Information Systems Management, 29:305–320, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1058-0530 print / 1934-8703 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716992

Conceptualizing E-Inclusion in Europe: An Explanatory Study

Vishanth Weerakkody1, Yogesh K. Dwivedi2, Ramzi El-Haddadeh1, Ahlam Almuwil1,and Ahmad Ghoneim1

1Business School, Brunel University, Middlesex, UK2Business School, Swansea University, Wales, UK

The aim of this article is to conceptualize e-Inclusion andidentify factors affecting it. A critical review of the literatureis conducted to identify and categorize the factors influencinge-Inclusion into a comprehensive taxonomy. Using a survey ques-tionnaire, the impact of these factors in influencing citizens’ adop-tion of e-government services was examined. The findings highlighta number of factors under demographic, political, economic social,cultural, and infrastructural dimensions that can have a significantinfluence on e-Inclusion.

Keywords e-Inclusion; electronic government; digital divide; socialinclusion; Europe

INTRODUCTIONWhile more services can now be accessed electronically

through a range of devices and technologies, significant barrierssuch as access, service design, personal capacity, trust, skills,willingness, and awareness can prevent the very people whocould benefit most from these services (European Commission,2004; Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Hsieh, Rai, & Keil, 2011; Sipior,Ward, & Connolly, 2011). In addition, despite the fact thatcommercial enterprises have been exploiting business oppor-tunities offered by the internet for some time by engaging ine-business activities, public sector organizations in particularhave until recently failed to capitalize on the potential bene-fits of e-Enabling their services, due to lack of adoption (Carter& Weerakkody, 2008; Hazlett & Hill, 2003). However, thisnotion is now beginning to change with many governments ini-tiating e-Services projects with a view of offering better andmore accessible services to citizens (Al-shafi & Weerakkody,2010; Wang & Emurian, 2005). This shift has been facilitatedlargely because of the availability of cost-effective solutionssuch as the use of mobile technology, digital television, andsocial media channels. Although the extant literature identifies

Address correspondence to Vishanth Weerakkody, BusinessSchool, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UnitedKingdom. E-mail: Vishanth.weerakkody@brunel.ac.uk

digital divide as one of the main challenges that public sectororganizations face in their efforts to promote the engagement ofonline services among citizens (see for example, DiMaggio &Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai, 2004), these innovative technologieshave the potential to turn “digital divide” into “digital oppor-tunity,” bringing the benefit of information and communicationtechnology (ICT) to all segments of the population, in particular,to those in underserved communities.

Achieving a more inclusive society is one of the key ambi-tions of the information society policy; thus, inclusion and itsrelated themes are of a global concern (Wright & Wadhwa,2010). As Bélanger and Carter (2009) argue, digital divideand e-Inclusion have been discussed widely in the informationsociety agenda for nearly a decade since the emergence of e-Services in the public sector. In addition, citizens’ acceptance ofe-Services has been debated in the literature, repeatedly result-ing in the identification of various demographic and contextualchallenges impeding adoption and diffusion (Carter & Belanger,2005; Foley, 2004; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). Consequently,progress in e-Inclusion is still lacking and, in some cases, evenwidening in many countries (Bentivegna and Guerrieri, 2010).Helsper (2008) argues that technological forms of exclusion area reality for significant segments of the population, and, forsome people, they reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages.However, there has been little research on examining thesechallenges, and, as such, few sources of published normativeliterature exist that identify the various issues influencing e-Inclusion. Although previous studies have been done to examinedigital divide, there is little evidence of studies that have effec-tively conceptualized e-Inclusion beyond the various researchinitiatives and reports published by public bodies such as theEuropean Commission (EC). Interestingly, these projects andreports have been influenced and driven by the fact that in theEuropean context emphasis has recently moved from “digitaldivide” to “e-Inclusion” (Helbig, Ramón Gil-García, & Ferro,2009; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Selwyn & Facer, 2007;Warschauer, 2004). In particular, the limitations of the term“digital divide” has been criticized because it is essentiallycentered on the element of access, neglecting the advantageof other equally important factors. Covering these factors will

305

306 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

therefore help in designing and developing better e-Services thatmeet the needs of all citizens, irrespective of age, gender, orother demographic variables. It is argued that such a focus willenhance e-Inclusion and consequently result in social inclusionin European countries. The rationale for this study lies in thereasoning that most previous studies on e-Inclusion are con-centrated around European policy statement and practitionerperspectives. Given this context, the aim of this article is toconceptualize the key factors that influence e-Inclusion andempirically investigate their impact through a survey-basedinvestigation.

