A Capabilities Approach to Digital Inequalities Rethinking Differentiated Internet Use among Latinos

1. University of Texas at Austin A Capabilities Approach to Digital InequalitiesRethinking Differentiated Internet Use among Latinos By Martha Fuentes-Bautista, Joseph Straubhaar, Juan Pinon, University of Texas - Austin Viviana Rojas University of Texas - San Antonio

2. Trends: Internet use in the U.S. • Internet penetration in the U.S. reaching 60%-70% (Pew & UCLA studies) • Possible stall of Internet growth • Peak in the adoption curve in higher income groups close to 90% penetration • Minorities are catching up, in particular Latinos in higher income groups • The world of Non-users: 52% “I don’t want it or don’t need it” (Pew 2004). • Individual choice vs. “structured response”? • Penetration in poorer segments of the population across ethnic groups below 40% (Pew Internet)

3. Trends: Internet use in the U.S. • Online activities are growing and different people do different things • Differential online experience between some demographic groups. (Pew Internet, 2004) • African Americans, senior citizens, or those with lower levels of education and income are not engaged in the most sophisticated Internet activities, or are not doing it at the same rate • How are structural factors associated to the increase of differentiated Internet use? This is exploratory work about the problem in the case of Latinos in a Texan city

4. Trends: Internet use in Texas • Internet in Texas (Strover & Straubhaar, 2000; Straubhaar et al., 2004) • 78% have computers and 97% of them go online (2004) • Home broadband increase from 12.3% to 46.6% between 2000 and 2004 • Major gains in urban areas

5. Trends: Internet use in Texas • Ethnicity is the strongest predictor of domestic broadband adoption followed by weaker correlations of income and education

6. Trends: Internet use in Texas • Place-related factors matters: • public site use (library, school, community center) and private site use (home and work) • Spaces of access divided by race, income and education • Ethnic minorities and poorer people significantly more likely to use public spaces to access the Internet Multiple regression for Public site use by ethnicity, income, and education

7. Austin, TX • Top Creative City (Florida, 2002) • Among the top Wired and Unwired cities BUT with an uneven geography (Fuentes-Bautista & Inagaki, 2005) As of Sept. 2004

8. Refocusing on Use: Some Assumptions • The transformative potential of the technology depends on its use. • Why potentialities of the technology are not actualized? • Internet use is “structured” and “structurable” • We need to understand the socially structured variations of Internet experience among people with access to ICTs • High rates of Internet penetration will increase the salience of new kinds of inequality among Internet users (DiMaggio et al, 2004) • We need to identifying the critical dimensions where inequality intercept with differentiated Internet use

9. Reconsidering digital inequalities • Inequalities as lack of capabilities (Amartya Sen’s approach to social inequality) • Inequalities are produced by deprivation of capabilities and opportunities • Access to resources is important but not enough • Intangible resources are also needed (know-how or how best to employ access to resources). Capabilities allow achievement and freedom of choice • Capabilities are developed by the interplay of structural conditions and individual agency • For this study, capabilities are reflected in dispositions and abilities to realize fully the potential of the technology

10. Reconsidering digital inequalities • Individual’s Trajectory and Habitus and the Internet • Habitus: Thoughts, perceptions, expressions, action whose limits are set by the historically and situated conditions of its production … Set of social dispositions that organize social practices (Bourdieu, 1972) • Trajectory: Families are “places” where cultural, economic and social capital are transmitted defining given paths. Families reproduce values or resources; they also create the conditions for change. But each generation has a sense of innovation (agency) (Bertaux; Gonzalez) • We look at: • Techno-dispositions (Rojas et al, 2004) • The dispositions and ability to use technology • Techno-trajectory • Paths or previous experiences with previous technologies that inform the adoption and use of new ones

11. Research Questions • How are structural factors associated with the increase of differentiated Internet use among Latinos? • Income & wealth, ethnicity, education, language proficiency and migration trajectory • How do social inequalities reflect on differentiated techno-dispositions?

12. Methods & sample • Assessment of Internet & media uses by generations (Gonzalez, 2001) • Survey of media uses • Semi-structured interviews (Information and communication habits with different technologies (Radio, TV, newspapers, telephone, mobile, Internet ) • Family trajectory (Gonzalez, 2001; Mass & Gonzalez, 2005) • Personal histories & Family histories (In-depth interviews and genograms) • Occupation • Education • Migration (Country-Country; Rural-Urban; Urban-Urban) • Media uses

13. Sample Families living in certain ZIP codes (working class and middle class neighborhoods of Austin for at least 3 years) 34 informants: Latinos (24); Non-Hispanic White (10) GI (Grandparents)= 8; G II (Parents)= 14; GIII (Youth)= 12; Female= 22 & Male=12 18 individual family histories; 16 members of 5 families (3 Latino and 2 Non-Hispanic White families) Migration: 1st G (8); 2nd G (9); 3rd G(17) Non-users: 2; Occasional (net evaders or drop outs): 5; Light users: 10; Heavy users: 17 Methods & sample

14. Family trajectory: Grandparents (G1) • Latino grandparents exposed to significant economic and educational barriers over their lives • Non-Hispanic Whites mostly college educated, inherited property or had investments. Latinos: high school education or less, workers • Latinos migrated within rural areas and eventually to cities whereas Anglo largely moved from city to city • Spanish as the first language for most of the Latinos • TV is the preferred medium across groups • Among Latinos, ‘word of mouth’ was a highly valued “medium” for acquiring information

15. G1 and Internet use • Significant gap in the level of Internet use. • Non-Hispanic Whites tend to be light users (email, searching for hobby and health information ) whereas Latinos tend not to use the Internet • Class, defined by access to economic and cultural capital, is directly related to Internet use. • Negative techno-dispositions among Latinos. • Anglos tend to look at Internet from a neutral to positive perspective and Latinos mostly hold from neutral to negative views about the technology • All members of this generation do not perceive themselves a part of the ‘contemporary Internet user’ nor part of the ‘Internet world’ • Religion and family values is a common explanation for non-use or occasional use

16. Family trajectory: Parents (G2) • Largest gap remains in cultural capital. Majority of Latinos had only high school or less • Upward mobility among Latino parents • Education had a higher symbolic capital in Non-Hispanic White families • Some Latino parents reported that their parents emphasized job skills rather than education • The majority of Latino parents spoke Spanish as 1st language, and later almost all became bilingual • Latino parents moved from rural to urban • The city opened up possibilities for education, occupation and English language skills among Latinos • In this generation TV is still the most widely used medium • Non-Hispanic Whites are light to heavy Internet users whereas Latino parents either use the technology occasionally or tend to light use

17. G2 and Internet use • Wealth reinforced by ethnicity marking different degrees of engagement with the Internet. • Ethnicity seems to act as a significant marker between fully engaged Internet users and light users • Educational trajectory can change these class and ethnic patterns • The urban milieu provided Latinos migrating from rural areas with wider cultural resources (such as language proficiency, formal education, occupation) encouraging them to engage with ICTs • The majority of Latinos feel that the Internet is “not for people like me” (occupation; income) • Latino parents tend to report job and general environment that does not demand or encourage Internet use. • This is particularly clear among occasional users. In some cases, people talked about restrictions against using the Internet in the workplace

18. Family trajectory: The Youth (G3) • Main gaps in economic and cultural capital • Some Latinos come from working class families with upward mobility • Some Young Latinos only have secondary education or some college • For middle class young Latinos education is portrayed as an opportunity to achieve social mobility • Internet is the central medium across groups. However Latinos tend to be lighter users but some are heavy users as well • Internet is valued over other media for its ability to provide instant information. Chats are also attractive • TV comes as a secondary media after the Internet. TV allows for passive entertainment and easy access and use • Cell phones is central for communications • All members of this generation, across groups consider themselves to be users of ICTs

19. G3 and Internet use • The prevalent vision is that Internet is part of “everyday life” • Income and wealth is associated with differentiated Internet use • For young Latinos exposure to Internet have come mostly through school. Youth in non-Hispanic White families tends to have longer, more intense exposure, starting at home. • Level of education attainment is central for a fully capable, integrated Internet experience • Using for work, play, education, entertainment, transactions

20. Conclusions: Structural conditions • Non-Hispanic Whites exhibit a trajectory of higher accumulation of economic and cultural capital over generations • Latinos who get to college seem to be catching up in resources and capabilities in the latest generation • Migration trajectory over generations was different • Latinos had done the change from rural-urban more recently widening access to education, occupation, and wealth • No clear evidence of acculturation linked to heavy Internet use • Significant difference in language proficiency between groups was a disadvantage to oldest generations • Young Latinos tend to be bilingual which should reduce linguistic disadvantage

21. Conclusions: Trajectory of techno-dispositions • Significant differences across generations in preferred media used • Grandparents and parents more TV oriented • Young more Internet oriented and showing preference for cell phones • Grandparent and parent Latinos less exposed to Internet at work, in social networks, i.e. their group habitus, so less favorably disposed to Internet • Less positive, less capable and less likely to use • Not as incorporated in lives of parent generation Latinos • “People like me” factor

22. Conclusions: Trajectory of techno-dispositions • Impacts of trajectory still stratify young Latinos from young Non-Hispanic Whites • Techno-competencies of Latinos more recently acquired • At school instead of home • Internet less fully integrated into their lives • Access to higher education is an important factor shifting techno-trajectory for the younger generation • Those who do reach college are catching up in Internet use • In many cases they have introduced the technology to the household

23. Policy implications • The importance of enhancing the Internet experience for all • Occasional use (something that the literature treats as dropouts) in fact may reveal deprivation of capabilities and opportunities • Need to promote cyberculture (the view of technology as everyday tool) • Promote use in different milieus beyond home and school (work place, different public spaces) • The importance of free use for the process of appropriation

24. Policy implications • Initiatives to promote use (beyond access and availability) • How people developed skills in certain applications? Focusing on the goal of Internet use • Should we start to think of Internet use as a sort of literacy skill? • And if so, what would be considered to be literate? Probably being able to perform certain tasks? Or using particular applications?