Developing the human perspective to the digital divide in the ‘Smart City’.

1. Developing the human perspective to the digital divide in the ‘Smart City’. Helen Partridge Queensland University of Technology Australia

2. The Challenge “Our challenge is to build an information society for all…this is a historical opportunity we cannot miss”

3. Brisbane - The Smart City! A “smart city [that] actively embraces new technologies…Brisbane should seek to be a more open society where technology makes it easier for people to have their say, gain access to services and to stay in touch with what is happening around them, simply and cheaply. All residents will have access to the Internet, and the ability to use it” (BCC, 2001)

4. The Digital Divide • Term first introduced in 1995 by the US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). • Describes the existence of those with access to information and communication technology (‘the haves’) and those without (‘the have-nots’). • Numerous studies have taken place throughout the world trying to measure the Digital Divide: • Several interlocking factors heighten the digital divide: race and ethnicity, geography, income, education level, employment status and physical disability. • Individuals belonging to these groups are more likely to represent the ‘have-nots’ in the Digital Divide

5. Limitations to Current Digital Divide Studies • Several commentaries have emerged in the recent years commenting on these studies (Yung, Qiu & Kim, 2000; Harper, n.d). • They measure the Digital Divide in terms of dichotomous comparisons (computer owner v’s non-computer owner) or time spent online or activities performed online (with a focus on e-commerce) • Studies all primarily take a socio-economic perspective to the Digital Divide. • Studies do not consider the psychological, social or cultural barriers barriers.

6. Two Digital Divides? Harper (2000) taking on this critique theorises the existence of two types of Digital Divide: • Access Digital Divide: which is based on cost factors and is frequently discussed in terms of of the presence of computers of Internet access in the household • Social Digital Divide: which is a product an individuals psychological, social and cultural differences.

7. The Vision for the Current Study • Few studies to date have attempted to explore the Social Digital Divide i.e. the social, cultural and psychological factors that contribute to this information gap • The current study seeks to explore the psychological aspect of the Social Digital Divide. • More specifically is will explore the Digital Divide from the Perspective of the Social Cognitive Theory by Bandura (1986).

8. Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1986) Internal Forces Behaviour Environment

9. Research Aim & Questions To explore the notion of the Social Digital Divide using the Internet Self-Efficacy Scale (ISE) with novice Internet users in a public library setting. • What the Internet Self Efficacy of Internet users and non users. • Determine if there is a different in Internet Self Efficacy between: • Internet non-users who represent the ‘Socio-economic Digital Divide’ or as proposed by Harper (nd), the Access Digital Divide • Internet non-users who do not represent the ‘Socio-economic Digital Divide’ but who may represent the Social Digital Divide as proposed by Harper (n.d) • Internet users who are not considered to be part of the digital divide.

10. Data Gathering Self administered surveys will be used to gather data from internet users and non users in Brisbane. The BCC Library Service will provide the arena for data collection to take place. The survey will gather data on internet use, internet self efficacy, general self efficacy, internet anxiety, general anxiety.

11. Expected Outcomes psychological socio economic

12. Any Questions? Helen Partridge h.partridge@qut.edu.au (07) 3864 9047 Please do not hesitate to contact Helen if you have any questions or comments.