In this article, we propose a unified research framework for studying the impact of social and digital inequalities on four types of cultural practices: offline art-related practices, offline everyday cultural practices, online art-related practices, and online everyday cultural practices. In contrast to the research traditions that study them separately, we argue that the subject of further research should be the interplay between cultural practices in offline and online domains and that the impact of social and digital inequalities on cultural participation should be studied jointly. Based on empirical evidence from a large-scale research project carried out in nine European countries, we demonstrate the benefits of sidestepping what we see as a strange disconnect between the research traditions studying cultural practices and inequalities in the offline and online spheres separately. The results of our research show that only the inclusion of online and everyday cultural practices in the analysis does justice to the complexity of contemporary cultural participation and its relation to what we refer to as socio-digital inequalities.
AtkinsonW (2021) The Swedish space of lifestyles and symbolic domination. Social Science Information60(1): 63–85.
2.
AtkinsonWMarzecP (2023) The German space of lifestyles: A multidetermined structure. Journal of Consumer Culture23(4): Published online first 5 January 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405221149117.
3.
BatesDMaechlerMBolkerB, et al (2022) Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. Available at: https://github.com/lme4/lme4/ (accessed 5 April 2023).
4.
BennettTSavageMSilvaE, et al (2009) Culture, Class, Distinction. London: Routledge.
5.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJG (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–258.
7.
BressouxP (2008) Modélisation statistique appliquée aux sciences humaines. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
8.
ChanTW (ed.) (2010) Social Status and Cultural Consumption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChanTWGoldthorpeJH (2005) The social stratification of theatre, dance and cinema attendance. Cultural Trends14(3): 193–212.
10.
ChanTWGoldthorpeJH (2007a) Social stratification and cultural consumption: Music in England. European Sociological Review23(1): 1–19.
11.
ChanTWGoldthorpeJH (2007b) Social stratification and cultural consumption: The visual arts in England. Poetics35: 168–190.
12.
ClarkTLipsetSM (1991) Are social classes dying?International Sociology6(4): 397–410.
13.
CottinghamMD (2016) Theorising emotional capital. Theory and Society45: 451–470.
14.
DCMS (2018) Culture is Digital. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
15.
De LeeuwJMeijerE (2008) Introduction to multilevel analysis. In: de LeeuwJMeijerE (eds) Handbook of Multilevel Analysis. New York: Springer, 1–75.
16.
DesmondMEmirbayerM (2015) The Racial Order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
DiMaggioPHargittaiECelesteC, et al (2004) Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In: NeckermanK (ed.) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 355–400.
18.
DiMaggioPHargittaiENeumanRW, et al (2001) Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology27: 307–336.
19.
FlemmenMJarnessVRosenlundL (2018) Social space and cultural class divisions: The forms of capital and contemporary lifestyle differentiation. The British Journal of Sociology69(1): 124–153.
20.
FroyumCM (2010) The reproduction of inequalities through emotional capital: The case of socializing low-income black girls. Qualitative Sociology33: 37–54.
21.
GoldthorpeJHMarshallG (1992) The promising future of class analysis: A response to recent critiques. Sociology26(3): 381–440.
22.
GómezDC (2021) The third digital divide and Bourdieu: Bidirectional conversion of economic, cultural, and social capital to (and from) digital capital among young people in Madrid. New Media & Society23(9): 2534–2553.
23.
GonzalesA (2016) The contemporary US digital divide: From initial access to technology maintenance. Information, Communication & Society19(2): 234–248.
24.
GreenIA (ed.) (2013) Sexual Fields: Toward a Sociology of Collective Sexual Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GruskyDBSorensenJB (1998) Can class analysis be salvaged?American Journal of Sociology103(5): 1187–1234.
26.
GursteinM (2007) What is Community Informatics (and Why Does it Matter)?Milano: Polimetrica.
27.
HakimC (2011) Erotic capital. European Sociological Review26(5): 499–518.
28.
HalfordSSavageM (2010) Reconceptualizing digital social inequality. Information, Communication & Society13(7): 937–955.
