A Capabilities Approach to Digital InequalitiesRethinking Differentiated Internet Use among Latinos

By Martha Fuentes-Bautista, Joseph Straubhaar, Juan Pinon, University of Texas - AustinViviana RojasUniversity of Texas - San Antonio

University of Texas at Austin

Trends: Internet use in the U.S. Internet penetration in the U.S. reaching 60%-70%

(Pew & UCLA studies)

Possible stall of Internet growth Peak in the adoption curve in higher income groups

close to 90% penetration Minorities are catching up, in particular Latinos in higher income

groups The world of Non-users: 52% “I don’t want it or don’t need it”

(Pew 2004). Individual choice vs. “structured response”?

Penetration in poorer segments of the population across ethnic groups below 40% (Pew Internet)

Online activities are growing and different people do different things Differential online experience between some demographic

groups. (Pew Internet, 2004) African Americans, senior citizens, or those with lower levels of

education and income are not engaged in the most sophisticated Internet activities, or are not doing it at the same rate

How are structural factors associated to the increase of differentiated Internet use? This is exploratory work about the problem in the case of Latinos in a Texan city

Trends: Internet use in the U.S.

Internet in Texas

(Strover & Straubhaar, 2000; Straubhaar et al., 2004) 78% have computers and 97% of them go

online (2004) Home broadband increase from 12.3% to

46.6% between 2000 and 2004 Major gains in urban areas

Trends: Internet use in Texas

Ethnicity is the strongest predictor of domestic broadband adoption followed by weaker correlations of income and education

Broadband Among Current Computer Users, By Ethnicity, 2000 and 2004

11.6

48.7

10.7

31.3

7.4

43.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Anglo 2000 Anglo 2004 African-American

2000

African-American

2004

Hispanic2000

Hispanic2004

Ethnicity and Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Pe

op

le

Broadband

Trends: Internet use in Texas

Place-related factors matters: public site use (library, school, community center) and private

site use (home and work) Spaces of access divided by race, income and education

Ethnic minorities and poorer people significantly more likely to use public spaces to access the Internet

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

Model B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .236 .218 1.085 .278

Ethnic minority .282 .088 .139 3.214 .001

I ncome -.097 .023 -.193 -4.214 0

Education .029 .041 .033 .721 .471

Multiple regression for Public site use by ethnicity, income, and education

Trends: Internet use in Texas

Austin, TX Top Creative City (Florida, 2002) Among the top Wired and Unwired cities BUT with an uneven geography

(Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005)

As of Sept. 2004

Refocusing on Use: Some Assumptions

The transformative potential of the technology depends on its use. Why potentialities of the technology are not actualized?

Internet use is “structured” and “structurable”

We need to understand the socially structured variations of Internet experience among people with access to ICTs High rates of Internet penetration will increase the salience of

new kinds of inequality among Internet users (DiMaggio et al, 2004) We need to identifying the critical dimensions where inequality

intercept with differentiated Internet use

Reconsidering digital inequalities Inequalities as lack of capabilities (Amartya Sen’s approach to

social inequality) Inequalities are produced by deprivation of capabilities

and opportunities Access to resources is important but not enough Intangible resources are also needed (know-how or how best to

employ access to resources). Capabilities allow achievement and freedom of choice

Capabilities are developed by the interplay of structural conditions and individual agency

For this study, capabilities are reflected in dispositions and abilities to realize fully the potential of the technology

Reconsidering digital inequalities Individual’s Trajectory and Habitus and the Internet

Habitus: Thoughts, perceptions, expressions, action whose limits are set by the historically and situated conditions of its production … Set of social dispositions that organize social practices (Bourdieu, 1972)

Trajectory: Families are “places” where cultural, economic and social capital are transmitted defining given paths. Families reproduce values or resources; they also create the conditions for change. But each generation has a sense of innovation (agency) (Bertaux; Gonzalez)

We look at: Techno-dispositions (Rojas et al, 2004)

The dispositions and ability to use technology Techno-trajectory

Paths or previous experiences with previous technologies that inform the adoption and use of new ones

Research Questions

How are structural factors associated with the increase of differentiated Internet use among Latinos? Income & wealth, ethnicity, education, language

proficiency and migration trajectory

How do social inequalities reflect on differentiated techno-dispositions?

Methods & sample Assessment of Internet & media uses by generations

(Gonzalez, 2001) Survey of media uses Semi-structured interviews (Information and communication habits

with different technologies (Radio, TV, newspapers, telephone, mobile, Internet )

Family trajectory (Gonzalez, 2001; Mass & Gonzalez, 2005) Personal histories & Family histories (In-depth interviews and

genograms) Occupation Education Migration (Country-Country; Rural-Urban; Urban-Urban) Media uses

Methods & sample Sample

Families living in certain ZIP codes (working class and middle class neighborhoods of Austin for at least 3 years)

34 informants: Latinos (24); Non-Hispanic White (10) GI (Grandparents)= 8; G II (Parents)= 14; GIII (Youth)= 12;

Female= 22 & Male=12 18 individual family histories; 16 members of 5 families (3 Latino

and 2 Non-Hispanic White families) Migration: 1st G (8); 2nd G (9); 3rd G(17) Non-users: 2; Occasional (net evaders or drop outs): 5; Light

users: 10; Heavy users: 17

Family trajectory: Grandparents (G1)

Latino grandparents exposed to significant economic and educational barriers over their lives Non-Hispanic Whites mostly college educated, inherited

property or had investments. Latinos: high school education or less, workers

Latinos migrated within rural areas and eventually to cities whereas Anglo largely moved from city to city

Spanish as the first language for most of the Latinos TV is the preferred medium across groups

Among Latinos, ‘word of mouth’ was a highly valued “medium” for acquiring information

G1 and Internet use Significant gap in the level of Internet use.

