responsibilities and opportunities (United Nations 2020 ). An essential part of social inclusion in our societies is e-inclusion (Pentzaropoulos and Tsiougou 2014 ). At the same time, it is important to research the risks and ethical implications of depriving individuals from offline choices (Díaz Andrade and Techatassanasoontorn 2020 ). Furthermore, we need to support sustainability in rural areas reducing the urban - rural digital divide. Sustainability researchers have identified the issue pointing to the vulnerabilities of rural communities that are in particular need of bridging inequalities (Onitsuka 2019 ). Future empirical studies on the digital divide should therefore pay attention to sustainability topics in terms of social exclusion and digital inequality to better understand underlying factors and potential remedies.

The covid-19 pandemic made digital inequalities even more evident. In periods of social distancing to minimize infection risks, individuals sustain their connections with colleagues, friends, and family through online connections. Furthermore, people need digital skills to keep updated on crucial information and to continue working when possible using home offices and digital connections. In addition, recent crisis response experiences have shown that switching to digital education may lead to exclusion of the few that cannot afford physical digital tools (Desrosiers 2020 ), or do not have access to sustainable infrastructures and ICT access. This crisis has shown that digital divides can become a great challenge aggravating inequalities experienced by marginalized communities such as urban poor and under-resourced businesses. Digital inequalities are a major factor of health-related and socio-economical vulnerability (Beaunoyer et al. 2020 ).

The role of Information Systems researchers is critical for the development of digital capital contributing to sustainable development. Digital capital refers to the resources that can be utilized by communities including digital technology ecosystems and related digital literacy and skills. General policy measures related to stimulating regional economic growth, strengthening tertiary education, or discouraging early leaving from education can be developed by scientists in other domains. However, thinking about inclusive configurations of digital infrastructures and ecosystems and developing related design principles entails specialized knowledge from the Information Systems domain. Furthermore, Information Systems researchers can provide insights about the development of capabilities required for leveraging digital resources such as digital infrastructures (Hustad and Olsen 2020 ; Grisot and Vassilakopoulou 2017 ), big data and business analytics (Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Innovative approaches for leveraging digital resources will be pivotal for addressing grand challenges related to poverty, healthcare and climate change. Information Systems researchers can contribute insights for bridging digital divides to promote an agenda towards a sustainable future.

5 Conclusions

The present work takes stock of Information Systems research on the digital divide by synthesizing insights from publications in the 2010–2020 period. The review process was performed with rigor while selecting and critically assessing earlier research. Nevertheless, this work is not without limitations. We have confined the literature search within one specific discipline (Information Systems research). This limits the breadth of the review but facilitates comprehensiveness and depth in the development of insights about the body of literature analyzed. Furthermore, focusing on Information Systems research facilitates the development of a research agenda that is relevant to the target discipline through the identification of gaps and extrapolations from previous work.

The review showed that within digital divide research, the attention of Information Systems research has gradually shifted from access to use and now needs to shift further towards better understanding use outcomes. Digital inequalities are a serious threat to civil society in an era where societies are rapidly going digital. For instance, daily activities such as paying bills, filling in application forms, filing tax returns, are all expected to be carried out electronically. There are high expectations for active citizens´ role based on online services (Axelsson et al. 2013 ; Vassilakopoulou et al. 2016 ); hence, we need to be concerned of digital inequalities ensuring fairness and inclusiveness. Furthermore, digital resources such as big data and business analytics are key enablers of sustainable value creation within societies (Pappas et al. 2018 ; Mikalef et al. 2020 ). Bridging digital divides is critical for sustainable digitalized societies. The findings of this literature review can provide a foundation for further research and a basis for researchers to orient themselves and position their own work.

Abdelfattah, B. M. (2012). Individual-multinational study of internet use: the digital divide explained by displacement hypothesis and knowledge-gap hypothesis. In  AMCIS 2012 Proceedings . 24. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/AdoptionDiffusionIT/24 .

Abdelfattah, B. M., Bagchi, K., Udo, G., & Kirs, P. (2010). Understanding the internet digital divide: an exploratory multi-nation individual-level analysis. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 542. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/542 .

AIS (2019). Association for information systems. Senior scholars’ basket of journals . https://aisnet.org/page/SeniorScholarBasket . Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

Alam, K., & Imran, S. (2015). The digital divide and social inclusion among refugee migrants: A case in regional Australia. Information Technology & People, 28 (2), 344–365.

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (4), 776–788.

Aricat, R. G. (2015). Is (the study of) mobile phones old wine in a new bottle? A polemic on communication-based acculturation research. Information Technology & People, 28 (4), 806–824.

Axelsson, K., Melin, U., & Lindgren, I. (2013). Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen benefit—Findings from a stakeholder centered analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 30 (1), 10–22.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22 (5), 269–278.

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106424.

Bucea, A. E., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Coelho, P. S. (2020). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9 .

Burtch, G., & Chan, J. (2019). Investigating the relationship between medical crowdfunding and personal bankruptcy in the United States: evidence of a digital divide. MIS Quarterly, 43 (1), 237–262.

Carvalho, C. V. d., Olivares, P. C., Roa, J. M., Wanka, A., & Kolland, F. (2018). Digital information access for ageing persons. In ICALT 2018 Proceedings  the 8th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE, 345–347.

Chang, S.-I., Yen, D. C., Chang, I.-C., & Chou, J.-C. (2012). Study of the digital divide evaluation model for government agencies–a Taiwanese local government’s perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 14 (3), 693–709.

Choudrie, J., Pheeraphuttranghkoon, S., & Davari, S. (2018). The digital divide and older adult population adoption, use and diffusion of mobile phones: a quantitative study. Information Systems Frontiers, 22 , 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9875-2 .

Davis, J. G., Kuan, K. K., & Poon, S. (2020). Digital exclusion and divide in the United States: exploratory empirical analysis of contributing factors. In AMCIS 2020 Proceedings . 1. Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/social_inclusion/social_inclusion/ .

Desrosiers, M.-E. (2020). As universities move classes online, let’s not forget the digital divide, Policy Options Politiques . https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2020/as-universities-move-classes-online-lets-not-forget-the-digital-divide/ . Accessed 25 Mar 2020.

Dewan, S., Ganley, D., & Kraemer, K. L. (2010). Complementarities in the diffusion of personal computers and the Internet: Implications for the global digital divide. Information Systems Research, 21 (4), 925–940.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 405–416.

Díaz Andrade, A., & Techatassanasoontorn, A. A. (2020). Digital enforcement: Rethinking the pursuit of a digitally-enabled society. Information Systems Journal, 12306 , 1–14.

Google Scholar  

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New YorK: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ebermann, C., Piccinini, E., Brauer, B., Busse, S., & Kolbe, L. (2016). The impact of gamification-induced emotions on In-car IS adoption - the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE, 1338–1347.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (Vol. 19, pp. 19–37). Cambridge: Camebridge University Press.

Fox, G., & Connolly, R. (2018). Mobile health technology adoption across generations: Narrowing the digital divide. Information Systems Journal, 28 (6), 995–1019.

Grisot, M., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2017). Re-infrastructuring for eHealth: Dealing with turns in infrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 26 (1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9264-2 .

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 5 (4), 499–522.

Holgersson, J., & Söderström, E. (2019). Bridging the gap - Exploring elderly citizens’ perceptions of digital exclusion. In ECIS 2019 Proceedings.  https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/28 .

Hsieh, J. J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2011). Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research, 22 (2), 233–253.

Hustad, E., & Olsen, D. H. (2020). Creating a sustainable digital infrastructure: the role of service-oriented architecture. Presented at the Centeris conference 2020, forthcoming in Procedia Computer Science , preprint available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346989191_Creating_a_sustainable_digital_infrastructure_The_role_of_service-oriented_architecture .

Int.Telecom.Union (2019). Facts and figs. 2019: measuring digital development. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf . Accessed 25 Apr 2020.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report, UK, TR/SE-0401,  1–26.

Klier, J., Klier, M., Schäfer-Siebert, K., & Sigler, I. (2020). #Jobless #Older #Digital – Digital media user of the older unemployed. In ECIS 2020 Proceedings . Fully Online Event. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/206 .

Lameijer, C. S., Mueller, B., & Hage, E. (2017). Towards rethinking the digital divide–recognizing shades of grey in older adults’ digital inclusion. In ICIS 2017 Proceedings . 11. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/General/Presentations/11 .

Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor’s comments: What are the best MIS programs in US business schools? MIS Quarterly, 25 (3), iii–vii.

Luo, M. M., & Chea, S. (2018). Internet village motoman project in rural Cambodia: bridging the digital divide. Information Technology & People, 21 (1), 2–20.

Ma, J., & Huang, Q. (2015). Does better Internet access lead to more adoption? A new empirical study using household relocation. Information Systems Frontiers, 17 (5), 1097–1110.

Middleton, K. L., & Chambers, V. (2010). Approaching digital equity: is wifi the new leveler? Information Technology & People, 23 (1), 4–22.

Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020). Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value. Information & Management, 57 (1), 103237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103237 .

NTIA. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. National Telecommunications and Information Administration .  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html . Accessed 20 Oct 2019.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2014). Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems, 23 (6), 708–726.

Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). The age-divide in private internet usage: a quantitative study of technology acceptance. In  AMCIS 2010 Proceedings . 407. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/407 .

OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers ,  49 , OECD Publishing, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1787/236405667766 .

Onitsuka, K. (2019). How social media can foster social innovation in disadvantaged rural communities. Sustainability, 11 (2697), 1–24.

Ortiz de Guinea, A., & Paré, G. (2017). What literature review type should I conduct? 1. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp. 73–82). Abingdon: Routledge.

Pappas, I. O., Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Lekakos, G. (2018). Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 16 (3), 479–491.

Park, S., Freeman, J., Middleton, C., Allen, M., Eckermann, R., & Everson, R. (2015). The multi-layers of digital exclusion in rural Australia. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences   (HICSS 2015) Proceedings, IEEE, 3631–3640.

Pentzaropoulos, G. C., & Tsiougou, D. (2014). E-inclusion policies for contemporary knowledge economies and societies: an examination of the main issues. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 5 (1), 77–89.

Pethig, F., & Kroenung, J. (2019). Specialized information systems for the digitally disadvantaged. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20 (10), 1412–1446.

Pick, J., & Azari, R. (2011). A global model of technological utilization based on governmental, business-investment, social, and economic factors. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (1), 49–84.

Pick, J., & Sarkar, A. (2016). Theories of the digital divide: Critical comparison. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016) Proceedings, IEEE,  3888–3897.

Pick, J., Sarkar, A., & Parrish, E. (2018). Internet use and online activities in US States: geographic disparities and socio-economic influences. In the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2018) Proceedings, IEEE, 3853–3863.

Racherla, P., & Mandviwalla, M. (2013). Moving from access to use of the information infrastructure: A multilevel sociotechnical framework. Information Systems Research, 24 (3), 709–730.

Reinartz, A., Buhtz, K., Graf-Vlachy, L., & König, A. (2018). Mechanisms of engagement with, and disengagement from, Internet applications: A qualitative study of online job search. In International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) .

Reisdorf, B. C., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). Digital rehabilitation: a model of reentry into the digital age. American Behavioral Scientist, 62 (9), 1273–1290.

Rockmann, R., Gewald, H., & Haug, M. (2018). Equal access for everyone? A digital divide cascade for retired senior citizens. In  ECIS 2018 Proceedings , 30. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/30 .

Schryen, G., Wagner, G., & Benlian, A. (2015) Theory of knowledge for literature reviews: an epistemological model, taxonomy and empirical analysis of IS literature. In ICIS 2015 Proceedings .  https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=icis2015 .

Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt (eds.) Great minds in management: The process of theory development ,  37 (2), 460–484. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-government in the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 20 (3), 308–328.

Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. (2015). Bridging the service divide through digitally enabled service innovations: evidence from indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39 (1), 245–267.

Talukdar, D., & Gauri, D. K. (2011). Home Internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28 (1), 85–98.

UnitedNations (2020). Getting to know the sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

United Nations (2018). E-government survey 2018, Gearing E‐government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies. https://www.unescap.org/resources/e-government-survey-2018-gearing-e-government-support-transformation-towards-sustainable . Accessed 15 Mar 2020.

Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34 (4–5), 221–235.

Van Dijk, J. A. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook, 2012, 57–75.

Vassilakopoulou, P., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2016). Enabling electronic interactions between patients and healthcare providers: a service design perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 28 (1), 71–90.

Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2014). Understanding e-Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal, 24 (3), 249–269.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22 (1), 170–187.

Xiong, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). How does family support work when older adults obtain information from mobile internet? Information Technology & People, 32 (6), 1496–1516.

Zhao, F., Collier, A., & Deng, H. (2014). A multidimensional and integrative approach to study global digital divide and e-government development. Information Technology & People, 27 (1), 38–62.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge June Lithell Hansen and Andreas Skaiaa for their contribution in an early stage of this study during fall 2018. The contribution was part of their master course work performed at the University of Agder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou & Eli Hustad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

(DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vassilakopoulou, P., Hustad, E. Bridging Digital Divides: a Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf Syst Front 25 , 955–969 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Download citation

Accepted : 06 December 2020

Published : 06 January 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital divide
• Digitalization
• Digital inequalities
• Information systems research
• Sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Partisan divides over K-12 education in 8 charts

K-12 education is shaping up to be a key issue in the 2024 election cycle. Several prominent Republican leaders, including GOP presidential candidates, have sought to limit discussion of gender identity and race in schools , while the Biden administration has called for expanded protections for transgender students . The coronavirus pandemic also brought out partisan divides on many issues related to K-12 schools .

Today, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines on topics ranging from what should be taught in schools to how much influence parents should have over the curriculum. Here are eight charts that highlight partisan differences over K-12 education, based on recent surveys by Pew Research Center and external data.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to provide a snapshot of partisan divides in K-12 education in the run-up to the 2024 election. The analysis is based on data from various Center surveys and analyses conducted from 2021 to 2023, as well as survey data from Education Next, a research journal about education policy. Links to the methodology and questions for each survey or analysis can be found in the text of this analysis.

Most Democrats say K-12 schools are having a positive effect on the country , but a majority of Republicans say schools are having a negative effect, according to a Pew Research Center survey from October 2022. About seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (72%) said K-12 public schools were having a positive effect on the way things were going in the United States. About six-in-ten Republicans and GOP leaners (61%) said K-12 schools were having a negative effect.

About six-in-ten Democrats (62%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. Department of Education , while a similar share of Republicans (65%) see it negatively, according to a March 2023 survey by the Center. Democrats and Republicans were more divided over the Department of Education than most of the other 15 federal departments and agencies the Center asked about.

In May 2023, after the survey was conducted, Republican lawmakers scrutinized the Department of Education’s priorities during a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing. The lawmakers pressed U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on topics including transgender students’ participation in sports and how race-related concepts are taught in schools, while Democratic lawmakers focused on school shootings.

Partisan opinions of K-12 principals have become more divided. In a December 2021 Center survey, about three-quarters of Democrats (76%) expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in K-12 principals to act in the best interests of the public. A much smaller share of Republicans (52%) said the same. And nearly half of Republicans (47%) had not too much or no confidence at all in principals, compared with about a quarter of Democrats (24%).

This divide grew between April 2020 and December 2021. While confidence in K-12 principals declined significantly among people in both parties during that span, it fell by 27 percentage points among Republicans, compared with an 11-point decline among Democrats.

