How do physical digital inequalities persist as technology becomes commonplace? We consider this question using surveys and focus groups with U.S. college students, a group that has better than average connectivity. Findings from a 748-person nonrepresentative survey revealed that ownership and use of cellphones and laptops were nearly universal. However, roughly 20% of respondents had difficulty maintaining access to technology (e.g., broken hardware, data limits, connectivity problems, etc.). Students of lower socioeconomic status and students of color disproportionately experienced hardships, and reliance on poorly functioning laptops was associated with lower grade point averages. Focus group and open-ended data elaborate these findings. Findings quantitatively validate the technology maintenance construct, which proposes that as access to information and communication technology peaks, the digital divide is increasingly characterized by the (in)ability to maintain access. Data highlight overlooked nuances in digital access that may inform social disparities and the policies that may mitigate them.
ArmstrongE. A.HamiltonL. T. (2013). Paying for the party. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
ArumR.RoksaJ. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BarterC.RenoldE. (2000). “I want to tell you a story”: Exploring the application of vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 307-323. doi:10.1080/13645570050178594
4.
BlumbergS. J.LukeJ. V. (2015). Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July–December 2012. National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201512.pdf
5.
BozickR. (2007). Making it through the first year of college: The role of students’ economic resources, employment, and living arrangements. Sociology of Education, 80, 261-284. doi:10.1177/003804070708000304
6.
CalarcoJ. M. (2014). Coached for the classroom: Parents’ cultural transmission and children’s reproduction of educational inequalities. American Sociological Review, 79, 1015-1037. doi:10.1177/0003122414546931
7.
CottenS. R.JelenewiczS. M. (2006). A disappearing digital divide among college students? Peeling away the layers of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 497-506. doi.org/10.1177/0894439306286852
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
GilbertM. R. (2010). Theorizing digital divides and urban inequalities: Critical geographies of “race,” gender, and technological capital. Information, Communication & Society, 13, 1000-1018. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2010.499954
12.
Goldrick-RabS. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
GonzalesA. L. (2014). Health benefits and barriers to cell phone use in low-income U.S. neighborhoods: Indications of technology maintenance. Mobile Media & Communication, 2, 233-248. doi:10.1177/2050157914530297
14.
GonzalesA. L. (2016). The contemporary US digital divide: From initial access to technology maintenance. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 234-248. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050438
15.
GonzalesA. L.EmsL.SuriR. (2016). Cell phone disconnection disrupts access to healthcare and health resources: A technology maintenance perspective. New Media & Society, 18, 1422-1438. doi:10.1177/1461444814558670
16.
GrahamS.ThriftN. (2007). Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory, Culture, & Society, 24, 1-25. doi:10.1177/0263276407075954
17.
HamblenM. (2014). Smartphone prices are dropping, and will continue to dip through ‘18. Computerworld. Retrieved from http://ow.ly/ywX33050Gn3
18.
HamidS.WaycottJ.KurniaS.ChangS. T. (2015). Understanding students’ perceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.004
HargittaiE. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation.”Sociological Inquiry, 80, 92-113. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x
21.
HargittaiE.HinnantA. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35, 602-621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782
22.
HassaniS. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics, 34, 250-272. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.007
23.
HillR. F. (2012). Still digitally divided? An assessment of historically Black college and university library web sites. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38, 6-12. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2011.11.002
24.
HorstH. A.MillerD. (2006). The cell phone: An anthropology of communication. New York, NY: Berg.
25.
JackA. A. (2016). (No) harm in asking: Class, acquired cultural capital, and academic engagement at an elite university. Sociology of Education, 89, 1-19. doi:10.1177/0038040715614913
26.
JuncoR.CottenS. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505-514. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
KuhG. D.CruceT. M.ShoupR.KinzieJ.GonyeaR. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540-563.
29.
LareauA.ConleyD. (2008). Social class: How does it work?New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
LeeS.-M. (2014). The relationships between higher order thinking skills, cognitive density, and social presence in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 41-52. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.12.002
31.
LenhartA.HorriganJ. B. (2003). Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT & Society, 1, 23-39.
32.
LeppA.BarkleyJ. E.KarpinskiA. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049
33.
LewinR. (2009). The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
LingR.DonnerJ. (2009). Mobile communication. Malden, MA: Polity.
35.
LivingstoneS.HelsperE. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9, 671-696. doi:10.1177/1461444807080335
36.
MakkiT. W.O’NealL. J.CottenS. R.RikardR. V. (2018). When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second-and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education, 120, 90-97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.005
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.HamiltonA. (2012). Measuring digital citizenship: Mobile access and broadband. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2492-2528.
40.
NorrisP. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
PascarellaE.PiersonC. T.WolniakG. C.TerenziniP. T. (2004). First generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249-284. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0016
42.
PaulsenM. B, & StJohnE. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 189-236.
PowellA.BryneA.DaileyD. (2010). The essential internet: Digital exclusion in low-income American communities. Policy & Internet, 2, 159-190. doi:10.2202/1944-2866.1058
45.
RagneddaM.MuschertG. W. (2013). The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
RideoutV. J.KatzV.S. (2016). Opportunity for all? Technology and learning in lower-income families. A report of the Families and Media Project. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
47.
RobinsonL. (2014). Endowed, entrepreneurial, and empowered-strivers: Doing a lot with a lot, doing a lot with a little. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 521-536. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.770049
48.
RobinsonL.CottenS.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.SternM. (2015). Digital inclusion and why it matters. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 569-582. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
49.
RobinsonL.SchulzJ. (2013). Net time negotiations within the family. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 542-560.
50.
SamahaM.HawiN. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 321-325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.045
51.
SelwynN. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6, 341-362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519
52.
ShoemakerP. J.TankardJ. W.Jr.LasorsaD. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. SAGE.
TischlederB. B.WassermanS. (2015). Cultures of obsolescence: History, materiality, and the digital age. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
55.
UretaS. (2008). Mobilizing poverty? Mobile phone use and everyday spatial mobility among low-income families in Santiago, Chile. The Information Society, 24, 83-92. doi:10.1080/01972240701883930
56.
van DeursenA. J. A. M.HelsperE. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In RobinsonL.CottonS. R.SchulzJ.HaleT. M.WilliamsA. (Eds.), Studies in Media and Communications, Vol. 10: Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29-52). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
57.
van DeursenA. J. A. M.Van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16, 507-526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959
58.
van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59.
van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements, and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
60.
WarschauerM.ZhengB.NiiyaM.CottenS.FarkasG. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47, 46-62. doi:10.1080/10665684.2014.866871
61.
WaycottJ.BennettS.KennedyG.DalgarnoB.GrayK. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 54, 1202-1211. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.006
62.
ZillienN.HargittaiE. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 274-291. doi:10.1111/j.15406237.2009.00617.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
