On the margins of digitalization : the social construction of older people and the Internet

(1)

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

PÄIVI RASI

On the margins of

digitalization

(2)

(3)

On the margins of digitalization

The social construction of older people and the Internet

(4)

(5)

Päivi Rasi

On the margins of digitalization

The social construction of older people and the Internet

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 248

University of Eastern Finland Kuopio

2021

(6)

Grano Oy Jyväskylä, 2021

Editor in-Chief : Markus Mättö Editor: Anna Karttunen

Sales: University of Eastern Finland Library ISBN: 978-952-61-3786-5 (print)

ISBN: 978-952-61-3787-2 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISSN: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

(7)

Author’s address: Department of Social Sciences University of Eastern Finland KUOPIO FINLAND

Doctoral program: Doctoral Programme in Social and Cultural Encounters

Supervisors: Professor Vilma Hänninen Department of Social Sciences University of Eastern Finland KUOPIO FINLAND

Senior Researcher, Dr. Anneli Hujala

Department of Health and Social Management University of Eastern Finland

KUOPIO FINLAND

Reviewers: University Lecturer, Title of Docent, Kirsi Lumme-Sandt Faculty of Social Sciences

Tampere University

TAMPERE FINLAND

Associate Professor Eugène Loos School of Governance

Utrecht University

UTRECHT NETHERLANDS

Opponent: University Lecturer, Title of Docent, Kirsi Lumme-Sandt Faculty of Social Sciences

Tampere University

TAMPERE

(8)

(9)

Rasi, Päivi

On the margins of digitalization. The social construction of older people and the Internet

Kuopio: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2021

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 248 ISBN: 978-952-61-3786-5 (print)

ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749

ISBN: 978-952-61-3787-2 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This dissertation focuses on the social construction of older people’s relationships with the Internet in Finland’s most sparsely populated areas:

Northern Ostrobothnia and Lapland in Northern Finland and Kainuu in Eastern Finland. The dissertation examines the construction of older people’s relationship with the Internet in terms of their Internet use, Internet nonuse, and digital competences. The study seeks to gain a better understanding of older people’s (non)use of the Internet and digital competences by looking at (1) how they are socially constructed by researchers, older Internet non(users), and the media and (2) what social, cultural, and societal factors drive the social construction of older people’s relationship with the Internet.

In addition, based on the results, the dissertation outlines the implications for practice and policy, addressing the potential exclusionary effects of digitalization. The general aims of the study are promoted in four substudies, each of which is reported in a separate article.

The theoretical outlook of the present study is social constructionism, according to which humans actively construct their social environment through social interactions that are used for describing, explaining, and accounting for the world. This outlook is bolstered by the study’s theoretical framework: social representations theory and modalities of agency theory.

(10)

Through these theories, the study looks at older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences as a complex phenomenon coconstructed by social actors and their wider social, structural, and societal contexts.

The research data comprise previous empirical studies and theoretical investigations, written accounts (N=126) by older Internet nonusers, focus group interviews (N=3) of older Internet (non)users (N=16), and newspaper articles (N=121). The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively through a content analysis and inductive and deductive thematic coding.

The overarching results of the study are presented in the form of the following main proposition: Older people are positioned on the margins of digitalization. The following subpropositions are included: I. Depending on the social actors, older people’s marginality in digitalized society was constructed both as a positive and negative phenomenon; II. Older Internet (non)users were constructed as pressured to move from the margins of digitalization to the mainstream; III. Older Internet (non)users participating in the study contested the positive meanings of the Internet and digital competences; IV.

Older people’s marginalization in digitalized society was achieved in the data through metaphors; and V. Older Internet users were marginalized into the spheres of family and local community.

Keywords: digitalization, older people, social constructionism, Internet non- use, Internet use, Internet (non)use, digital competence, social representation, agency, media representation, marginality, marginalization

(11)

Rasi, Päivi

Digitalisaation marginaaleissa. Ikäihmisten ja Internetin sosiaalinen raken- tuminen

Kuopio: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2021

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 248 ISBN: 978-952-61-3786-5 (nid.)

ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749

ISBN: 978-952-61-3787-2 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Tämä väitöskirja kohdistuu siihen, kuinka ikäihmisten suhteet Internetiin rakentuvat sosiaalisesti Suomen harvaan asutuimmilla alueilla Pohjois-Poh- janmaalla, Lapissa ja Kainuussa. Väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan ikäihmisten In- ternet-suhteiden rakentumista Internetin käytön, ei-käytön ja digitaalisen osaamisen näkökulmista. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on lisätä ymmärrystä ikäihmisten Internetin käytöstä, ei-käytöstä ja digitaalisesta osaamisesta tar- kastelemalla (1) kuinka ne rakentuvat sosiaalisesti tutkijoiden, ikääntyneiden Internetin käyttäjien ja ei-käyttäjien sekä median toimesta ja (2) millaiset so- siaaliset, kulttuuriset ja yhteiskunnalliset tekijät ohjaavat sosiaalista rakentumista. Lisäksi väitöskirjassa tuodaan esiin tutkimustulosten käytännöllisiä ja poliittisia seurauksia, joiden avulla voidaan vähentää digitalisaation ikäihmisiä syrjäyttäviä vaikutuksia. Tutkimuksen tavoitteita edistetään väitöskirjan nel- jässä osatutkimuksessa, joista jokainen raportoidaan omassa artikkelissaan.

Väitöskirjan tutkimuksellinen viitekehys on sosiaalinen konstruktionismi, jonka mukaan ihmiset rakentavat sosiaalista todellisuuttaan aktiivisesti sosi- aalisessa vuorovaikutuksessaan—kuvailemalla ja selittämällä maailmaansa.

Tätä viitekehystä tukee väitöskirjan teoriatausta: sosiaalisten representaa- tioiden teoria ja toimijuuden modaliteettien teoria. Näiden teorioiden avulla väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan ikäihmisten Internetin käyttöä, ei-käyttöä ja

(12)

digitaalista osaamista monitahoisina ilmiöinä, jotka rakentuvat sosiaalisesti erilaisten toimijoiden ja heitä ympäröivien sosiaalisten, rakenteellisten ja yh- teiskunnallisten kontekstien vuorovaikutuksessa.

Väitöskirjan tutkimusaineisto koostuu aihepiirin aiemmista empiirisistä tutkimuksista ja teoreettisista tarkasteluista, ikääntyneiden Internetin ei-käyt- täjien kirjoituksista (N=126), ikääntyneiden Internetin käyttäjien ja ei-käyttä- jien (N=16) fokusryhmähaastatteluista (N=3) sekä sanomalehtiartikkeleista (N=121). Aineisto analysoitiin määrällisesti ja laadullisesti sisällönanalyysillä, induktiivisen ja deduktiivisen temaattisen koodauksen keinoin.

Seuraava pääväittämä kiteyttää tutkimuksen tärkeimmät tulokset: ikäih- miset konstruoidaan digitalisaatiossa marginaaliseen asemaan. Tutkimuk- sen pääväittämää voidaan lisäksi tarkentaa seuraavilla väittämillä: I. Riippuen sosiaalisista toimijoista, marginaalinen asema digitalisoituneessa yhteiskun- nassa rakentui sekä myönteisenä että kielteisenä ilmiönä; II. Ikääntyneisiin Internetin käyttäjiin ja ei-käyttäjiin konstruoitiin kohdistuvan painetta siirtyä digitalisaation marginaaleista valtavirtaan; III. Tutkimukseen osallistuneet ikäihmiset kyseenalaistivat Internetin ja digitaalisen osaamisen myönteisiä merkityksiä; IV. Marginalisaatio rakentui tutkimusaineistossa metaforien avulla; ja V. Ikääntyneet Internetin käyttäjät marginalisoitiin perheen ja pai- kallisen yhteisön piireihin.

Asiasanat: digitalisaatio, ikäihmiset, sosiaalinen konstruktionismi, Internetin ei-käyttö, Internetin käyttö, digitaalinen osaaminen, sosiaalinen representaatio, toimijuus, mediarepresentaatio, marginaalisuus, marginalisaatio

(13)

Acknowledgments

I received my Masters in Social Psychology from Tampere University in 1997.

After this, I positively strayed to questions dealing with education, teaching, and learning. I then completed my first PhD in Education at the University of Lapland in 2007, where I have worked for 20 years. However, I never lost my zest for looking at the world from a social psychological perspective. This dissertation is a manifestation of that zest—a kind of academic homecoming.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Eastern Finland. A special thanks go to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Vilma Hänninen, and associate supervisor, Senior Researcher Anneli Hujala. Thank you for the good advice and encouragement!

A heartfelt thanks goes out to University Lecturer, Title of Docent Kirsi Lumme-Sandt and Associate Professor Eugène Loos, the examiners of the dissertation. I am also grateful to Professor Emeritus Jyrki Jyrkämä and Associate Professor Inari Sakki for providing invaluable comments on the first version of the dissertation.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the knowledgeable editors and reviewers of my articles. A warmest thanks goes to Arja Kilpeläinen, with whom I conducted the third substudy, and to Pirkko Siklander (previously Hyvönen), with whom I collected the first research data of this dissertation. I also want to thank my former students, Tero Luksua and Outi Leinonen, for providing me inspiration and support in my first steps in this research area.

I have had the opportunity to present, discuss, and develop my thinking in numerous forums, where I have been inspired by and received valuable comments and support from my colleagues. In particular, I would like to thank Tobias Olsson, Dino Viscovi, Maria Bakardjieva, Fausto Colombo, Inês Amaral, Sara Pereira, Christine O’Neil, Alessandra Carenzio, Pier Cesare Rivoltella, Renee Hobbs, Simon Lindgren, Jens Lindberg, Marjo Outila, Heli Valokivi, Simone Carlo, Elin Kvist, Francesco Bonifacio, Eija Kärnä, Kaisa Pihlainen, Kristiina Korjonen-Kuusipuro, Heikki Kynäslahti, Timo Cornér, Päivi Naskali, Shahnaj Begum, Minna Zechner, and Sakari Taipale.

(14)

This research was conducted partly as part of my academic work at the Media Education Hub (MEH) at the University of Lapland’s Faculty of Education.

I am thankful to the faculty and Professor Heli Ruokamo, Director of MEH, for supporting my research both in terms of resources and encouragement.

A special acknowledgment goes to the present and former staff of MEH, particularly Hanna Vuojärvi, Susanna Rivinen, and Ella Airola.

Last, but definitely not least, immense thanks go to my closest ones, who give me meaning in life, support and rock’n’roll: my mother, “Grandma Annikki,” my daughters, Elli and Anni, and my companion, Jarmo.

Rovaniemi, 30 March 2021 Päivi Rasi

(15)

1 Introduction

Societies today are in the process of digitalization, affecting all service sectors, such as public administration, private commercial services, educational services, and healthcare and welfare services. In addition, government bodies, media, businesses, and citizens communicate and transmit information to a growing extent through digital media, such as on the Internet in general and on social media in particular. However, a large number of people over 60 years of age and outside the workforce lack adequate digital competences to support their learning, well-being, everyday life, and participation in today’s digitalized society. Older people’s Internet nonuse and limited digital competences may present challenges to the ongoing digitalization of society:

digitalization may also have exclusionary effects.

The current dissertation focuses on the social construction of older people’s relationships with the Internet in Finland’s most sparsely populated areas.

In particular, the dissertation examines the construction of older people’s relationship with the Internet in terms of their Internet use, Internet nonuse,¹ and digital competences. The present study explores how these phenomena are socially constructed by researchers, older Internet nonusers and users, and the media. The study will address the research gap concerning the social and cultural embeddedness of older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences (see Lantela, 2019; Lutz, 2016; Slack & Wise, 2009). Besides looking at these phenomena at the micro level through empirical research data, the dissertation links the micro level with a macro-level analysis (Timonen

& Lolich, 2019) by discussing how older people’s social, cultural, and societal contexts participate in constructing their relationship with the Internet.

1 The term “Internet (non)use” will be from hence forward utilized to cover both Internet use and Internet nonuse.

(18)

1.1 Disciplinary framework

When studying old age and aging, the study topic may fall within several scientific disciplines and research fields, and the boundaries among these are often blurry (Morgan & Kunkel, 2011). Research that either primarily focuses or touches upon older people’s Internet (non)use has been conducted in numerous disciplines, such as sociology, social gerontology, human development and psychology, library and information science, and journalism.

The primary discipline of the present study is social psychology because the study seeks to understand the social nature of older people’s Internet (non) use and digital competences. The focus is on the social construction of the phenomenon, where the individual and social are inseparable, “in which the individual constitutes and is simultaneously constituted by the social”

(Augoustinos et al., 2014, p. 4). This is achieved by using social representations theory and modalities of agency theory, which see the individual as both a product of society and active participant in changing society (Augoustinos et al., 2014; Jyrkämä, 2007b). When discussing digital competences, and, in particular, when outlining the policy and practice implications of the results, the present study intersects with adult education and media literacy education (e.g., Hobbs, 2010; Rasi, Vuojärvi & Rivinen, 2021), as well as educational gerontology (e.g., Rivinen, 2020; Seifert et al., 2018).

The present study can also be placed within the research fields of aging studies because it strongly intersects with social gerontology (e.g., Dannefer

& Settersten, 2010; Jyrkämä, 2007a; Koskinen, 2004; McCreadie, 2010). In particular, the study was informed by the multidisciplinary and applied nature of social gerontology. As defined by Morgan and Kunkel (2011, p. 14), social gerontology is

Concerned with understanding aging from a variety of perspectives and integrating information from various social science and humanities disciplines to achieve an understanding of aging in general, and to apply that understanding to resolving problems and creating policy.

(19)

Furthermore, social gerontology’s key ideas of diversity and heterogeneity of aging and old age and its conception of aging that acknowledges its historically, socially, and culturally constructed character (Dannefer & Settersten, 2010;

Gergen & Gergen, 2003) have informed the present study. Research on older people’s use of media, including the Internet, has been criticized for not acknowledging gerontological theories and, consequently, as seeing older people as a too homogeneous group (Harrington et al., 2014; Nimrod, 2017).

Furthermore, some research has been criticized for being based on overtly optimistic generalization that all older people are willing to use the Internet and benefit from it (Richardson et al., 2005). Also, political discussions around the issue of older people’s Internet use have been criticized for making either pessimistic or optimistic generalizations about older people’s motivation and skills in using the Internet (Loos, 2012). Finally, the present study has been inspired by how the positive aspects of aging and old age have been accentuated in social and educational gerontology, as well as in gerontological social work (Gergen & Gergen, 2003; Kautto, 2004; Koskinen, 2004; Langer, 2004; Nelson-Becker et al., 2020).

Because the present study aims to contextualize older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences within their broader social, cultural, and societal contexts, it can be broadly understood as falling within the field of social studies of technology, where the framework of domestication of technology (including media technology), has been central (e.g., Airola & Rasi, 2020; Luomanen & Peteri, 2013; Peteri, 2006; Sankari, 2004; Silverstone &

Hirsch, 1992; Talsi, 2014). The current study can also be placed within the research field of communication and new media studies (e.g., Haythornthwaite, 2001; Saari, 2011).

Other research fields within which older people’s Internet (non)use has been studied include technology acceptance research, human –computer interaction (HCI), human–technology interaction (HTI), gerontechnology, digital divides and digital inequalities research, information systems (IS) research, and audience studies (e.g., Livingstone et al., 2012; Reisdorf & Groselj, 2015).

The present study differs from technology acceptance, gerontechnology, HCI, HTI, and IS research, which often in a more explicit and goal-oriented way aim at designing technological products, services, and applications for older

(20)

users. These research fields draw primarily on individualistic psychological and decision-making models, even though the social processes and contexts related to user experiences have also gained research attention (e.g., Alakärppä, 2014; Leikas, 2009; Raita, 2015). A part of the present study can also be identified as so-called barrier research, which looks at older people’s Internet nonuse from the viewpoint of individual circumstances or personal deficiencies such as physical limitations or insufficient skills, which are seen to function as barriers to use (Richardson et al., 2005; Spann & Stewart, 2018;

van Deursen & Helsper, 2015; Wagner et al., 2010).

The present study focuses on the social construction of older people’s relationship with the Internet at a time when the digitalization process was forceful in Finland. The results of the current dissertation have been reported in four articles published between 2012 and 2020. All of the articles discuss how social actors and their social, cultural, and societal contexts participate in constructing their relationship with the Internet. I begin the Introduction by presenting the context of the study. Thereafter, I move into presenting in more detail the aims and research questions of the study. Finally, I conclude by describing the aims and structure of the summary of the dissertation.

1.2 Context of the study

The present study focuses on older people’s Internet use, nonuse, and digital competences in Finland’s sparsely populated areas. Presently, Finland is one of Europe’s top performers in the supply and demand of digital public services (European Commission, 2020a) and a leader in terms of its citizens’ Internet user skills (European Commission, 2020c). However, the phenomenon of Internet nonuse still exists in Finland. During the data collection process, which took place from 2009 to 2019, although the number of Internet nonusers in Finland decreased, a considerable amount of Finnish older people still reported not having used the Internet. In 2010, 75% of 55–64-year-olds reported as having used the Internet in the last three months, while it was 43% for the 65–74 age group (Tilastokeskus, 2010). In 2019, 96% of 55–64 -year-olds reported as having used the Internet in the last three months,

(21)

while this was 80% for the 65–74 age group and 41% for the 75–89 age group (Statistics Finland, 2019).

The present study was conducted in Finland’s most sparsely populated areas: Northern Ostrobothnia and Lapland in Northern Finland and Kainuu in Eastern Finland. A sparsely populated area is defined here following the European Commission’s criterion (Dijkstra & Poelman, 2018) as a geographic area with a population density of fewer than 12.5 inhabitants per square kilometer. According to the Commission’s urban–rural typology, the sites of the present study are all rural areas with the share of population living in rural areas higher than 50%. However, there was variation in terms of whether the respondents of the present study lived in “predominately rural, remote regions” or “predominately rural regions, close to a city” (Dijkstra & Poelman, 2018).

In terms of older people living in sparsely populated Northern and Eastern Finland, several indicators of vulnerability have been identified in previous research, such as social isolation, financial insecurity, and a lack of access to services (Begum, 2019). According to the Finnish information strategy for social and health care (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, 2015), eHealth services can secure equal social and healthcare services for older people living in sparsely populated areas such as Lapland. However, rural residents need digital competences to use digital services such as eHealth (Rasi, Lindberg &

Airola, 2021).

Rural areas typically have more Internet nonusers than urban and suburban areas (Abad Alcalá, 2019; European Commission, 2020b; Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; International Telecommunication Union, 2020). Presently, there are slight differences in how people living in or near Finnish cities use the Internet compared with people living in rural settings (Tilastokeskus, 2020): 93% of people living in big cities report having used the Internet, while the number for rural municipalities is 88%. Among those living in large Finnish cities, 4%

report never having used the Internet, while the number for residents in rural municipalities is 9%.

Sparsely populated areas across the world, such as the Amazon forests, the Northern Arctic regions, the Australian bush, and the Siberian plains, share

(22)

some common features despite their ecological or political differences, for example, weaker administrative control and the survival of cultural differences, because a significant portion of sparsely populated areas are covered by different types of indigenous territories (Tourneau, 2020). In terms of the present study, Northern Lapland in Northern Finland is the traditional Sámi area where the indigenous Sámi people live. Elderly Sámi people living in Lapland are especially vulnerable in terms of their well-being because they experience concerns and challenges related to access to healthcare facilities, availability of traditional food, secure livelihood practices, the preservation of cultural identity, and environmentally sound development (Begum, 2019).

1.3 Aims and research questions of the study

The general aim of the current study is to develop a contextualized understanding of older people’s relationship with the Internet, that is, an understanding looking at this relationship within its broader social, cultural, and societal contexts (Haythornthwaite, 2001; Slack & Wise, 2009). The present dissertation seeks to gain a better understanding about older people’s (non) use of the Internet and digital competences by looking at (1) how they are socially constructed and (2) what social, cultural, and societal factors drive social construction. In addition, based on the results, the dissertation aims to outline the implications for policy and practice to address the potential exclusionary effects of digitalization. The general aims of the study are promoted in four substudies, each of which is reported in a separate article.

The aim of the substudy I (article I) is to find out how Internet nonuse is constructed in the literature, whereas substudies II–IV (articles II–IV) are empirical studies pertaining to how older people’s relationship with the Internet in socially constructed by older people and the media. Substudy II aimed to find out how older Internet nonusers construct their shared understanding of the Internet and what the nature of these social representations is. Substudy III sought to find out how older Internet nonusers and users construct their digital competences and agency in terms of Internet use. Finally, substudy IV sought to explore how Finnish newspapers published in the regions of

(23)

Lapland and Kainuu constructed older people’s digital competences and Internet use in their daily coverage.

The general research question of the present study is the following: How do academic researchers, older Internet (non)users, the media, and their social, cultural, and societal contexts construct older people’s relationship with the Internet and their position in society? The general research question is answered through the following research questions found in the substudies:

Substudy I (article I): Rasi, P. (2018). Internet nonusers. In B. Warf (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of the Internet (vol 2, pp. 533–539). Sage Publications Ltd.

• What kind of standpoints toward Internet and Internet nonuse are man- ifested in the literature?

• How are Internet nonusers defined in the literature?

• What factors contribute to Internet nonuse according to the literature?

• Which theoretical frameworks have been used in studies on Internet nonuse?

Substudy II (article II): Hakkarainen, P. (2012). ”No good for shoveling snow and carrying firewood”– Social representations of computers and the Internet by elderly Finnish nonusers. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1198–1215.

• How do the respondents classify the computer and the Internet?

• What kind of images do they use to depict the computer and the Internet?

• How do the social representations of the computer and the Internet express the respondents’ distinct identities, interests, history, and culture?

Substudy III (article III): Rasi, P., & Kilpeläinen, A. (2015). The digital competences and agency of older people living in rural villages in Finnish Lapland. Seminar.net. International Journal of Media, Technology & Lifelong Learning, 11(2), 149–160.

• How do the respondents assess their digital competences and the need to enhance them?

• Do the respondents report feeling social or societal pressure to use the Internet? If so, how does this pressure manifest itself?

(24)

Substudy IV (article IV): Rasi, P. (2020). "Behind the Digi-God's back": Social representations of older people's digital competences and internet use in regional Finnish newspapers. Ageing & Society, First View article.

• In what kind of Internet user roles do the articles portray older people?

• How and with what kinds of images do the articles portray older people’s digital competences in various Internet user roles?

• How are older people positioned at a societal level in the articles?

The current dissertation is comprised of the present summary chapter and four original articles, which have been attached at the end of the dissertation.

The summary is composed of four chapters. In Chapter 2, the key concepts and theoretical framework are presented and discussed. Chapter 3 describes the methodological choices, the research methods, data, and the findings of each substudy. Chapter 4 is dedicated to an evaluation of the study: the research process, results, and ethical questions are reflected upon, and the overarching findings presented. Finally, ideas for future research, along with the practical implications, are presented.

(25)

2 Key concepts and theoretical framework

The study draws on a constructionist understanding of older people’s relationship with the Internet. This understanding is bolstered by the study’s theoretical framework, which is comprised of social representations theory and modalities of agency theory. Through these theoretical approaches, it is possible to look at older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences as a complex phenomenon that is coconstructed by various social actors and their wider social, structural, and societal contexts. The current study seeks to understand older people’s relationship with the Internet holistically as a cultural phenomenon and process in a certain place, time, and situation (Jyrkämä, 2007a, 2008a); it aims to contextualize older people’s Internet (non) use and digital competences within their broader social, cultural, and societal contexts (Haythornthwaite, 2001; Joyce et al., 2015; Slack & Wise, 2009).

In the present study, the Internet is understood as a globally connected network of computers, functioning as channels for the transmission of information and environments for social interaction (Dennis & Kahn, 2020;

Lindgren, 2017). The study employs the concept of Internet (non)use, which points out that the Internet is a single medium (see Nimrod, 2017). However, the current study also acknowledges the nature of the Internet as the medium of media (e.g., Matikainen, 2017) or network of networks (Dennis & Kahn, 2020), which hosts a large and rapidly growing amount of diverse media for activities such as social networking, media sharing, and the provision of public and private services. Therefore, the Internet affords highly diverse online functions and activities (Nimrod, 2017), and this is best reflected in substudies III and IV.

Out of the four substudies, article I reviews the empirical studies and theoretical investigations addressing Internet nonuse and does not use any particular theoretical framework. Articles II and IV apply social representations theory as their analytical framework, whereas article III draws on modalities of agency theory. Therefore, when presenting the theoretical framework of the current study, priority is given to social representations theory. Because digitalization is a key social, cultural, and societal process for understanding

(26)

older people’s relationship with the Internet, I begin this chapter by discussing it. Thereafter, I will discuss older people and their Internet (non)use and digital competences in the context of digitalizing societies.

2.1 Digitalization of society

In digitalizing societies,² to a growing extent, information and services are provided digitally (Digi arkeen -neuvottelukunta, 2019; Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, 2011; Selwyn et al., 2005; Sourbati, 2009). Presently, Finland is one of the top European performers in the supply and demand of digital public services (European Commission, 2020a). During the data collection period (2009–2019) for the present study, in 2015, digitalization became one of the cross-cutting themes of the Finnish government’s strategic program, and the digitalization of public services was defined as one of the government’s key projects (Prime Minister’s Office, 2015). The rhetoric that Finland needed to take “a digital leap” became popular in public discussion and policy documents related to Finnish industries and public services (Jungner, 2015; Saari & Säntti, 2018; Valtioneuvoston kanslia, 2015).

In Finland, the digitalization of public services, such as health care services, has been—and remains still—a governmental priority (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, 2015). In terms of private digital services, for instance, banking services in Finland have become predominantly Internet based. Around the midpoint of the data collection for the present study, 61% of adults ages 65–74 were reported as having used online banking services, while it was at 22% in the 75–89 age group (Tilastokeskus, 2014). Presently, in 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Communications (2020) is preparing a program that will emphasize questions dealing with climate and digitalization.

At the end of the present study, in 2020, the world witnessed the outbreak of COVID-19. During COVID-19, some older people experienced interrelated

2 The concept of the “digital society” has also been used by researchers (e.g., Lindgren, 2017) for describing society today.

(27)

risks of infection and psychosocial risks such as loneliness, abuse, and loss of autonomy because of distancing and lockdowns (D’cruz & Banerjee, 2020).

COVID-19 and other pandemics are argued to require older populations to use the Internet and have adequate digital competences to access, understand, and respond to the crisis communication and communicate using online tools during periods of social distancing (Spence & Lachlan, 2016; Valtioneuvoston tiedepaneeli, 2020). In Finland, the Ministry of Transport and Communications (2020) has underlined that one of the biggest changes that had occurred during the pandemic was the acceleration of digitalization because people resorted to eLearning, online shopping and using other online services in an agile way. According to the minister, this “digital leap” needs to be taken advantage of and further strengthened.

The digitalization of society is grounded on the aim of getting as many citizens as possible online. However, all citizens may not be willing and able to do this. Over 20 years ago, Bauer (1997b) argued that the concept of resistance is not well suited to be used in the context of new technologies and, at best, is suited for blaming those who resist technologies. Nearly 20 years ago, Selwyn (2003b) wrote that researchers have studied the refusal to use the Internet as a problem to be solved and as irrational behavior. When looking at the digitalization policies of Finland published from 2009 to 2019, one cannot help but to arrive at a similar conclusion: citizens have to use the Internet, and those who do not are problem citizens in need of training and support services. In this way, societal practices and inequalities related to Internet use are articulated as individual problems (Talsi, 2014). Talsi argued that in the Finnish cultural and societal context, the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has become a norm: “various social and cultural structures, practices and discourses guide people to use technologies³” (Talsi, 2014, p. 14). The concept of the technological imperative describes the relationship between technology, users, and society, referring to the social and cultural pressure to use certain culturally important technologies (Talsi

3 Translated by the author from the following original Finnish text: ”Erilaiset sosiaa- liset ja kulttuuriset rakenteet, käytännöt ja diskurssit ohjaavat ihmisiä käyttämään teknologioita.”

(28)

& Tuuva-Hongisto, 2007). According to Niiniluoto (2015, p. 47), technological optimism is “the official ideology of our times.”

However, researchers have underlined that digitalization creates political challenges related to communication, democracy, education, social affairs, and health because digitalization may both promote and hinder citizens’ societal and cultural participation (McCreadie, 2010; Rice & Haythornthwaite, 2009).

Both researchers and policy-makers have acknowledged that digitalization may have exclusionary effects and marginalize older people in urban and rural areas, globally as well as in Finland, because there are still older people who are unable or not willing to use the provided digital services (Ahmadinia &

Eriksson-Backa, 2020; Baker et al., 2017; Digi arkeen -neuvottelukunta, 2019;

Hyppönen & Aalto, 2019; Seifert et al., 2018; Vehko et al., 2019; World Health Organization, 2016). Previous research has indicated that digitalization may not enhance citizens’ experiences of the availability of all services. For example, in terms of eWelfare services, a previous study conducted in one of the contexts of the present study—Finnish Lapland—indicated that Internet use positively affects citizens’ experiences of the availability of banking services but not of public services dealing with social insurances and employment (Selkälä et al., 2016). Presently, because of COVID-19, older people’s marginalization and human rights deprivation have been discussed by researchers because older people have frequently been isolated in their residence, and have been forced to depend on digital modes of interaction not familiar to all (D’cruz &

Banerjee, 2020).

Finnish policies published during the time of the present study highlight the risks of exclusion that digitalization may create for older people not using the Internet at all or in a highly limited way. At the end of 2010, a new national digital agenda was published (Arjen tietoyhteiskunnan neuvottelukunta, 2010) to steer the development of the Finnish information society from 2011 to 2020.

The agenda was lined up with the EU’s digital strategy, presenting the needed reforms to Finland's National Strategy for Information Society 2007–2015 (Valtioneuvoston kanslia, 2006). According to the agenda, the main challenges related to digitalization are productivity, the aging population, sustainable development, and global competitiveness. The agenda underlined that a large part of older people do not use the Internet and that they experience

(29)

digital technologies as not meaningful and difficult to use. The agenda (Arjen tietoyhteiskunnan neuvottelukunta, 2010, p. 177) also used imperatives when discussing older people’s relationship with the Internet: ”To assist themselves, older people should to a growing extent be able to use the Internet and ICT services” and ”in order to increase their activity, the senior population has to become motivated to get acquainted with and learn how to use ICTs.”⁴ The agenda further posited that older people’s active societal participation needs to be supported by providing adequate ICT-related support and guidance services.

According to the Ministry of Transport and Communications’ (Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, 2011) action program for accessible information society, digitalization enhances the availability of services, promotes sustainable development, and creates new opportunities for communication, public administration, and commerce. However, the program has also acknowledged that digitalization includes the risks of creating inequalities and exclusion if the needs and skills of all citizens are not taken into consideration. The program asserted that older and disabled people are especially at risk for exclusion, hence highlighting equal opportunities to live and participate in the information society:

Discrimination cannot be allowed in information society on any grounds, but every citizen’s rights to participate in an equal way to the societal dissemination of information and to use services despite their skills, limitations, age, and place of residence must be recognized and se- cured.⁵ (Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, 2011, p. 23)

4 Translation and cursives by the author. Original Finnish texts: ”Ikäihmisten pitäisi yhä enenevässä määrin pystyä käyttämään apunaan internetiä ja tietoteknisiä palveluita”

and ”jotta aktiivisuutta voidaan lisätä, tulee senioriväestön motivoitua tutustumaan ja opettelemaan tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttöä.”

5 Author’s translation from the following Finnish text: ”Kaikilla on oltava yhtäläiset mahdollisuudet elää ja toimia tietoyhteiskunnassa. Syrjintää ei voi sallia tietoyhteis- kunnassakaan millään syyllä vaan on tunnistettava ja turvattava jokaisen kansalaisen oikeudet osallistua tasa-arvoisella tavalla yhteiskunnan tiedon jakamiseen ja palvelui- den hyödyntämiseen heidän taidoistaan, rajoitteistaan, iästään tai asuinpaikastaan riippumatta.”

(30)

In its digital strategy “A digital agenda for Europe,” the European Commission (2010, pp. 24–25) defined digital competence as one of the eight key competences that are fundamental for participating in a digital society, for example, for using services such as eLearning, eGovernment, and eHealth.

The Commission noted that one of the challenges for digitalization is that at the time of writing the agenda in 2010, around 30% of Europeans had never used the Internet, and most of them were “aged 65 to 74 years old, people on low incomes, the unemployed and the less educated.”

Policies steering digitalization both in Finland and in the EU have defined older people’s participation in the digitalization process as a challenge, one that can be addressed by developing accessible services with the service users, providing training, support, and guidance services, and continuing to provide services through phone and face-to-face encounters (Arjen tietoyhteiskunnan neuvottelukunta, 2010; Digi arkeen -neuvottelukunta, 2019; European Commission, 2010; Prime Minister’s Office, 2015).

To conclude, the digitalization of society is constructed in both Finnish and EU policies as a cross-cutting theme, a key project, and a necessary and largely beneficial “leap” that governments and citizens need to take. This construction is in line with more general societal discourses, which are characterized by understanding new technologies as a means for development, progress, and a better life (Bauer, 1997b; Niiniluoto, 2015; Slack & Wise, 2009). However, the policies also acknowledge the potential exclusionary effects of digitalization that need to be prevented through, for example, training, support services, and user-centered service design. The policies also clearly state that older people are at risk for exclusion.

The present study focuses on how older people’s relationship with the Internet is socially constructed. Therefore, in the next two sections, I discuss older people and their Internet (non)use and digital competences in the context of digitalizing societies. I ground my discussion on statistics and the previous research literature, which, following a constructionist understanding, is understood as social construction performed by academics (e.g., Gergen, 1985; Gergen & Gergen, 2003).

