Presented by Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics, at the Social Digital Research Symposium (13th September 2012)

1. The Long Tail of Digital Exclusion:
Narrow, Proxy and Non-Users
Ellen J. Helsper, London School of Economics
Social Digital Research Symposium #3
Based on a collaborative project with
Sergio Godoy-Etcheverry, UC School of Communications
Funded by the conference board
The Linked World Book available at:
http://fi3p.eu/assets/pdf/Research%20report_The%20Linked%20World.pdf

2. Who uses by proxy?
ex-user proxy
About 4 in 5 non-users have a proxy user
5%
available
ex-user no
never-user proxy proxy
15%
1 in 5 have used proxy users in the last year
22%
(1 in 3 out of those who have one available)
never-user no
proxy
Who are these proxy users? 58%
Source: OxIS 2011
Base: Non-users who have proxy user available N=373

3. Who are the proxies
100
80
% used as proxy
60 57
40
26
20 14 16 17
3 3 4
0
Base: Proxy users N=102

4. Inequality by proxy?
100%
Seconday Further Higher
100%
80%
Source: OxIS 2011
80% Base: Non-users who have proxy user available N=373
% that used proxy
60% 54% 59% 58%
60% 50%
44%
40% 36%
40%
27%
24% 25% 23%
20% 20% 15% 16% 16%
12% 12% 12%
2% 2% 3% 3%
0%
0%
0%
Internet Library Colleague Parent Sibling Partner Friend Child
Under 25 26 thru 40 41 thru 55 56 thru 65 Over 65
caf

5. Social pressures/facilitators of
engagement
 Men and women felt missing the boat if they did not belong to
professional and social networks enabling them to engage with ICTs.
 All groups believed technology was inevitable, and that youngsters with
low digital and traditional literacy levels would be excluded.
 In the UK many regarded engagement not as a free and positive choice.
 The need to ask others for help created a strong feeling of exclusion even
within the family
 Mothers talked about digital exclusion/inclusion in relation to their
children (homework , future jobs) while fathers expressed a wider
repertoire of topics.
 For parent users, children were a powerful driver for ICT access. Children
were regarded as the more proficient in both countries, yet they were
poor trainers and their less proficient parents felt ashamed and irritated
by this.
Source Helsper & Godoy (2011) 5

6. A specific case of proxy use…
ARE CHILDREN GOOD FOR
PARENTS? With Rebecca Eynon (OII)

7. Economic
circumstances
household
Access
Socio-cultural
background Use , experience
and skill
Children
Base. OxIS 2011, Internet Users N=1,498

8. Parent and child characteristics and parental
internet use
Parent’s →
Self-efficacy Frequency Locations
Age parent -0.05 -0.02 -0.06
Education parent 0.14** 0.02 0.19**
Household SES -0.01 -0.02 0.20**
Age child 0.04 -0.06 -0.05
Comparative self-efficacy child -0.19** -0.12** 0.05
Ego centric self-efficacy child 0.05 0.09* 0.08
Skills child 0.01 0.06 0.06
Frequency use parent 0.38** 0.17**
Access points parent 0.17** 0.17**
Digital self-efficacy parent 0.41** 0.18**

9. Summary: Children as proxies
Presence of children in the household:
– Has an influence on quality of Internet access and
basic use of the Internet
– has no impact on adult levels of self-efficacy / skill
– has an influence in the uptake of Internet uses
beneficial to children
“Usual suspects” are still more important than
the child:
– age, education, gender, SES, self-efficacy