Non-Hispanic Whites tend to be light users (email, searching for hobby and health information ) whereas Latinos tend not to use the Internet

Class, defined by access to economic and cultural capital, is directly related to Internet use.

Negative techno-dispositions among Latinos. Anglos tend to look at Internet from a neutral to positive perspective

and Latinos mostly hold from neutral to negative views about the technology

All members of this generation do not perceive themselves a part of the ‘contemporary Internet user’ nor part of the ‘Internet world’

Religion and family values is a common explanation for non-use or occasional use

Largest gap remains in cultural capital. Majority of Latinos had only high school or less

Upward mobility among Latino parents Education had a higher symbolic capital in Non-Hispanic White

families Some Latino parents reported that their parents emphasized job skills

rather than education The majority of Latino parents spoke Spanish as 1st language, and

later almost all became bilingual Latino parents moved from rural to urban

The city opened up possibilities for education, occupation and English language skills among Latinos

In this generation TV is still the most widely used medium Non-Hispanic Whites are light to heavy Internet users whereas

Latino parents either use the technology occasionally or tend to light use

Family trajectory: Parents (G2)

G2 and Internet use Wealth reinforced by ethnicity marking different degrees of

engagement with the Internet. Ethnicity seems to act as a significant marker between fully

engaged Internet users and light users Educational trajectory can change these class and ethnic patterns The urban milieu provided Latinos migrating from rural areas with

wider cultural resources (such as language proficiency, formal education, occupation) encouraging them to engage with ICTs

The majority of Latinos feel that the Internet is “not for people like me” (occupation; income)

Latino parents tend to report job and general environment that does not demand or encourage Internet use. This is particularly clear among occasional users. In some cases,

people talked about restrictions against using the Internet in the workplace

Main gaps in economic and cultural capital Some Latinos come from working class families with upward mobility Some Young Latinos only have secondary education or some college For middle class young Latinos education is portrayed as an opportunity to

achieve social mobility Internet is the central medium across groups. However

Latinos tend to be lighter users but some are heavy users as well Internet is valued over other media for its ability to

provide instant information. Chats are also attractive TV comes as a secondary media after the Internet. TV

allows for passive entertainment and easy access and use Cell phones is central for communications All members of this generation, across groups consider

themselves to be users of ICTs

Family trajectory: The Youth (G3)

G3 and Internet use The prevalent vision is that Internet is part of “everyday

life” Income and wealth is associated with differentiated

Internet use For young Latinos exposure to Internet have come

mostly through school. Youth in non-Hispanic White families tends to have longer, more intense exposure, starting at home.

Level of education attainment is central for a fully capable, integrated Internet experience Using for work, play, education, entertainment, transactions

Conclusions: Structural conditions Non-Hispanic Whites exhibit a trajectory of higher

accumulation of economic and cultural capital over generations Latinos who get to college seem to be catching up in resources

and capabilities in the latest generation Migration trajectory over generations was different

Latinos had done the change from rural-urban more recently widening access to education, occupation, and wealth

No clear evidence of acculturation linked to heavy Internet use Significant difference in language proficiency between

groups was a disadvantage to oldest generations Young Latinos tend to be bilingual which should reduce

linguistic disadvantage

Conclusions: Trajectory of techno-dispositions Significant differences across generations in

preferred media used Grandparents and parents more TV oriented Young more Internet oriented and showing preference for cell

phones Grandparent and parent Latinos less exposed to

Internet at work, in social networks, i.e. their group habitus, so less favorably disposed to Internet

Less positive, less capable and less likely to use Not as incorporated in lives of parent generation Latinos “People like me” factor

Conclusions: Trajectory of techno-dispositions Impacts of trajectory still stratify young Latinos from

young Non-Hispanic Whites Techno-competencies of Latinos more recently

acquired At school instead of home

Internet less fully integrated into their lives Access to higher education is an important factor

shifting techno-trajectory for the younger generation Those who do reach college are catching up in Internet use In many cases they have introduced the technology to the

household

Policy implications The importance of enhancing the Internet

experience for all Occasional use (something that the literature treats as

dropouts) in fact may reveal deprivation of capabilities and opportunities

Need to promote cyberculture (the view of technology as everyday tool) Promote use in different milieus beyond home and

school (work place, different public spaces) The importance of free use for the process of

appropriation

Initiatives to promote use (beyond access and availability) How people developed skills in certain applications?

Focusing on the goal of Internet use

Should we start to think of Internet use as a sort of literacy skill? And if so, what would be considered to be literate?

Probably being able to perform certain tasks? Or using particular applications?

Policy implications