The disability divide in internet access and use

Abstract

The increasing spread of the Internet holds much potential for enhancing opportunities for people with disabilities. However, scarce evidence exists to suggest that people with disabilities are, in fact, participating in these new developments. Will the spread of information technologies (IT) increase equality by offering opportunities for people with disabilities? Or will a growing reliance on IT lead to more inequality by leaving behind certain portions of the population including people with disabilities? In this paper, we draw on nationally representative data about Americans' Internet uses to (1) identify the extent to which people with disabilities are embracing use of the Internet; (2) how their use of the Internet compares to the Internet uses of the rest of the population; (3) how having a disability relates to and interacts with other social statuses (e.g. socio-economic status, age, gender) with regard to Internet use; and (4) what explains these trends. We draw on representative data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census of the United States to answer these questions. We find that people with disabilities are less likely to live in households with computers, are less likely to use computers and are less likely to be online. However, once we control for socio-economic background, we find that people with hearing disabilities and those who have limited walking ability are not less likely to be Internet users. Our research enables a deeper understanding of both the use of the Internet by people with disabilities and the spread of new IT more generally.

Let’s talk about sex: How people with intellectual disability in Australia engage with online social media and intimate relationships

“…What is evident from the participants in this study is that they are actively engaged online using internet based social media messaging service on various personal electronic devices to communicate with known friends and peers through old school friends and work colleagues. This finding addresses the concerns raised by Batey and Waine, (2015); D'Aubin, (2007); Dobransky and Hargittai, (2006);Jaeger, (2012) that people with intellectual disability are stigmatised and isolated. Findings suggest that people with intellectual disability, when they were are able to access personal electronic devices with internet based social media applications, are socially active by arranging to meet up with their known peers for outings.…”

“…Discourse around the notion of the existence of a 'digital divide', Chadwick et al (2013) point out that it is not known how many people with intellectual disability access internet based social media. It is anticipated that the benefits for people with intellectual disability (as with all users) of connecting with others include reduced isolation and stigma, and development of social relationships that underpin and facilitate an understanding of their sexuality (Batey & Waine, 2015;D'Aubin, 2007;Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006;Jaeger, 2012).…”

Senior citizens and Internet technology

“…As the proportion of women increases within higher age groups, average Internet versatility perhaps may decrease with age, although age is not the causal explanation; gendered and historically specific socialisation effects may crystallize with respect to age differences in Internet use. What is more, individual characteristics like education and labour force participation may explain part of the observed correlation with age Dobransky and Hargittai 2006). Thus far, a connection between aging effects and compounding effects of gender and socioeconomic background is pending explanation with regard to Internet use.…”

Rethinking universal accessibility: a broader approach considering the digital gap

“…For instance, immigrants often have less access to ICTs than other citizens due to a range of language and cultural differences. People with disabilities belonging to these communities usually also find economic and linguistic restrictions in addition to accessibility barriers (see [3]). …”