Category: The Labour Market

The Digital Gender Divide

23/01/2024 

Background

The term ‘digital poverty’ typically refers to the inability of individuals, groups, and communities to interact with the online world and emerging technologies. Such digital poverty exists across and between groups, within social structures, and on both a local and global scale (Digital Poverty Alliance, 2022; Van Dijk, 2020; Liff, 2004; Purushothaman, 2013).

It is often assumed that the notion of digital poverty solely refers to the inability of an individual to physically access the internet or ICTs (information communication technologies). However, recent research literature exploring the ‘digital divide’ has expanded this notion to refer to two separate ‘orders’ of inequality; firstly, the inability to physically access digital technologies, and secondly, the inability to skilfully use digital technology (Van Dijk, 2020; Liff, 2004; Purushothaman, 2013). Therefore, to be a ‘digitally poor’ individual, following the current research definitions, is someone who struggles either or both with accessing or using ICTs due to a lack of skills (Van Dijik, 2020; Liff, 2004; Purushothaman, 2013).

Existing literature has demonstrated that the lines of digital poverty have often been drawn across existing lines of social marginalisation (Eynon 2009; May, 2012; Purushothaman, 2013; Stuart et al., 2022; Illahiane, 2022). In other words, those who are socio-economically impoverished are more likely to experience the effects of digital poverty compared to individuals and groups with stronger socio-economic status (Eynon, 2009; May, 2012; Purushothaman, 2013; Stuart et al., 2022; Illahiane, 2022).

Many examples from the existing body of literature illustrate this concept, from the perspective of a wide range of academic disciplines. Prieger and Hu’s 2008 article ‘The broadband digital divide and the nexus of race, competition, and quality’ identified a significant gap in access to quality broadband services between white and black/Hispanic households. From an anthropological perspective, Hawkins has explored the presence of first and second-order digital inequality amongst the older population in Uganda (2013).

The Digital Gender Divide

In the same way that socio-demographic categories such as ethnicity, socio-economic class, disability, age, and refugee status correspond to increased digital poverty, so can gender/sex (Acilar and Sæbø, 2023; Stuart et al., 2022). Social research demonstrates the existence of this relational dynamic in which gender/sex discrimination and inequalities present within a social structure may create and enforce a ‘digital divide’ along gendered lines (Stuart et al., 2022, p.17; Acilar and Sæbø, 2023). Such relationship has been analysed in May’s research across four East African countries (2012), and Martinez Mancilla’s research on the gendered digital divide in Mexico (Mancilla, 2016).

The next section will draw on the relevant literature to explore and analyse how women and female individuals across the globe - including in the United Kingdom - are more likely to experience the precarious effects of digital exclusion compared to their male counterparts. The section will be divided according to the above-mentioned first-order and second-order digital divide.

The First-Order Digital Gender Divide  

A wealth of research literature exploring the relationship between sex/gender and digital exclusion has uncovered, at both global and local levels, how women are more likely to experience first-order digital poverty (Acilar and Sæbø, 2022; Wonder Foundation, 2022). While economic conditions may constitute a barrier to accessing and procuring digital technology and online services for all genders, women tend to be more affected as a result of the gender pay gap, unequal division of paid and unpaid labour, and economic dependence on male relatives (Wonder Foundation, 2022). Interestingly, however, quantitative data indicates a closing of the ‘first order’ gap between men and women in countries in the global north, including in the United Kingdom (Eynon 2009). In the paper ‘Mapping the digital divide in Britain: implications for learning and education’ , Rebbeca Eynon of the Oxford Internet Institute states that ‘gender was significantly related to internet use in 2003 and 2005, but not in 2007’ (Eynon, 2009 p.281). Indeed, according to Statista, as of 2023, 51% of all internet users were female (2023).   

The Second-Order Digital Gender Divide 

While it is true that the ‘first order’ gender digital divide is closing (particularly in global north countries like the United Kingdom), a gendered second-order digital divide seems to persist across the globe (Acilar and Sæbø, 2023).

In her 2018 article ‘The digital divide: An inquiry from feminist perspectives’,  Gurung argues that the gendered digital divide exists primarily, and is continually ‘widened’, because ‘women are less likely than men to receive technical education or be employed in technology-intensive work’ (Gurung, 2018, p.53). The technological industry is, cross-culturally, ‘often associated with masculinity’ (Gurung, 2018, p.53; Wonder Foundation, 2022; Gupta, 2015; Faulkner, 2001).

In the United Kingdom specifically, while women account for around 50% of the workforce, they hold only 24% of jobs in the tech industry (techUK, 2023). Even fewer hold positions as engineers and developers (techUK 2023). Moreover, ‘77% of tech leaders are men’ (techUK 2023). In short, while the digital era has brought more women into the technological workforce, it is ‘not sufficient’ (Gurung, 2018, p.53; Gupta, 2015).  

Intersectionality  

While it is clear that sex and gender play a role in determining an individual’s vulnerability and potential likelihood of experiencing digital poverty, it would be wrong to consider it in isolation and not as an intersectional issue. In other words, research strongly indicates that digital poverty needs to be understood as shaped by other factors of social vulnerability; namely race and socioeconomic status (Ilahiane, 2022; Wonder Foundation, 2022).

Following the socioeconomic context mentioned above, women tend disproportionally to lack access to digital technology as a result of the gender pay gap, and an unequal division of paid and unpaid labour (especially when existing within social systems that lack gender equality) (Wonder Foundation, 2022). As expected, this problem is exacerbated for women of lower socioeconomic status due to lower-than-average earnings (Wonder Foundation, 2022; Ilahiane, 2022). This idea is further demonstrated in the anthropologist Ilahiane’s 2022 ethnography ‘The Mobile Phone Revolution in Morocco: Cultural and Economic Transformations’ (Ilahiane, 2022). Ilahiane describes how Moroccan female domestic workers are more likely to experience digital poverty because of barriers to using technology by virtue of their sex, but also as a result of a lack of financial capital (Ilahiane, 2022).

In contrast to global north countries, including the United Kingdom, first-order digital poverty (access) remains a significant challenge in the global south (Wonder Foundation, 2022; Eynon, 2009). However, as mentioned, women are often disadvantaged when it comes to utilising digital tools and services, as ‘Women and girls tend to have lower levels of literacy, education, and digital skills’ (Herbert, 2017, p.9; techUK 2023; Gurung, 2018; Gupta, 2015). We can further understand this as an intersectional issue, in the way that digital exclusion is closely related to other aspects of marginality (Holmes and Burgess, 2022). A 2022 report by Natwest and Code First Girls showed that ‘three quarters of women from lower socio-economic backgrounds were not encouraged to pursue a career in the tech industry, and 83% of women from lower socio-economic backgrounds were not taught coding in school’ (Natwest Group, 2022). 

Policy Recommendations

As illustrated above, sex/gender plays a crucial role in determining a person’s vulnerability to both first-order and second-order digital exclusion. We can see how research demonstrates this ongoing challenge as an intersectional issue in the way that it corresponds to other strata of marginalisation and is compounded by other poverties and forms of social exclusion. This remains true in the United Kingdom, as well as on the global scene.

Given the intersectionality of digital exclusion, effective policies need to be intersectional in scope as well. As such, we indicate the policy interventions below for addressing the manifestations of digital poverty in the United Kingdom.

In their 2022 study of ‘two hyperlocal communities’ in post-Covid19 Margate, political scientists of the University of Brunel unpacked the ‘contextual issues’ of ‘place, social, cultural and communities’ which ‘surround digital poverty’ in the town (Stuart et al., 2022 p.4). The two communities were the Roma population of Margate and the so-called ‘Creative Diaspora’ (White British, Irish, and Ukrainians) (Stuart et al., 2022, p.4). Both groups were evenly divided in terms of gender and had lived in the area for between 5 months and 17 years (Stuart et al., 2022, pp.4-5). Given their shared vulnerabilities and socio-economic status, they suffer similar effects of digital poverty. Indeed, despite stereotypes, a lack of knowledge and digital skills were not limited to Roma but are pervasive across mentioned marginalised groups. Moreover, digital poverty was not caused simply by a lack of hardware or access to the internet, but is connected to wider issues such as education, skill levels, and confidence.

In order to capture the unique experiences of vulnerable individuals, groups, and communities, we recommend that policy programmes be informed by multiple sources of information (see Stuart et al., 2022): empirical studies, large-scale surveys, quantitative data, and in-depth interviews. We also recommend co-production in policy interventions, such that women are given opportunities to co-design and shape policy programmes. Additionally, following Herbert’s study (2017), we propose that a focus on access (first-order) is not sufficient to address the effects of digital poverty, but that ‘improving digital literacy and confidence’ is a crucial ‘area of growth for gender inclusion’, which includes developing a deeper understanding of women’s needs.

References

Acilar, A., and Sæbø, Ø. (2023). Towards understanding the gender digital divide: A systematic literature review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(3): 233-249.

Digital Poverty Alliance. (2022). UK Digital Poverty Evidence Review 2022. Available at: https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/uk-digital-poverty-evidence-review-2022/introduction-myths-and-shifts/#:~:text=Defining%20Digital%20Poverty,but%20it%20is%20also%20distinct.
 

Eynon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: implications for learning and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4): 277-290.

Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women's Studies International Forum, 24(1): 79-95.

Gupta, N. (2015). Rethinking the relationship between gender and technology: A study of the Indian example. Work, Employment and Society, 29(4): 661-672.

Gurung, L. (2018). The digital divide: An inquiry from feminist perspectives. Dhaulagiri: Journal of Sociology & Anthropology, 12.

Hawkins, C. (2023). Ageing with Smartphones in Uganda: Togetherness in the Dotcom Age. UCL Press.

Herbert, S. (2017). Digital Development and the Digital Gender Gap. Institute of Development Studies. Brighton, UK. . Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a5f228f40f0b652634c6f4a/249-Digital-development-and-the-digital-gender-gap.pdf.

Holmes, H., and Burgess, G. (2022). Digital exclusion and poverty in the UK: How structural inequality shapes experiences of getting online. Digital Geography and Society, 3: 100041.   

Ilahiane, H., (2022). The Mobile Phone Revolution in Morocco: Cultural and Economic Transformations. Rowman & Littlefield.

Liff, S., Shepherd, A., Wajcman, J., Rice, R., and Hargittai, E. (2004). An evolving gender digital divide? Oxford Internet Institute, 2.

Mancilla, Y.M. (2016). The Acquisition of Digital Capabilities as Means for Women's Development in Punto México Conectado. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 412-415.

May, J.D. (2012). Digital and Other Poverties: Exploring the Connection in Four East African Countries. Information Technologies & International Development, 8(2): 33-50.

Natwest Group. (2022). Diversity, Equity & Inclusion; Social Mobility and Gender Parity Tech. NatWest and Code First Girls. Available at: https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/latest-stories/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/2022/oct/social-mobility-and-gender-parity-in-tech.html. Accessed 07.01.24.

Prieger, J.E., and Hu, W.M. (2008). The broadband digital divide and the nexus of race, competition, and quality. Information Economics and Policy, 20(2): 150-167.

Purushothaman, A. (2013). Empowering Women Through Learning to Use the Internet: An Ethnographic Action Research Project to Address the Second Order Digital Divide. Allborg Universitet. Available at: https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/empowering-women-through-learning-to-use-the-internet-an-ethnogra

Statista. (2023). Distribution of internet users in the United Kingdom (UK) as of July 2023, by gender. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1415968/internet-users-in-the-united-kingdom-by-gender/#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20women%20among,to%2049%20percent%20of%20men.

Stuart, R., Braganza, A., Charitsis, V., and Jones, M., (2022). Digital Poverty in Margate: A Study of Two Hyperlocal Communities. The British Academy. Available at: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publications/digital-poverty-in-margate-a-study-of-two-hyperlocal-communities/  

techUK. (2023). As the technology industry continues to grow, so does the number of women working in it. Women in tech. https://www.techuk.org/resource/as-the-technology-industry-continues-to-grow-so-does-the-number-of-women-working-in-it.html#:~:text=The%20importance%20of%20women%20in%20tech&text=This%2C%20in%20turn%2C%20drives%20innovation,of%20roles%20filled%20by%20women.

Van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. John Wiley & Sons.

Wonder Foundation. (2022). Insight report on the future of work: Women (Dis)Connected. Wonder Foundation. Available at: https://wonderfoundation.org.uk/insight-report-on-the-future-of-work-women-disconnected/