HargittaiE (2010) Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the ‘net generation’. Sociological Inquiry80(1): 92–113.
31.
HelsperEJ (2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory22(4): 403–426.
32.
HjellbrekkeJ (2019) Multiple Correspondence Analysis for the Social Sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
33.
Katz-GerroT (2011) Cross-national cultural consumption research: Inspirations and disillusions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie51: 339–360.
34.
KennedyTWellmanBKlementK (2003) Gendering the digital divide. IT & Society1(5): 72–96.
35.
KimJ (2019) Ethnic capital, migration, and citizenship: A Bourdieusian perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies42(3): 357–385.
36.
KuznetsovaABrockhoffPBChristensenRHB, et al (2020) lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Available at: https://github.com/runehaubo/lmerTestR (accessed 5 April 2023).
37.
LeguinaAMiheljSDowneyJ (2021) Public libraries as reserves of cultural and digital capital: Addressing inequality through digitalization. Library and Information Science Research43(3): 101103.
38.
Le RouxBRouanetH (2010) Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
MarcellaRChowdhuryG (2020) Eradicating information poverty: An agenda for research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(2): 366–381.
40.
MiheljSLeguinaADowneyJ (2019) Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide. New Media & Society21(7): 1465–1485.
41.
PakulskiJWatersM (1996) The Death of Class. London: Sage.
42.
PetrićMCvetičaninPTomić-KoludrovićI, et al (forthcoming) Citizens’ perspectives on the impact of social inequalities on cultural participation. In: JanssenSKristensenNNVerboordM (eds) Engagement with Culture in Transformative Times: Mapping the Societal Drivers and Impacts of Cultural Understandings, Practices, Perceptions and Values across Europe. London: Routledge.
43.
PrenskyM (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon9(5): 1–6.
44.
PrieurASavageM (2013) Emerging forms of cultural capital. European Societies15(2): 246–267.
45.
PurhonenSLeguinaAHeikkiläR (2021) The space of media usage in Finland, 2007 and 2018: The impact of online activities on its structure and its association with sociopolitical divisions. Nordicom Review42(3): 111–128.
46.
RagneddaM (2017) The Third Digital Divide. A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. Abingdon: Routledge.
47.
RagneddaM (2018) Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics35(8): 2366–2375.
48.
RagneddaMRuiuMLAddeoF (2020) Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media & Society22(5): 793–816.
49.
SavageM (1994) Class analysis and its futures. Sociological Review42(3): 531–548.
50.
SavageM (2015) Social Class in the 21st Century. London: Pelican.
51.
SavageMDevineFCunninghamN, et al (2013) A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey experiment. Sociology47(2): 219–250.
52.
SnijdersTABBoskerRJ (2003). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage.
53.
StraubhaarJTufekciZSpenceJ, et al (2012) Digital inequity in the Austin technopolis: An introduction. In: StraubhaarJSpenceJTufekciZ, et al (eds) Inequity in the Technopolis: Race, Class, Gender, and the Digital Divide in Austin. Austin: University of Texas, 1–32.
54.
Van DeursenAJAMHelsperEJ (2015) The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online?Communication and Information Technologies Annual10: 29–52.
55.
Van DeursenAJAMVan DijkJAGM (2014) The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society16(3): 507–526.
56.
Van DijkJAGM (2005) The Deepening Divide. Inequality in the Information Society. London: Sage.
57.
Van DijkJAGM (2017) Digital divide: Impact of access. In: RösslerP (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. London: Wiley, 1–11.
58.
Van HekMKraaykampG (2013) Cultural consumption across countries: A multi-level analysis of social inequality in highbrow culture in Europe. Poetics41(4): 323–341.
59.
WacquantL (2019) Bourdieu’s dyad: On the primacy of social space and symbolic power. In: BlasiusJLebaronFLe RouxB, et al (eds), Empirical Investigations of Social Space. Cham: Springer, 15–21.
60.
WrightEO (1997) Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
YeoS (2020) Access now, but for whom and at what cost?Information, Communication & Society23(4): 588–604.
63.
ZillienNHargittaiE (2009) Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly90(2): 274–291.
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.