To realize the above aim and explore the arguments set outbefore, this article is structured into four sections. The first sec-tion presents a review of the literature pertaining to the contex-tual aspects of e-Inclusion, the evolution of e-Inclusion, and thechallenges highlighting the key European policies and strategiessupporting e-Inclusion. In the second section, a conceptualiza-tion of the factors influencing e-Inclusion is presented. In thethird section, a brief description of the methodology and contextof this study is offered, followed by a discussion of the empiri-cal findings. Finally, in the fourth section, the article concludesby highlighting the theoretical and practical contributions andoutlining future research directions.

BACKGROUND: E-INCLUSION CONCEPTS ANDFUNDAMENTALS

Reviewing an emerging field with poorly-defined bound-aries and research styles such as “e-Inclusion” poses specialproblems. These problems include both the selection of liter-ature, where, for example, some authors use the term “digitaldivide” and others use terms such as “digital exclusion” or“digital inequalities” to describe e-Inclusion (Saebø, Rose, &Flak, 2008). Saebø et al. (2008) posit that it may be difficultto understand what kind of analysis model should be adoptedand from which supporting disciplines the conceptual modelsshould be drawn. In social sciences, inclusion refers to a pro-cess, de facto and/or de jure, of including people in a givensocial structure, most often, in society at large. Conversely,social exclusion describes “The inability of our society to keepall groups and individuals within reach of what we expectedas a society . . . [or] to realize their full potential” (Power& Wilson, 2000, p. 1). In addition, there is a close linkagebetween Inclusion and e-Inclusion. E-Inclusion is essentiallyabout social inclusion in a knowledge society (Kaplan, 2005).In Europe, e-Inclusion remains one of the three strategic pillarsof the i2010 (inclusion) strategic plan which specifies overar-ching goals of growth, employment, and quality of life (Helbiget al., 2009). The European strategy is to ensure that the benefitsof the information society can be enjoyed by everyone, includ-ing people who are disadvantaged due to limited resources orby education, age, gender, ethnicity, disability, and location(i2010 European Strategic Plan, 2007). According to Wrightand Wadhwa (2010), the term e-Inclusion has its roots in ECdocuments published in 1999, in which it is stated that the

objective of e-Inclusion is to bring every citizen, every school,and every company in Europe online.

According to Codagnone, e-Inclusion means “both inclusiveICT and the use of ICT to achieve broader social inclusionobjectives and, thus, it is about both inclusive technologicalinnovation and innovative ways to deliver inclusive policiesby using ICT” (2009, p. 5). Early research by DiMaggio andHargittai (2001) refers to digital inequality when discussingthe theme e-Inclusion. From their perspective, digital inequalityencompasses five main variables: technical means (inequalityof bandwidth), autonomy (whether users log on from home orat work, monitored or unmonitored, during limited times or atwill), skill (knowledge of how to search for or download infor-mation), social support (access to advice from more experiencedusers), and purpose (whether they use the internet for increaseof economic productivity, improvement of social capital, or con-sumption and entertainment). Cullen, Hadjivassiliou, Junge, andFischer have identified e-Inclusion as a new dimension of socialinclusion; they posit that “social inclusion in a knowledge soci-ety should focus on people’s empowerment and participation inthe knowledge society and economy” (2007, p. 12). On the otherhand, Kaplan (2005) focuses on the policies that enhance par-ticipation in society by means of ICT defining e-Inclusion as theinclusion of the citizens within the information society at all lev-els (social relationships, work, culture, and political) by usingtechnology either directly or indirectly to improve their qualityof life. Bentivegna and Guerrieri (2010) posit that e-Inclusion islinked to innovation, whereby, when technological applicationschange, the connected e-Inclusion processes inevitably change.In this respect, e-Inclusion can be seen as social inclusion in aknowledge society. Therefore, beyond access to ICT tools andservices, e-Inclusion focuses on the empowerment and partic-ipation of people in the knowledge society and the degree towhich ICT contribute to equalizing and promoting participationin society. Given the aforementioned context, the e-Inclusiondebate—as it is reflected in the literature—has relied on threecore concepts, namely digital divide, social exclusion or socialinequalities, and social cohesion.

In the European context, recently, the concept of e-Inclusionhas received much attention. The European Commission andEU Member States have initiated e-Inclusion strategies aimed atreaching out to the those segments of society who are excludedfrom using e-Services and bringing them into the mainstreamof society in the digital economy. The different stages of thesestrategies over time are depicted in Table 1.

Digital DivideIn previous studies, the term “digital divide” was merely

considered as a problem of lack of access or lack of usage,but in reality it is broader than just simple access to the inter-net and covers many different forms of technology and activity(Carter & Bélanger, 2005). This view has recently changed; ithas become clear that such a dual approach no longer reflectsthe complexity and multileveled character of digital divide

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 307

TABLE 1European strategies to promote e-Inclusion in Europe

Year Source Strategies

1999 European policy documents eEurope: the objective of the eEurope initiative is to bring everyone in Europe onlineas quickly as possible

2000 The European Council meetingLisbon

Set the goal of the European Union’s becoming a more competitive and dynamicknowledge based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growthwith more and better jobs and greater social cohesion

2001 The European Council meetingin Nice

Specific criteria were set out together with a requirement that each member stateproduce a biennial national action plan on social inclusion

2002 eEurope eEurope sets a number of targets on e-accessibility2003 Symposium on e-Inclusion Ministers discussed ways to make the Information Society open, inclusive, and

accessible to all European citizens2005 eEurope E-Inclusion was one of the key priorities of the eEurope action plan2005 European Commission EC lunched its i2010 strategy; the key objective was promoting an inclusive

European information society2006 European Commission Member States should coordinate their policies for combating poverty and social

exclusion. Their National Action Plans should set out concrete steps to improveaccess to ICT and the opportunities new technologies can provide

2007 European Commission The European Commission launched its i2010 initiative to raise political awarenesson e-Inclusion, encourage replication of e-Inclusion success stories throughout theEU, and pave the way for future actions

2010 European Commission EC lunched a new Europe 2020 strategy with the baseline, “A strategy for smart,sustainable and inclusive growth,” focusing on developing an economy based onknowledge and innovation and promoting a more resource-efficient, greener, andmore competitive economy

(Barzilai-Nahon, 2006; DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai,2004; Selwyn, 2004; Warschauer, 2004). In this respect, thereare many reasons behind the call for changing the terminol-ogy from digital divide to e-Inclusion. First, the word “divide”brings the idea that digital divide is a static phenomenon thathardly changes with time, which, in reality, is clearly not thecase. It is a dynamic phenomenon that changes whenever tech-nology changes, and it is obvious that technology is changingrapidly. In addition, access, usage, and skills related to ICT arechanging continuously (Frissen, 2000). It has also been arguedthat digital divide is only about focusing on access to online ser-vices by the “have” or “have not.” However, as more people arenow online, it is more likely that the disparities between accessto online services caused by material factors have decreasedsignificantly. For instance, price for computers and other ICTresources have dropped significantly in recent years, and, formost households, the material-access barrier no longer exists(Mariën & Van Audenhove, 2010). Consequently, the remain-ing fraction of non-adopters of online services are either hardto convince, under skilled, lack the financial resources or sim-ply have other barriers. Another reason is the policies that weresuccessful in increasing internet penetration in the early daysmay no longer be appropriate, especially in countries wherethe majority of people are already connected to the internet.The last reason is aging; societies around the world tend to age