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say teachers’ unions are having a positive effect on schools. In a May 2022 survey by Education Next , 60% of Democrats said this, compared with 22% of Republicans. Meanwhile, 53% of Republicans and 17% of Democrats said that teachers’ unions were having a negative effect on schools. (In this survey, too, Democrats and Republicans include independents who lean toward each party.)

The 38-point difference between Democrats and Republicans on this question was the widest since Education Next first asked it in 2013. However, the gap has exceeded 30 points in four of the last five years for which data is available.

Republican and Democratic parents differ over how much influence they think governments, school boards and others should have on what K-12 schools teach. About half of Republican parents of K-12 students (52%) said in a fall 2022 Center survey that the federal government has too much influence on what their local public schools are teaching, compared with two-in-ten Democratic parents. Republican K-12 parents were also significantly more likely than their Democratic counterparts to say their state government (41% vs. 28%) and their local school board (30% vs. 17%) have too much influence.

On the other hand, more than four-in-ten Republican parents (44%) said parents themselves don’t have enough influence on what their local K-12 schools teach, compared with roughly a quarter of Democratic parents (23%). A larger share of Democratic parents – about a third (35%) – said teachers don’t have enough influence on what their local schools teach, compared with a quarter of Republican parents who held this view.

Republican and Democratic parents don’t agree on what their children should learn in school about certain topics. Take slavery, for example: While about nine-in-ten parents of K-12 students overall agreed in the fall 2022 survey that their children should learn about it in school, they differed by party over the specifics. About two-thirds of Republican K-12 parents said they would prefer that their children learn that slavery is part of American history but does not affect the position of Black people in American society today. On the other hand, 70% of Democratic parents said they would prefer for their children to learn that the legacy of slavery still affects the position of Black people in American society today.

Parents are also divided along partisan lines on the topics of gender identity, sex education and America’s position relative to other countries. Notably, 46% of Republican K-12 parents said their children should not learn about gender identity at all in school, compared with 28% of Democratic parents. Those shares were much larger than the shares of Republican and Democratic parents who said that their children should not learn about the other two topics in school.

Many Republican parents see a place for religion in public schools , whereas a majority of Democratic parents do not. About six-in-ten Republican parents of K-12 students (59%) said in the same survey that public school teachers should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers, including 29% who said this should be the case even if prayers from other religions are not offered. In contrast, 63% of Democratic parents said that public school teachers should not be allowed to lead students in any type of prayers.

In June 2022, before the Center conducted the survey, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a football coach at a public high school who had prayed with players at midfield after games. More recently, Texas lawmakers introduced several bills in the 2023 legislative session that would expand the role of religion in K-12 public schools in the state. Those proposals included a bill that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom, a bill that would allow schools to replace guidance counselors with chaplains, and a bill that would allow districts to mandate time during the school day for staff and students to pray and study religious materials.

Mentions of diversity, social-emotional learning and related topics in school mission statements are more common in Democratic areas than in Republican areas. K-12 mission statements from public schools in areas where the majority of residents voted Democratic in the 2020 general election are at least twice as likely as those in Republican-voting areas to include the words “diversity,” “equity” or “inclusion,” according to an April 2023 Pew Research Center analysis .

Also, about a third of mission statements in Democratic-voting areas (34%) use the word “social,” compared with a quarter of those in Republican-voting areas, and a similar gap exists for the word “emotional.” Like diversity, equity and inclusion, social-emotional learning is a contentious issue between Democrats and Republicans, even though most K-12 parents think it’s important for their children’s schools to teach these skills . Supporters argue that social-emotional learning helps address mental health needs and student well-being, but some critics consider it emotional manipulation and want it banned.

In contrast, there are broad similarities in school mission statements outside of these hot-button topics. Similar shares of mission statements in Democratic and Republican areas mention students’ future readiness, parent and community involvement, and providing a safe and healthy educational environment for students.

• Education & Politics
• Partisanship & Issues
• Politics & Policy

Jenn Hatfield is a writer/editor at Pew Research Center

Most Americans think U.S. K-12 STEM education isn’t above average, but test results paint a mixed picture

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year, about half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy