No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The complex digital divide: Information and communication technology amongst users of family support and foster care services
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2016
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of qualitative research on the use of mobile phones and home access to the Internet amongst some Australian welfare service users. It shows that a digital divide – the exclusion of some groups from information and communication technology – goes well beyond access to hardware. Phones are often unavailable and access to the Internet is contingent on infrastructure, technical support and individual interest. Access to the Internet at home is poor and, even when available, the way in which mobile phones and the Internet are used appears deeply affected by poverty, literacy and age. These findings present challenges for those concerned about vulnerable children’s ongoing disadvantage. Welfare agencies wishing to use the potential advantages of information and communication technology with families need to address patterns of use and the many barriers to access.
A glossary of ICT terms used in this article is presented at the end of the paper.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
References
Angus, L., Snyder, I. & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2003) ‘Families, cultural resources and the digital divide: ICTs and educational (dis)advantage’, Australian Journal of Education, 47, (18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y. & Fitzsimons, G.M. (2002) ‘Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet’, Journal of Social Issues, 58, (33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004) Love online: Emotions on the Internet, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Canberra Times (2006) ‘Email is the new snail mail – get the message?’, p. 19, Canberra.Google Scholar
Christensen, H., Griffiths, K. & Jorm, A.F. (2004) ‘Delivering interventions for depression by using the Internet: Randomised controlled trials’, British Medical Journal, 328, (265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, K., Robert, H., Copperman, J. & Liabo, K. (2004) ‘“How come I don’t get asked no questions?”: Researching “hard to reach” children and teenagers’, Child and Family Social Work, 9, (167–75.Google Scholar
Facer, K. & Furlong, R. (2001) ‘Beyond the myth of the “cyberkid”: Young people at the margins of the information revolution’, Journal of Youth Studies, 4, (451–69.Google Scholar
Gaby, S. & Henman, P. (2004) E-health: Transforming doctor-patient relationships with a dose of technology, paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, (14–15 April.Google Scholar
Gilbertson, R. & Barber, J.G. (2002) ‘Obstacles to involving children and young people in foster care research’, Child and Family Social Work, 7, (253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henman, P. & Dean, M. (2004) The governmental powers of welfare e-administration, paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, (14–15 April.Google Scholar
Heptinstall, E. (2000) ‘Gaining access to looked after children for research purposes: Lessons learned’, British Journal of Social Work, 30, (867–72.Google Scholar
Hough, G. (1996) Information technology in the human services: Whose dreams, whose realities?, paper presented at HUSITA 4 Conference, Dreams and Realities: Information Technology and the Human Services, Finland, (10–15 June.Google Scholar
Hoyles, B. & Tregeagle, S. (2007) Harnessing Information and Communication Technology in work with young people, paper presented at the Are we there yet? National Youth Affairs Conference, Melbourne, (1–3 May.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001) ‘Technologies, texts and affordances’, Sociology, 35, (441–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, M. (2005) ‘With a capital “G”: Gatekeepers and gate-keeping in research with children’, unpublished paper (personal communication), Queen’s University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Livingstone, S. (2003) ‘Children’s use of the Internet: Reflections on the emerging research’, New Media and Society, 5, (147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, J. & Zappala, G. (2002) The “digital divide” among financially disadvantaged families in Australia, viewed 26 May 2006, <http://www.firstmonday.org>..>Google Scholar
Naughton, J. (2006) ‘10 websites that changed the world’, Sydney Morning Herald, pp. (38–43, Sydney.Google Scholar
OECD (2006) Are students ready for a technology rich world?, viewed 20 July 2006, <www.pisa.occd.org>..>Google Scholar
Pakula, K. (2006) ‘OMG! Your such a chatterbox’, Sydney Morning Herald, p. 21, Sydney.Google Scholar
Tidwell, L.C. & Walther, J.B. (2002) ‘Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time’, Human Communication Research, 28, (317–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregeagle, S. & Darcy, M. (2007) ‘Child welfare and Information and Communication Technology: Today’s challenge’, British Journal of Social Work, Advanced Access.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, G., Butler, R. & Skelton, T. (2001) ‘The ethical and methodological complexities of doing research with “vulnerable” young people’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 4,(119–24.Google Scholar
Willis, S. & Tranter, B. (2006) ‘Beyond the “digital divide”: Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia’, Journal of Sociology, 42, (43–59.Google Scholar
Wyn, J., Cuervo, H., Woodman, W.D. & Stokes, H. (2005) Young people, wellbeing and communication technologies, Victorian Health Promotions Foundation, viewed 7 August 2007, <http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au>..>Google Scholar