Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 133–149 | Cite as

Aligning digital and social inclusion: A study of disadvantaged students and computer access



In this paper we discuss the notion of the digital divide and link it with recent policy designed to promote social inclusion in a project that addressed both issues. Families in low socio economic areas of Australia were given computers and Internet access as part of a project that had as its primary aim to support the participation of disadvantaged families in digital activities at home and in schools. The authors collected data over a period of 3 years that included, pre and post surveys with parents and students, interviews with program facilitators, and focus groups with parents. This paper focuses on selected themes that emerged from the interview and focus group data with the parents and explores the ways in which they perceived having the computer had impacted on their lives and those of their school aged children. This data (surveys, interviews and focus groups) reveals that all family members felt that the ownership of a computer enabled them to feel more confident about their active participation in everyday educational, social and community activities. Parents, teachers and students also reported that owning a computer was important to their lives yet they were not naïve to the fact that they still had a lot to learn in terms of using all the options available to them on the computer. Students noted the increased ease with which they could complete school work and communicate with friends in online contexts and outlined some of the ways in which they used the computer for leisure activities. Parents highlighted the increase in their own digital skill levels and described the ways in which their lives had benefitted from having a computer in the home. Problems associated with connectivity at the beginning of the project, the quality of the machines and inadequate initial training were listed as drawbacks to greater participation. The project represents one attempt to address the digital divide and illustrates how going beyond the dichotomy of a ‘haves’ v ‘have nots’ view of the digital divide is necessary if we want to promote social inclusion.


Digital divide New technologies Social inclusion 


  1. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2007). Media & communications in Australian families.
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction, A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Corrin, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2011). The life of a ‘digital native’. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), ED-MEDIA 2011: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 2942–2951). Chesapeake: AACE.Google Scholar
  5. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2009). A stronger, fairer Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.Google Scholar
  6. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E. C., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2001). From unequal access to differentiated use: a literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Available:
  7. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for grounded research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  9. Gore, A. (1998). Remarks by the Vice President Al Gore. Digital divide event. April 28 1998 .
  10. Helsper, E. J. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Department for Communities and Local Government.…/pdf/digitalinclusionanalysis.
  11. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next generation. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  12. Janesick, V. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Kaiser Family Foundation. (1999). Kids and media @ the new millennium.
  14. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational research: An integrated approach. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Kvasny, L., & Keil, M. (2005). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: A tale of two US cities. Information Systems Journal, 16(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2005). EU kids online: Summary of main findings. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  18. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A., & Olafsson, with members of the EU Online Network. (2011). EU kids online. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  19. MacArthur Foundation. (2010). Building the field for digital media and learning.…/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF.
  20. Rideout. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation.
  21. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2 media in the lives of 8 to 18 year olds. The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation Retrieved from
  22. Romeo, G. I., & Russell, G. (2010). Why “what works” is not enough for ICT in education research. In A. McDougall (Ed.), Researching IT in education: Theory, practice and future directions. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7). Pdf file from
  25. Warschauer, M. (2003). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 289(2), 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yelland, N. J. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Yelland, N. J. (2011, March). Rethinking the digital divide: moving beyond the haves v have nots to the consumers v creators. Paper presented at Technology, Knowledge and Society, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar
  28. Yelland, N. J., & Neal, G. (2010). Diversity, multiplicity and childhoods. In G. Cannella & L. De Soto (Eds.), Childhoods: A handbook (pp. 174–189). NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria University, School of EducationMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations