Elsevier

Poetics

Volume 58, October 2016, Pages 18-28
Poetics

Unrealized potential: Exploring the digital disability divide

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.08.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • People with disabilities (PWD) are less likely to use the Internet and are less likely to engage in a wide range of activities when online.

  • However, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, PWD are no less likely to engage in any activities online, and are more likely to engage in some.

  • The five activities involve key areas of online production and consumption, such as sharing content, reviewing products and writing reviews.

  • Results show that barriers for PWD going online exist, but the online world may offer a means to adapt to an inaccessible culture and society.

Abstract

While the digital inequality literature has considered differences in the online experiences of many population segments, relatively little work has examined how people with disabilities (PWD) have incorporated digital media into their lives. Based on a national survey of American adults, this paper explores this question through considering both barriers to Internet use and the possibilities the Internet offers PWD. Findings indicate barriers for many PWD to accessing the Internet. Those with five of six types of disabilities measured are considerably less likely to be online than those who are not disabled. People who are deaf or hearing impaired to do not lag in Internet access once we account for demographics, Web use skills, and Internet experiences. However, the study also finds evidence that once online, PWD engage in a range of uses of the Internet as much as people without disability. Moreover, PWD take distinct interest in certain online activities, such as sharing their own content and reviewing products and services, pointing to ways they may go online to adapt and respond to the wider inaccessible society. These findings indicate great potential for the Internet for people with disabilities and suggest that moving more of them online holds the potential for considerable gains among this group.

Introduction

Among the ways in which social inequality plays out in contemporary society, increasing attention is being paid to access and use of digital technologies (see Hargittai & Hsieh, 2013 for a review of related literature). Digital media are viewed as increasingly important resources for participating in a range of domains in today’s world and considerable research has documented how digital inequality plays out across society. Lack of basic access to or skills for exploiting these resources can have important effects on one’s relationships, work life, and overall quality of life (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004). Disability is a major site of diversity and inequality in society, but analysis of it as such has lagged behind that of other social factors when it comes to digital media uses (for exceptions, see Dobransky and Hargittai, 2006, Ellis and Kent, 2011, Goggin and Newell, 2003, Jaeger, 2012, Vicente and López, 2010). Incorporating this variable into investigations of digital inequality is important because, unlike other social statuses, disability is one that most everyone can expect to occupy at some point in their lives (Siebers, 2008).

People with disabilities (PWD) are stigmatized and excluded in many domains of life, with consequences for their health and wealth (Shifrer, 2013; Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013). In addition to being a marginalized status in its own right, disability also tends to overlap with other disadvantaged positions in society, multiplying exclusion. PWD are disproportionately represented among people with lower socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities (Brault, 2012, Warner and Brown, 2011). While digital media have the potential to level the playing field for those with disabilities, relatively little research examines how PWD compare to others in incorporating such resources into their everyday lives. This paper addresses this gap in the literature.

Section snippets

Digital inequality

Digital inequalities map onto other inequalities within society. Thus, those in lower socioeconomic status groups as well as those from racial and ethnic minority groups are less likely to use the Internet than those in more privileged socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups (Bonfadelli, 2002, NTIA, 2013, Robinson et al., 2015, Witte and Mannon, 2010). While there was in the past a gender gap regarding rates of Internet access, that gap has closed in the United States and several other countries

The digital disability divide

When we look more closely at the relationship between disability and the Internet, we see that it is a story of both exclusion and possibility. While PWD face many barriers to taking advantage of the online world, Internet use nonetheless offers many means both to participate in society more fully and to create alternatives to wider exclusion in the world.

Underlying digital exclusion of PWD is the design of technology and the pace of technological change. The most widely-used hardware,

Data and methods

The data for this study come from the U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s 2009 National Consumer Broadband Service Capability Survey (NCBSCS). The survey conducted telephone interviews with a representative sample of 5005 noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. The data set was gathered through a random digit dial (RDD) sample of landline phones and an RDD sample of cell phones. The response rate was 22% for the landline sample and 19% for the cell phone sample (Horrigan, 2010). The survey asked

Digital differentiation by disability status

Table 2 shows differences between people with and without disabilities regarding their use of the Internet, their autonomy, their Web-use skills, and their online activities. We see that significantly fewer PWD use the Internet than do people without disabilities − 48% compared to 80%. Even among those with access, 67% of PWD reported high-speed, broadband connections, compared with 78% of those without disabilities. There were differences in autonomy of use as well, with PWD averaging fewer

Discussion

Findings from a national sample of American adults show that disability continues to matter when it comes to how people are incorporating the Internet into their everyday lives. The findings reveal both problems and possibilities. PWD are less likely to use the Internet, and they are less likely to engage in a range of activities even when they do use it. However, members of this group also tend to be older and from a lower socioeconomic status. Even after controlling for demographic factors,

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to John Horrigan for his work on the original data set and to Jenny Davis for comments on an earlier draft of this article. Eszter Hargittai appreciates the time made available for this research through the April McClain-Delaney and John Delaney Research Professorship at Northwestern University.

Kerry Dobransky (PhD Northwestern Sociology) is Associate Professor of Sociology at James Madison University. His research examines the varying intersections among several subfields: medical sociology, sociology of organizations, sociology of mental health, cultural sociology, health/social policy, and sociology of information and communication technologies. He is author of Managing Madness in the Community: The Challenge of Contemporary Mental Health Care (Rutgers University Press, 2014).

References (57)

  • J.E. Bickenbach

    The ICF and its relationship to disability studies

  • D.L. Blackwell et al.

    Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: national health interview survey 2012, National Center for Health Statistics

    Vital Health Stat.

    (2014)
  • H. Bonfadelli

    The internet and knowledge gaps. A theoretical and empirical investigation

    European Journal of Communication

    (2002)
  • N. Bowker et al.

    Dicing with deception: People with disabilities’ strategies for managing safety and identity online

    Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

    (2003)
  • M.W. Brault

    Americans with disabilities: 2010

    (2012)
  • R. Brewer et al.

    Tell it like it really is: A case of online content creation and sharing among older adult bloggers

    Proceedings of ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI)

    (2016)
  • S.E. Brown

    What is disability culture?

    Disability Studies Quarterly

    (2002)
  • W. Chen

    Internet use, online communication, and ties in Americans’ networks

    Social Science Computer Review

    (2013)
  • P. Conrad et al.

    Internet and the experience of illness

  • S.R. Cotten et al.

    Internet use and depression among retired older adults in the united states: A longitudinal analysis

    Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences

    (2014)
  • P. DiMaggio et al.

    Making money surfing the web? The impact of internet use of US workers

    American Sociological Review

    (2008)
  • P. DiMaggio et al.

    Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use

  • K. Dobransky et al.

    The disability divide in internet access and use

    Information Communication and Society

    (2006)
  • K. Ellis et al.

    Disability and new media

    (2011)
  • G. Farrelly

    Practitioner barriers to diffusion and implementation of web accessibility

    Technology and Disability

    (2011)
  • S. Fox et al.

    Disability in the digital age

    (2012)
  • R. Galvin

    The paradox of disability culture: The need to combine versus the imperative to let go

    Disability and Society

    (2003)
  • G. Goggin et al.

    Digital disability: The social construction of disability in new media

    (2003)
  • Cited by (134)

    • Socioeconomic or marital status? Factors driving digital inequality among single and married mothers – findings of a repeated cross-sectional study, 2014–2019

      2022, Poetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      E-government services are also considered as capital-enhancing Internet use as they offer substantial benefits to citizens, such as ubiquitous and less costly access to government services, which saves time and contributes to individuals' economic resources (Dodel, 2016). In the last two decades many studies have sought to clarify whether the Internet uses utilized by disadvantaged groups enhance their social mobility (Arie & Mesch, 2016; Mesch, Mano & Tsamir, 2012; Milioni, Doudaki & Demertzis, 2014; Rosenberg, Mano & Mesch, 2021) or extend existing social inequalities (Helsper, 2012; Helsper & Reisdorf, 2017), and whether digital inequalities are disappearing, persisting, or (re)emerging over time (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2016; Lissitsa & Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2015). In considering these issues, the social diversification and social stratification hypotheses present two different scenarios.

    • Disability and Digital Connection in COVID-19 Times

      2024, International Journal of Communication
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Kerry Dobransky (PhD Northwestern Sociology) is Associate Professor of Sociology at James Madison University. His research examines the varying intersections among several subfields: medical sociology, sociology of organizations, sociology of mental health, cultural sociology, health/social policy, and sociology of information and communication technologies. He is author of Managing Madness in the Community: The Challenge of Contemporary Mental Health Care (Rutgers University Press, 2014).

    Eszter Hargittai (PhD Princeton Sociology) is Professor in the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research at the University of Zurich where she heads the Media Use and Society division and directs the Web Use Project. She is also Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. Hargittai's research looks at how people may benefit from their digital media uses with a particular focus on how differences in people’s Web‐use skills influence what they do online. She is co-editor (with Christian Sandvig) of Digital Research Confidential: The Secrets of Studying Behavior Online (The MIT Press, 2015).

    View full text