(31)

2.2 Older people and Internet (non)use

Defining older people

In the context of use of digital media, such as the Internet, “older people” are commonly defined in the literature as being 65 years of age or older, whereas the “older adults” age group may already start at 45 years of age (Hunsaker &

Hargittai, 2018). Even though there is no universally accepted chronological definition for “older people,” in the Nordic countries, such as Finland, a definition referring to people over 65 years of age is common (Begum, 2019).

In the present dissertation, a slightly broader classification of older people as being 60 years of age or older (e.g., Nimrod, 2017; Peace et al., 2007) has been applied to gain broad research data and better understanding of older people’s relationship with the Internet.

However, it needs to be acknowledged that age is a multidimensional phenomenon and within the research on aging, a number of “ages” or aspects of age have been identified besides that of chronological age: social age, biological age, psychological age, and functional age, to name but just a few (Dannefer & Settersten, 2010; Jyrkämä & Nikander, 2006; Karisto, 2004; Morgan

& Kunkel, 2011). In the context of Internet (non)use and digital competences, a person may be “old” in terms of his/her chronological age but demonstrate Internet usage practices and competences typical for a younger person (e.g., Nimrod, 2017). Researchers have emphasized that people chronologically over 65 years of age are not a homogenous group but rather a diverse and socially differentiated group in both urban and nonurban contexts (Edmonson

& Scharf, 2015; Gilleard & Higgs, 2005; Keating & Phillips, 2008). In social gerontological research, the diversity and heterogeneity of aging and old age are key issues, with diversity referring to the differences between groups of older people and heterogeneity referring to the differences between aged persons (Koskinen, 2004). Even if restricted to a certain generation, for example, to Baby Boomers in Finland, social gerontologists have called for understanding them as not a homogenous group (Jyrkämä, 2005; Karisto, 2008; Koskinen, 2004).

Research has identified the various phases within the aging process, such as the third and fourth age, arguing that the phases have their differences

(32)

and that there is heterogeneity within the phases (Haarni, 2010; Karisto, 2004, 2008; Koskinen, 2004; Lloyd, 2015; Pirhonen et al., 2016, 2019; Vaarama &

Ollila, 2009). Gerontological and social gerontological research has indicated that differences between people of the same chronological age become even bigger as they age, because of, for example, health, wealth, cognitive abilities, social relationships, and social policies (Dannefer & Settersten, 2010;

Silverstein, 2014). Furthermore, the idea of the third and fourth age as separate, consecutive chronological continuums has been challenged because some researchers have argued that these stages can be partly overlapping and that there is a need to develop a more nuanced understanding of how older people themselves construct age categorizations and their age (Pirhonen et al., 2016, 2019).

Gerontological and social gerontological research has shown that throughout history, conceptions of old age and aging have been dichotomous:

old age has been understood as both an achievement of mankind and a social problem requiring societal actions (Koskinen, 1994, 2004). However, despite the prevailing dichotomous thinking about old age and aging, a shift toward a conception of aging that acknowledges its historically, socially, and culturally constructed character has occurred in gerontology, social gerontology, and other fields such as medicine, public health, and the policy sciences (Dannefer

& Settersten, 2010). To cite Dannefer and Settersten (2010, p. 4), “Old age is no longer viewed as embodying a set of common and universal experiences, nor as a dark period of inevitable decline.” Researchers have called for the need to identify older people’s strengths and understand aging and old age in more positive and optimistic ways, acknowledging old age as an opportunity and resource for society (Gergen & Gergen, 2003; Jyrkämä, 2007a; Kautto, 2004;

Koskinen, 2004; Nelson-Becker et al., 2020). In terms of the topic of the present study—older people’s relationship with the Internet—a positive outlook can mean, for example, looking at this relationship from the viewpoint of older people’s wisdom instead of the more typical viewpoint of older people’s deficiencies (Cornér, 2020).

In the research on media usage, media cultures, and media literacies, it is common to talk about media generations, that is, to separate individuals belonging to chronologically different generations. In terms of children’s,

(33)

young people’s and older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences, concepts such as “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” are commonly used, referring to children and young people as distinctively different groups from previous generations in terms of their attitudes, skills, and behavior as related to digital media and digital technologies (e.g., Aroldi & Colombo, 2013;

Haddon, 2018). However, the research on media generations has received criticism for (1) failing to capture the complexities and diversities within and between the chronological generations (Alvermann & Sanders, 2019; Aroldi

& Colombo, 2013; Haddon, 2018; Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Matikainen, 2015;

Taipale et al., 2018) and for (2) polarizing the differences between these generations’ media use into a generation gap (Sourbati, 2009). A large number of researchers have underlined the diversity within and between both chronologically young and older people’s Internet (non)use and digital competences (Abad Alcalá, 2019; Alvermann & Sanders, 2019; European Commission, 2020b, 2020c; Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018; Ofcom, 2015, 2019, 2020).

Despite the fact that the literature has pointed to diversity in older people’s relationships with the Internet, that is, in (non)use of the Internet and in their digital competences, it is still justified to talk about “older people” as a group. This is because both internationally and in Finland, people over 60 years of age are reported to use the Internet on average less and somewhat differently than the younger age groups.

Older people’s Internet nonuse

In the literature, people who do not use the Internet are referred to as Internet nonusers (e.g., Rice & Haythornthwaite, 2009). However, Internet nonusers may refer to a heterogenous group of people depending, for example, on whether the person has never used the Internet or whether s/he is a so-called Internet dropout, Internet ex-user, or Internet discontinuer, that is, a person who has used the Internet before, but stopped for various reasons (Dutton et al., 2013; Joseph, 2010; Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; Rice & Haythornthwaite, 2009;

Richardson, 2018; Ting, 2014).

Variation within Internet nonusers also exists in terms of whether nonuse is a conscious or deliberate decision not necessarily resulting from

(34)

socioeconomic factors (Joseph, 2010). People deliberately refusing to use the Internet have been referred to as Internet want-nots (Ting, 2014; van Deursen

& Helsper, 2015) and Internet refusers (Schauer, 2002). Also, people refusing to use certain social media sites such as Facebook have been referred to as abstainers (Portwood-Stacer, 2013). The respondents of substudy II constructed their Internet nonuse as a deliberate choice and, hence, were considered as Internet refusers. However, to cite Helsper and Reisdorf (2016, p. 1255), “Researchers disagree about the extent to which these ‘choices’ are truly free or forced by socio-economic circumstances and cultural practices.”

When considered a conscious decision, the person’s Internet nonuse can also be conceptualized as resistance or rejection (Bauer, 1997a; Miles & Thomas, 1997). The researchers of new technologies and media have further identified different degrees of resistance and rejection, such as active and passive resistance (Bauer, 1997b; Joseph, 2010; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Miles &

Thomas, 1997).

