Skip to main content

The emergence of next generation internet users

Abstract

The Internet is central to the new media, but the Internet is itself a dynamic technology that is constantly evolving as users adopt and reject new features, devices and applications and use them in ways that are often unanticipated. This article is anchored in longitudinal survey data on how Britons use the Internet, which illuminates the emergence of new patterns of accessing the Internet over multiple devices—some of which are portable—in everyday life and work. We call those who adopt this new approach ‘next generation users’. In contrast, first generation users remain anchored to one or more personal computers in the household or workplace for accessing the Internet. The analysis shows how this emerging pattern of access is reshaping the use and impact of the Internet, such as in supporting the production of user generated content. The analysis also shows how next generation access is socially distributed; creating a new digital divide that reinforces socioeconomic inequalities. Future research needs to move beyond the study of access to the Internet to track the diffusion of next generation access and its implications across a wider array of nations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    The case for viewing Lessig’s argument as technologically determinist is developed by Mayer-Schönberger (2008).

  2. 2.

    These correspond to common stages in the adoption of an innovation, from adoption to implementation to routinization (Rogers 1962).

  3. 3.

    For a more complete overview of the OxIS methodology, see: http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/oxis/methodology

  4. 4.

    Using response rate formula RR1 defined by the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (AAPOR) (2011:44).

  5. 5.

    For a more detailed description of the sample and methodology see Dutton and Blank (2011).

  6. 6.

    For example, Wei’s (2001) study of mobile phones.

  7. 7.

    The four applications are: browsing the Internet, using email, updating a social networking site, or finding directions.

  8. 8.

    Interestingly, education does not have a zero-order effect on being a Next Generation User. See below for the effect in a multivariate model.

  9. 9.

    The variables are defined as age, a continuous variable ranging from 14–92 years; income, an 8 category variable; higher education degree, a dummy variable indicating whether or not a respondent has a higher education degree; gender, a dummy variable using males as the comparison group; retired, a dummy variable indicating retired people; use the Internet at work, a dummy variable indicating if the respondent uses the Internet in their job; and married, a dummy variable indicating the respondent is married. We also tried a variable measuring urban–rural residence but it was not statistically significant. For several variables in the model we tried numerous specifications. For marital status the full variable had five categories, but only the ‘married’ category was statistically significant. Similarly, for education only the higher education category was significant, and for ‘life stage’ only ‘retired’ was significant.

  10. 10.

    Strength is measured by the size of the odds ratio. With an odds ratio of only 0.33, retired respondents are the most important variable in the regression. Similarly, having a higher education degree and using the Internet at work both have odds ratios near 1.50, making them the second most important variables in the regression.

  11. 11.

    Note, however, that when we substituted a direct measure of occupation in this model it was not statistically significant.

  12. 12.

    Information about the World Internet Project (WIP) and other national samples can be found online at: http://www.worldinternetproject.net/#news

References

  1. American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (2011) Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 7th edition. http://www.aapor.org/Standard_Definitions/3049.htm. Accessed 2 September 2011

  2. Blank G, Dutton WH (2011) Age and trust in the internet: The centrality of experience and attitudes toward technology in Britain, Social Science Computer Review: http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/21/0894439310396186. Accessed 23 August 2013

  3. Danziger JN et al (1982) Computers and politics: High technology in american local governments. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dutton WH (1999) Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dutton WH (2005) The internet and social transformation: Reconfiguring access. In: Dutton WH, Kahin B, O’Callaghan R, Wyckoff AW (eds) Transforming enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 375–397

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dutton WH, Shepherd A (2006) Trust in the Internet as an experience technology. Information, Communication and Society 9(4):433–451

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dutton WH, Blank G (2011) Next generation users: The Internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2011. Oxford Internet Institute: University of Oxford

  8. Haddon L (2006) The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. Inform Soc 22:195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haddon L (2007) Roger Silverstone’s legacies: domestication. New Media Soc 9:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haddon L (2011) Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Can J Comm 36:311–323

    Google Scholar 

  11. King R (2012) Great PC exodus on the Internet. ZDNet. Posted 29 October 2012. http://www.zdnet.com/idc-were-in-the-midst-of-the-great-pc-exodus-on-the-internet-7000006532/. Accessed 23 November 2012

  12. Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Livingstone S (1992) The meaning of domestic technologies: A personal construct analysis of familial gender relations. In: Silverstone R, Hirsch E (eds) Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. Routledge, London, pp 113–130

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayer-Schönberger V (2008) Demystifying Lessig. Wis Law Rev 4:713–746

    Google Scholar 

  15. Perlow J (2012) Post-PC means mass extinction for personal computer OEMs. ZDNet. Posted 31 May 2012. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/post-pc-era-means-mass-extinction-for-personal-computer-oems/20514. Accessed 23 November 2012

  16. Punie Y (1997) Rejections of ICT in Flemish households. The why-not question. In: Silverstone R, Hartmann M (eds) EMTEL working paper no. 3. Media and Information technology: Regulating markets & everyday life. University of Sussex, Brighton, pp 46–72

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Silverstone R (1996) Future imperfect: Information and communication technologies in everyday life. In: Dutton WH (ed) Information and communication technologies – Visions and realities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 217–231

    Google Scholar 

  19. Silverstone R (2005) Introduction. In: Silverstone R (ed) Media, technology and everyday life in Europe. Ashgate Press, Aldershot, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  20. Silverstone R (2006) Domesticating domestication: Reflections on the life of a concept. In: Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (eds) Domestication of media and technology. Open University Press, Berkshire, pp 229–248

    Google Scholar 

  21. Silverstone R, Hirsch E, Morley D (1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In: Silverstone R, Hirsch E (eds) Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. Routledge, London, pp 15–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Wei R (2001) From luxury to utility: a longitudinal analysis of cell phone laggards. Journalism Mass Comm Q 78:702–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Poland WIP (2011) World Internet Project Poland 2011. Agora S.A. and TP Group, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zittrain J (2008) The future of the internet and how to stop it. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William H. Dutton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dutton, W.H., Blank, G. The emergence of next generation internet users. Int Econ Econ Policy 11, 29–47 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-013-0245-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mobile Phone
  • Mobile Device
  • Social Networking Site
  • Internet User
  • Smart Phone