Old and afraid of new communication technologies? Reconceptualising and contesting the ‘age-based digital divide’
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite sociological attempts to critically address an age-based digital divide, older adults (65+) continue to be portrayed in the academic literature and public discourse as a homogeneous group characterised by technophobia, digital illiteracy, and technology non-use. Additionally, the role of socioeconomic factors and personal contexts in later life are often overlooked in studies on technology adoption and use. For example, older adults who are identified as least likely to use technology (frail, care-dependent, low socioeconomic/educational backgrounds) are typically described as a uniform cluster. Yet, research on digital technology use with this group remains scant – so what can we learn from studying technology adoption among them? This article discusses long-term deployment of new communication technologies with such a group of older adults, shedding light on the dynamics of technology adoption and contexts of use/non-use. It is based on a case study approach and a cross-cultural perspective, using Canadian and Australian mixed-methods research from two projects that included interviews, psychometric scales, and field observations. We present cases from these projects and contest the simplistic notion of an age-based digital divide, by drawing on Strong Structuration Theory to explore the interconnection of agency, structure, and context in the sociotechnical process of technology adoption and use/non-use among older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it