From the perspective of developed countries, Internet nonuse may seem a marginal phenomenon. However, even now, around half of the world’s population does not use the Internet, with large differences in usage between different regions of the world, as well as between the rural and urban areas in these regions. According to the United Nations’ agency for ICTs, the International Telecommunication Union (2020, pp. 4–5), developing countries’

rural areas are still “penalized” because presently, virtually all urban areas in the world are covered by a 4G mobile-broadband networks, while in the least- developed countries, 17% of the rural population has no mobile coverage at all, and 19% is only covered by a 2G network. According to the agency, in developing countries in 2019, “urban access to the Internet was 2.3 times as high as rural access” (International Telecommunication Union, 2020, p. 6).

In developed countries, rural residents have reported experiences of being second-class citizens in relation to urban dwellers in terms of Internet access (Bakardjieva, 2008), but currently, the differences between urban and rural areas in terms of Internet access and use are not as significant as in developing countries, even though they still exist (International Telecommunication Union, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2020).

(35)

Older people’s Internet nonuse has been studied within multiple disciplines and research fields, such as social and cultural studies of technology (e.g., Luomanen & Peteri, 2013; Peteri, 2006; Sankari, 2004; Talsi, 2014), communication and new media studies (e.g., van Deursen & Helsper, 2015), technology acceptance and adoption research, gerontechnology (e.g., Chen

& Chan, 2011), HCI (Sayago, 2019), and digital divides and digital inequalities research (e.g., Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016). Depending largely on the research field, various theoretical frameworks have been applied, ranging from individualistic and psychological decision-making models (e.g., Ting, 2016) to sociological theories such as the domestication approach (e.g., Talsi, 2014) and social milieu approach (Lutz, 2016). However, the social and cultural embeddedness of older people’s Internet (non)use has, up until now, received fairly little research attention (Lantela, 2019; Lutz, 2016; Slack & Wise, 2009), and the present study will address this gap.

Previous research into older people’s Internet nonuse has explained their nonuse through demographic explanations and/or through individual, self-reported reasons. The digital divides research has looked at how socio- economic factors relate to Internet nonuse (see Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016).

Chronological age is globally connected to Internet use, with the proportion of Internet nonusers increasing with age (Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; Hunsaker

& Hargittai, 2018; International Telecommunication Union, 2020; Statistics Finland, 2019; Tilastokeskus, 2010, 2014, 2017). Presently, in 2020, in Finland, 0% of the 16–54-year-old population are reported as never having used the Internet, while the percentage in the 55–64 age group was 2%, 7% for the 65–74 age group, and 41% for the 75–89 age group (Tilastokeskus, 2020).

During the present study, from 2009 to 2020, the number of Internet nonusers aged over 65 decreased, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Statistics Finland, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2020). However, the number of Internet nonusers still remains considerable for the age group over 65.

Research has indicated that other socioeconomic factors besides place of residence and chronological age contribute to an individual’s Internet nonuse.

Nonusers in technologically developed countries are increasingly made up of those who are less educated, in poorer health, disabled, have a smaller income, and are more socially isolated, a group sometimes called the digital

(36)

underclass (Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; see also Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018;

Matthews et al., 2019). Although gender differences (gender gap) in Internet nonuse are large in developing countries (International Telecommunication Union, 2020), in developed countries, such as Finland, gender is not that a significant factor for Internet nonuse (Tilastokeskus, 2020). Finally, previous research has supported the life course perspective, meaning that Internet nonuse is reflective of cumulative experiences, such that higher socioeconomic status (SES) in childhood increases the probability of being an Internet user in older adulthood and having at least one period of high SES in the life course increases the probability of Internet use in older adulthood (Silver, 2014).

Barrier research or barrier analysis approaches to older people’s Internet nonuse has looked at the self-reported reasons that individuals provide for their nonuse and that relate to individual circumstances or personal deficiencies. The list of self-reported reasons is extensive, including reasons such as a lack of interest, perceived need and usefulness, skills, support, information or experience; physical and cognitive deficiencies related to aging; security and safety concerns; low computer self-efficacy; and/or high rates of computer anxiety (e.g., Cresci et al., 2010; European Commission, 2020c; Gitlow, 2014; Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016; Richardson et al., 2005; Spann

& Stewart, 2018; Ting, 2016; Vaportzis et al., 2017; Wagner et al., 2010). Instead, social and cultural studies of technology have indicated, for example, how social differences—gender, age, and place being understood as such—influence the ways technologies are interpreted, signified, valued, and sometimes abandoned (Talsi, 2014).

Older people’s Internet use

The present study focuses on the construction of older people both as users and nonusers of the Internet. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the line between use and nonuse is sometimes hard to define (Selwyn, 2006;

Miles & Thomas, 1997), and applying a binary approach (use/nonuse) may conceal possible insights regarding older people’s Internet use (Nimrod, 2017). Even if older people might be nonusers, they may let or make others do things for them online, which is referred to as proxy use (Hänninen et al.,

(37)

2020; Livingstone et al., 2005; Reisdorf et al., 2020; Richardson, 2018; van Deursen & Helsper, 2015).

Presently, in Finland, 99% of 45–54-year-olds are reported as having used the Internet in the last three months of 2020, while the percentage in the 55–

64 age group was 97%, 88% for the 65–74 age group, and 51% for the 75–89 age group (Tilastokeskus, 2020). During the present study, from 2009 to 2020, the number of Internet users aged over 65 increased, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Statistics Finland, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2020).

Besides the fact that the percentage of older people using the Internet is lower compared with younger age groups, older people use the Internet somewhat differently.

First, people over 65 years of age use the Internet less frequently than younger age groups, meaning that a smaller percentage of them uses the Internet several times a day (Statistics Finland, 2019; Tilastokeskus, 2020). This is partly explained by the fact that a smaller percentage of older people access the Internet with a smartphone, which makes their Internet use less mobile than that of the younger age groups (Ofcom, 2020;

Tilastokeskus, 2020). Second, on average, older people’s range of online activities is narrower than that of the younger age groups (Anderson &

Perrin, 2017; European Commission, 2020b; Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018;

Ofcom, 2019, 2020; Statistics Finland, 2019, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2020; Valtiovarainministeriö & Digi- ja väestötietovirasto, 2020). In Finland, people over 65 years of age report using social networking services less than other age groups on average and also use the Internet less than younger age groups for purposes such as gaming; listening to music, audio books, and podcasts; watching video services; online shopping; and reading blogs (Statistics Finland, 2019, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2020;

Valtiovarainministeriö & Digi- ja väestötietovirasto, 2020). Instead, Finnish people over the age of 65 most commonly use the Internet for everyday errands such as online banking; for searching information concerning goods, services, health, illnesses, and nutrition; and for following online newspapers and television companies' news pages and net television services (Statistics Finland, 2020; Tilastokeskus, 2020).

(38)

On average, in Finland, older people prefer traditional media such as print newspapers and magazines, radio, and TV (Saarenmaa, 2020). Based on a large cross-European audience research project, Nimrod (2017, p. 244) described older people’s media use as media use traditionalism, arguing that

“seniors do not make intense use of innovative practices and tend to adhere to familiar media use.” However, Nimrod also concluded that a minority of older Internet users were heavy asynchronous media users, who made intense use of new media practices and social media.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there were changes in how Finnish people followed the media, and the changes were the biggest among 65–74- and 75–89-year-olds. Among older people, the popularity of social networking services, online newspapers, and television companies’ news pages and net television services grew significantly (Statistics Finland, 2020). According to a Statistics of Finland (2020, p. 2) report, “It is probable that the restrictions imposed by the ‘corona spring’ moved social interaction to the web and motivated elderly people to learn new social media skills.”

Older people’s Internet use and nonuse are dynamically intertwined and often hard to clearly distinguish from each other. As in the case of the present study (substudy III), a single study can even address both Internet use and nonuse. Indeed, older people’s Internet use and nonuse have both been studied within the same multiple disciplines and research fields (see the previous section). The theoretical frameworks applied in studies on older people’s Internet use depend largely on 1) the discipline and research field in question and 2) the perspectives from which Internet use is explored, such as learning, health and well-being, everyday life, and participation in the digitalized society. Within these perspectives, studies have typically focused on expectations, motivation, attitudes, practices, meanings, experiences, and consequences related to older people’s Internet use (e.g., Ng, 2007; Nimrod, 2017). For example, in Finland, older people’s experiences of the use of eHealth and eWelfare services have been studied (e.g., Hyppönen & Aalto, 2019; Selkälä et al., 2016).

Again, as in the research on Internet nonuse, various theoretical frameworks have been applied in research on older people’s Internet use.

These frameworks range from individualistic and psychological theories to

(39)

sociological theories (see the previous section). For example, older individuals’

motives for and consequences of using tablet computers have been studied through uses and gratifications theory (Magsamen-Conrad et al., 2015).

Some researchers have combined individualistic and sociological theories, such as Blok et al. (2020) in their study on ICT use among older people with cognitive impairments, in which they combined classical theories of technology adoption research and gerontological theories on aging. Recently, older people’s Internet use has been studied with a more comprehensive approach, here from the perspective of media repertoires, enquiring into how older people combine their online and offline media practices into repertoires (Nimrod, 2017).

The results of previous studies have pointed to diversity in terms of the expectations, motivation, attitudes, practices, meanings, experiences, and consequences related to older people’s Internet use. As discussed in the previous section on older people’s Internet nonuse, socioeconomic factors contribute to this diversity. Looking at Internet use from the individuals’

perspective, older people often experience technical challenges in using the Internet; therefore, social support networks play an important role in their Internet use by encouraging Internet use and providing assistance (Bakardjieva, 2005; Baker et al., 2017; Barnard et al., 2013; Blok et al., 2020; Damodaran et al., 2014; Jin et al., 2019; Olsson & Viscovi, 2018; Rasi, Lindberg & Airola, 2021). Furthermore, in terms of consequences, Internet and social media use have been shown to support older people’s cognitive functions (Castro Rojas et al., 2018; Myhre et al., 2017), well-being, and social connectedness (Castro Rojas et al., 2018; Chen & Schulz, 2016; Hasan & Linger, 2016; Stockwell et al., 2020). However, previous studies have also indicated that, for example, eHealth services are sometimes incompatible with the daily routines of older people, thus creating unintended negative consequences in their everyday lives (Lantela, 2019; Urban, 2017).

The results of barrier research or barrier analyses that were presented in the previous section can be applied conversely to older people’s Internet use. The reasons Internet nonusers provide for their nonuse, such as lack of interest, skills, perceived need, and usefulness, can be looked at from a positive viewpoint as facilitators or enablers of older people’s Internet use. For example, Spann

(40)

and Stewart (2018) identified perception of usefulness, user requirements, self-efficacy, sense of self and control, privacy and confidentiality, and cost as both the barriers to and facilitators of older people’s usage of mHealth, that is, the delivery of health and care services via mobile devices.

Looking at older people’s Internet use through a more socially and culturally oriented approach, previous studies have showed, for example, that the use of the computer and the Internet, are influenced by social differences, such as age, place, and social environment (Lutz, 2016; Talsi, 2014). Finally, in the context of the present study—Finland—multidisciplinary research addressing older people’s computer and Internet use began at the end of 1990s. On this subject, academic dissertations have been produced within several disciplines, such as sociology, social work, and information studies, focusing on the meanings of computer and Internet use for older people’s quality of life and everyday life (Blazun, 2013; Kilpeläinen, 2016; Sankari, 2004); older people’s information behavior (Niemelä, 2006); and on the domestication of technologies by older people (Talsi, 2014).

In summary, previous research on older people’s Internet non(use) has been conducted within multiple disciplines and research fields, showing the complexity, diversity, heterogeneity, and nuances within and between the chronological generations’ Internet non(use). For example, previous research has problematized the concepts of older people and Internet nonuse.

Furthermore, previous research has explained older people’s Internet non(use) mainly with demographic and individual explanations and, to a lesser extent, with social and cultural explanations.

2.3 Older people’s digital competences

The present research explores the social construction of older people’s relationship with the Internet by also exploring how their digital competences are constructed by the literature, older people themselves, and the media. In the present study, DigComp, the Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, which is provided by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Carretero et al., 2017;

(41)

Ferrari, 2013; Punie, 2013; Vuorikari et al., 2016) is applied. According to the framework, digital competence, broadly defined, refers to “the confident, critical and creative use of ICT to achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion, and/or participation in society” (Punie, 2013, p. 2).

Thus, digital competence is understood as a key citizenship skill (Ilomäki et al., 2016), and the DigComp framework is intended to function as a tool for improving citizens’ digital competences (Carretero et al., 2017).

The latest version of the framework, DigComp 2.1 (Carretero et al., 2017), defines five competence areas with specific competences: Information and data literacy, Communication and collaboration, Digital content creation, Safety, and Problem solving (Table 1). In the framework, digital competences are understood as containing knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Table 1. DigComp 2.1 competence areas and competences (Carretero et al., 2017).

Competence

areas Competences

Information and

data literacy • Browsing, searching, filtering data, information, and digital content

• Evaluating data, information, and digital content

• Managing data, information, and digital content Communication

and collaboration • Interacting through digital technologies

• Sharing through digital technologies

• Engaging in citizenship through digital technologies

• Collaborating through digital technologies

• Netiquette

• Managing digital identity Digital content

creation • Developing digital content

• Integrating and re-elaborating digital content

• Copyright and licenses

• Programming Safety • Protecting devices

• Protecting personal data and privacy

• Protecting health and well-being

• Protecting the environment Problem solving • Solving technical problems

• Identifying needs and technological responses

• Creatively using digital technologies

• Identifying digital competence gaps

On the margins of digitalization : the social construction of older people and the Internet

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

PÄIVI RASI

On the margins of

digitalization

On the margins of digitalization

On the margins of digitalization

Acknowledgments

Table of contents

1 Introduction

2 Key concepts and theoretical framework