A common concern regarding the adoption of eEngagement initiatives is the limited use of ICTs in the wider community. With approximately three quarters of the New Zealand and Australian populations using the internet relatively frequently[9] the level of use of this technology is far from the near universality of other communications appliances like telephones.
The gap between universal access and the current penetration of ICTs is commonly referred to as the digital divide and represents a real concern for policy makers as it represents a different form of non-participation, namely, non-participation in the information society/economy.
It can be argued that this divide limits the value of new channels for engaging the public in policy processes. As specific segments of the community are excluded from these technologies, the results of using eEngagement are systematically skewed, particularly excluding people who are considered to be generally under-represented in conventional policy processes, such as the poor, migrants, indigenous people and those with limited educational backgrounds. eEngagement can be seen as anti-democratic leading to increased access by people in the community who are currently ‘well served’ by existing democratic structures.
While this concern has relevance and is worthy of serious consideration at the initial stages of eEngagement project development, it does tend to promote a simplistic view of the average user of new communications technologies as:
While this might have been an accurate portrait during the 1990s, the uptake of ICTs throughout the community has developed in unexpected ways. These include:
Exhibit 14: Mobile Phones Buck the Digital Divide [10]
While the rate of internet adoption has slowed over the last five years, the penetration of mobile telephones in Australia and New Zealand continues to be strong. Both nations approach near 100 percent penetration of this technology and users are increasingly comfortable engaging with interactive services using mobile telephones.
In 2004-05 it was determined that 38 percent of Australians over the age of 16 had used their phone to participate in a competition via SMS.
Telephones exhibit a faster adoption curve (both market penetration and uptake of new features) because:
In addition, a large number of government and not-for-profit programs exist to improve access to ICTs by under-represented target communities, either through subsidised purchasing schemes, or through the provision of public access terminals in community centres, public housing estates, schools and job service organisations.
Despite these initiatives, the problem of the digital divide persists. During the initial popularisation of the internet in the mid-1990s, when growth rates for ICT usage were very high, the digital divide was characterised simply as an effect of the combination of technological diffusion speed and cost barriers to adoption. The assumption was, at this time, that as the number of users embracing the technology increased, more commercial vendors would be encouraged to enter the market, resulting in an easing of cost barriers. Although increased demand has driven costs down, this has not been enough to close the digital divide. In fact, adoption rates have slowed and some communities have shown limited uptake of ICTs.
The reasons for the digital divide are complex and not easily addressed by policy makers. They include:
The use of eEngagement systems will include (or be included within) a broader strategy that includes conventional ‘offline’ means of participation. For simple engagement approaches (such as the solicitation of submissions or surveying), this may simply require the provision of paper versions of discussion documentation and postal response mechanisms, whereas, for more complex processes (particularly deliberative ones or where specific sampling rules are applied) this may mean running parallel processes.
Where parallel processes are conducted, the managerial implications may be significant. These can include:
While these issues can be seen as daunting, it is important to conceptualise the digital divide as one of many different and overlapping, barriers to participation. While ICTs can provide enhanced access to policy processes for some (and can, therefore, be seen as democratically problematic), they also can be used to overcome other access problems.
Figure 4 illustrates a range of divides that overlap and provides insight into how a mix of ICT-based engagement and conventional approaches can create better overall outcomes in the reduction of barriers to participation.
Through a broader conceptualisation of the community’s access difficulties, we can achieve a better understanding of the appropriate role for ICTs in engagement processes. In addition, where ICT access barriers can be seen as disproportionately associated with some groups in the community, we need to be cautious about universalising this assumption. Where the approach taken to the eEngagement process is based on sampling to develop a representative section of the wider community (a cluster or quota sampling methodology) lower levels of ICT uptake in some areas of the community can be recognised and addressed through the use of appropriate quotas and additional recruitment in areas of under-representation.
Recognising areas of low uptake through eEngagement program design and implementation can be a catalyst for partnering with other community access programs. One of the key lessons learned during the last decade is that digital divide issues are often most effectively addressed through a combination of technical access provision, training and the incorporation of relevant compelling content. eEngagement activities can be seen as a highly effective way of motivating participation in the information economy.