The authors analyze the understudied relationship between social class and Internet-in-practice in the Spanish social space in order to develop a social theory of Internet use based on the concepts of scale of consumption, technological, social, and information linkage needs of individuals, and Bourdieu’s suggested homology between the social and consumption spaces. The authors test their theory with interdependence methods of analysis, which are suitable methodological instrument for relating Internet uses to social structure through the concepts of scale and linkage needs. The authors’ theory suggests that, since Internet uses are socially structured, the first-level digital divide may be reduced but will not disappear, and Internet uses will continue to differ (second-level digital divide). The theory not only explains Spaniards’ Internet use and more recent empirical findings but also proposes answers to critical contemporary social questions regarding the use of digital technologies and the digital inequality debate.
AmbrogiF.BiganzoliE.BoracchiP. (2005). Multiple correspondence analysis in S-PLUS. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 79, 161–167.
2.
AndersonB.TraceyK. (2001). Digital living. The impact (or otherwise) of the Internet in everyday life. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 456–475.
3.
AslanidouS.MenexesG. (2008). Youth and the Internet: Uses and practices in the home. Computers & Education, 51, 1375–1391.
4.
BlasiusJ. J.FriedrichsJ. (2008). Lifestyles in distressed neighborhoods. A test of Bourdsieu’s “taste of necessity” hypothesis. Poetics, 36, 24–44.
5.
BourdieuP. (1986/1983). Forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
6.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London, UK: Routledge.[first published in Paris: Editions Minuit, 1979]
7.
BourdieuP. (1989). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BucyE. P. (2000). Social access to the Internet. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5, 50–61.
9.
ChatmanJ. (1991). Life in a small world: Applicability of gratification theory to information-seeking behaviour. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 438–449.
10.
DennisN.HenriquesF.SlaughterC. (1969). Coal is our life. London, UK: Tavistock.
11.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
12.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.NeumanW.RobinsonJ. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.
13.
DouglasM.IsherwoodB. (1979). The world of goods. New York, NY: Basic Books.
14.
FranzenA. (2003). Social capital and the Internet: Evidence from Swiss panel data. KYLOS, 56, 341–360.
15.
GiddensA. (1973). The class structure of the advanced societies. London, UK: Hutchinson.
16.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
17.
GifiA. (1981). Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Leiden, Netherlands: University of Leiden.
18.
GoldfarbA.PrinceJ. (2008). Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: Implications for the digital divide. Information Economics and Policy, 20, 2–15.
19.
GoldthorpeJ. H.LockwoodD. (1963). Affluence and the British class structure. Sociological Review, 11, 133–163.
20.
GreenacreM. J. (1993). Correspondence analysis in practice. London, UK: Academic Press.
21.
GreenacreM. J. (1994). Multiple and joint correspondence analysis. In GreenacreM. J.BlasiusJ. (Eds.), Correspondence analysis in the social sciences (pp. 141–161). London, UK: Academic Press.
22.
GreenacreM. J.BlasiusJ. (Eds.). (1994). Correspondence analysis in the social sciences. London, UK: Academic Press.
23.
HamptonK. (2001). Living the wired life in the wired suburb: Netville, globalization, and civic society (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.
24.
INE. (2007). Encuesta sobre equipamiento y uso de tecnologías de información y comunicación en los hogares (TIC-H-2007). Informe metodológico [Survey on equipment and the use of information and communication technologies in households (TIC-H-2007)]. Retrieved January 15, 2009, fromhttp://www.ine.es/metodologia/t25/t25304506607.pdf.
25.
JacksonJ. E. (1991). A user’s guide to principal components. New York, NY: John Wiley.
26.
JolliffeI. (2002). Principal component analysis. (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Springer.
27.
KokuE.NanzerN.WellmanB. (2001). Netting scholars: Online and offline. American Behavioural Scientist, 44, 1750–1772.
28.
KrautR.KieslerS.BonevaB.CummingsJ.HelgesonV.CrawfordA. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
29.
KrautR.PattersonM.LundmarkV.KieslerS.MukopadhyayT.ScherlisW. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.
30.
Le RouxB.RouanetH. (2004). Geometric data analysis. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
31.
LebartL.MorineauA.WarwickK. M. (1984). Multivariate descriptive statistical analysis: Correspondence analysis and related techniques for large matrices. New York, NY: John Willey.
32.
MengerP. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 541–574.
33.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.StansburyM. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34.
NieN. H.ErbringL. (2002). Internet and society: A preliminary report. IT & Society, 1, 275–283.
35.
NishisatoS. (1980). Analysis of categorical data: Dual scaling and its applications. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
36.
NishisatoS. (1994). Elements of dual scaling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
NottenN.PeterJ.KraaykampG.ValkenburgP. M. (2009). Research note: Digital divide across borders—A cross-national study of adolescents' use of digital technologies. European Sociological Review, 25, 551–560.
38.
OrlikowskiW. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404–428.
39.
PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2006). Adolescents' Internet use: Testing the “disappearing digital divide” versus the “emerging digital differentiation” approach’. Poetics, 34, 293–305.
40.
R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.R-project.org.
41.
RobinsonL. (2009). A taste for the necessary—A Bourdieuian approach to digital inequality. Information, Communication & Society, 12, 488.
42.
RouanetH.AckermannW.Le RouxB. (2004). The geometric analysis of questionnaires: The lesson of Bourdieu’s “La Distinction.”. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 65, 5–15.
43.
SelwynN. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media Society, 6, 341–362.
44.
TichenorP.DonohueG.OlienC. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 159–170.
45.
van DijkJ. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
van DijkJ.HackerK. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326.
47.
VenablesW. N.RipleyB. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
48.
WarschauerM. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
WellmanB.Quan HaaseA.WitteJ.HamptonK. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436–455.
50.
WolffH. G.MoserK. (2009). Effects of networking on career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 196–206.
51.
ZillienN.HargittaiE. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 274–291.
52.
ZillienN.JäckelM. (2007). Digital inequalities: Not just a passing phenomenon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved December 12, 2008, fromhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p169121_index.html.
