Methodology for regional assessment of the third level digital inequality

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-43-57

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Olga Yu. Chereshnia

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: chereshnia.o@geogr.msu.ru

Marina V. Gribok

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: gribok.marina@gmail.com

Abstract

The article describes and analyzes the three levels of digital inequality in society currently identified, and examines the world experience of their assessment. It is shown that the third level of digital inequality is the most difficult for research. It represents an uneven distribution of opportunities for obtaining important results in real life (employment, education, participation in political life, etc.) through the use of modern technologies. The authors have developed a methodology for the regional quantitative assessment of third-level digital inequality by analyzing the popularity of Google search query topics related to three categories: “Everyday services and services”, “Education, science and technology”, “Entertainment”. These categories are highlighted as markers for evaluating the effectiveness of Internet use by the population. At the same time, an increased search interest in entertainment indicates a lower efficiency of Internet use, and a higher interest in services and education. The indexes of popularity of search queries for each of the categories are calculated and then, based on them, an integral index of the efficiency of Internet use in the regions of Russia is calculated. Statistical data for the study were collected using the Google Trends service for 2016–2020. All calculated indicators are presented on maps, their territorial features are identified and described. The lowest level of Internet use efficiency is observed in the regions of the North Caucasus, and the highest is in the Republics of Tatarstan and Sakha (Yakutia), as well as in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Keywords

digital inequality, digital economy, regions of Russia, Google Trends

References

  1. Avraamova E.A., Vershinskaya O.N. Home computer as a resource for socio-economic adaptation. Information society. 2001. No. 5. P. 44–49 (in Russian).
  2. Boyd D., Crawford K. Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 2012. V. 15 No. 5. P. 662–679. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878.
  3. Cross-cultural psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 646 p. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511974274.
  4. Drori G.S. Globalization and technology divides: Bifurcation of policy between the “digital divide” and the “innovation divide”. Sociological Inquiry, 2010. V. 80 No. 1. P. 63–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00316.x.
  5. Du H., Zhou N., Cao H., Zhang J., Chen A., King R.B. Economic Inequality is Associated with Lower Internet Use: A Nationally Representative Study. Social Indicators Research, 2021. V. 155 (3). P. 789–803. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02632-8.
  6. Gladkova A., Vartanova E., Ragnedda M. Digital divide and digital capital in multiethnic Russian society. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2020. V. 15 No. 2. P. 126–147. DOI: 10.1080/17447143.2020.1745212.
  7. Granka L. Using online search traffic to predict US presidential elections. PS: Political Science & Politics, 2013. V. 46. No. 2. P. 271–279.
  8. Hargittai E., Hinnant A. Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 2008. V. 35. No. 5. P. 602–621. DOI: 10.1177/0093650208321782.
  9. Hargittai E., Hsieh Y.P. Digital inequality. The Oxford handbook of Internet studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 129–150. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0007.
  10. Hoffman D.L., Novak T.P. Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet. Science, 1998. V. 280. No. 5362. P. 390–391. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5362.390.
  11. Latzer M., Büchi M., Just N. Internetverbreitung und digitale Bruchlinien in der Schweiz [Internet diffusion and digital divides in Switzerland]. World Internet Project—Switzerland 2015 Report, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2015.
  12. Latzer M., Just N., Metreveli S., Saurwein F. Internetverbreitung und digitale Bruchlinien in der Schweiz [Internet diffusion and digital divides in Switzerland]. World Internet Project—Switzerland 2011 Report, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2012.
  13. Latzer M., Just N., Metreveli S., Saurwein F. Internetverbreitung und digitale Bruchlinien in der Schweiz [Internet diffusion and digital divides in Switzerland]. World Internet Project—Switzerland 2013 Report, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2013.
  14. McCallum M.L., Bury G.W. Public interest in the environment is falling: a response to Ficetola (2013). Biodiversity and Conservation, 2014. No. 23. P. 1057–1062. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0640-7.
  15. Norris P. Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. XV. 303 p.
  16. Peter J., Valkenburg P.M. Adolescents’ Internet use: Testing the “disappearing digital divide” versus the “emerging digital differentiation” approach. Poetics, 2006. No. 34 (4–5), P. 293–305. DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.005.
  17. Robinson L., Cotten S.R., Ono H., Quan-Haase A., Mesch G., Chen W., Schulz J. Hale T.M., Stern M.J. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 2015. V. 18. No. 5. P. 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2015.1012532.
  18. Strover S. Rural Internet Connectivity. Columbia, MO: Rural Policy Research Institute, 1999, P. 99–113.
  19. Sulyok M., Ferenci T. Walker M. Google Trends Data and COVID-19 in Europe: Correlations and model enhancement are European wide. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 2021. V. 68. No. 4. P. 2610–2615. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13887.
  20. Tikunov V.S. Modeling in cartography. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1997. 405 p. (in Russian).
  21. Tsetsi E., Reins S.A. Smartphone Internet access and use: Extending the digital divide and usage gap. Mobile Media & Communication, 2017. V. 5. No. 3. P. 239–255. DOI: 10.1177/2050157917708329.
  22. Van Dijk J. The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. Digital enlightenment yearbook. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 2012. P. 57–75. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-057-4-57.
  23. Van Deursen A.J., Helsper E.J. Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 2018. V. 20. Issue 7. P. 2333–2351. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817715282.
  24. Van Deursen A.J., Helsper E.J. The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? Communication and information technologies annual. Emerald: Bingley, 2015. No. 10. P. 29–52. DOI: 10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.
  25. Van Dijk J. The Digital Divide. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. 2020. 208 p.
  26. Wilhelm A.G., Thierer A.D. Should Americans be Concerned about the Digital Divide? Insight on the News, 2000. V. 16 (33).
  27. Witte J.C., Mannon S.E. The Internet and Social Inequalities. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. 192 p.
  28. Yudina M.A. The impact of digitalization on social inequality. Living standards of the population of regions of Russia. 2020. V. 16. No. 1. P. 97–108 (in Russian). DOI: 10.19181/lsprr.2020.16.1.10.
  29. Yurevich M.A., Akhmadeev D.R. Possibilities of predicting the level of unemployment based on the analysis of query statistics (in search engines). Terra Economicus, 2021. V. 19. No. 3. P. 53–64 (in Russian).
  30. Zillien N., Hargittai E. Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 2009. V. 90. Issue 2. P. 274–291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x
  31. Zillien N. Digitale Ungleichheit: Neue Technologien und alte Ungleichheiten in der Informations-und Wissensgesellschaft [Digital inequality: new technologies and old inequalities in the information and knowledge society]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s11616-007-0142-7.

For citation: Chereshnia O.Yu., Gribok M.V. Methodology for regional assessment of the third level digital inequality. InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2022. V. 28. Part 1. P. 43–57. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-43-57 (in Russian)