and senior citizens are often excluded from access to moderninformation technology (Anderson & Hussey, 2000). Differentresearchers therefore call for a change in terminology and bringforward the notion of digital inequality or e-Inclusion, which isa more positive connotation (e.g., DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste,& Shafer, 2004; Hargittai, 2004; Selwyn, 2004). One study doneby Hsieh et al. (2011) investigated how digital inequality canbe addressed by using income and education as surrogates toclassify individuals into advantaged and disadvantaged socioe-conomic groups. The results reveal interesting differences inhabitus, cultural capital, and social capital between the socioe-conomically advantaged and disadvantaged, both prior to andafter using technology (Hsieh et al., 2011; Sipior et al., 2011).

Social ExclusionThere is strong evidence that many of those who are affected

by digital divide are also socially excluded (Digital InclusionTeam, 2007). Therefore, e-Inclusion and social inclusion arehighly correlated (Kaplan, 2005). Social exclusion is subject tomany and different definitions. Many definitions focus on the“classification” of target groups excluded or at risk of exclu-sion made on the basis of factors of disadvantage that can,for example, be economic, physical, geographical, or linkedto gender, age, and so on. (Mancinelli, 2008). Further, socialexclusion is a social process, built on social inequalities and

308 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

leading to the marginalization of individuals and groups asregards societal goals. Social inequalities (related to a series offactors: gender, ethnicity, age, education, employment, income,professional status, housing, family structure, disability, geo-graphical location, etc.) are the basic roots of social exclusion.Exclusion occurs when individuals or social groups are leftbehind or do not benefit from equal opportunities to achievesocietal goals (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). According toWright and Wadhwa (2010), the e-Excluded refers to thosecitizens who do not have access to or do not use the inter-net. Most researchers argue that exclusion is a multidimen-sional construct. In an attempt to simplify the large numberof different dimensions proposed by various scholars (such asAnthias, 2001; Chapman, Phimister, Shucksmith, Upward, &Vera-Toscano, 1998; Phipps, 2000). Table 2 groups three cate-gories of exclusion based on social identity, social location, orsocial status.

Social CohesionSocial cohesion is often used by the EC as an overar-

ching objective, covering various issues related to regionaldisparities, accession countries, employment strategy, genderequality, poverty, and so on. (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007).There is, however, no accepted definition of the concept ofsocial cohesion among the academic community. Moreover,it cannot be defined in relation to any clear counterpart,such as exclusion/inclusion or equality/inequality (Galabuzi &Teelucksingh, 2010). Social cohesion approach in this articlefocuses on citizenship practice and social exclusion/inclusionbased on community engagement and citizen participation asa key to a form of social integration that acknowledges themultiple identities composing modern nation states and soci-eties (Jenson, 2002; Kymlicka, 1998). Jenson (2002) has arguedthat social cohesion represents the absence of exclusion andmarginalization. In essence, social cohesion is therefore aprocess and outcome that seeks to actively eliminate socialexclusion and build social inclusion (Galabuzi, 2006).

According to Bentivegna and Guerrieri (2010), e-Inclusionin present-day societies represents the first step along the roadleading to the creation of a new form of social cohesion basedon the use of ICTs. Further, they argue that the e-Inclusionprocess aims not only to increase the number of individuals

TABLE 2Mechanisms of exclusion and how people become excluded

Social identity Social location Social status

Race Remote areas Health situationEthnicity Stigmatized ares Migrant statusReligion War OccupationGender Conflict areas Level of educationAge

who are able to improve their quality of life as a result ofICT-related developments but also aims to affect the overalllevel of a country’s economic and social development. Thismeans that e-Inclusion has an impact at the individual level asmuch as at the social level, and at the micro as much as at themacro level. On the other hand, Kaplan (2005) posits that it isof particular importance to distinguish between e-Inclusion and“e-Adoption.”

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSIONA review of the literature and secondary policy documents

reveal that e-Inclusion is about providing a technology plat-form to support communities and citizens in their fight againstpoverty, disease, and exclusion and at the same time facilitatemany public sector services such as health welfare and edu-cation. Early steps in exploiting ICTs to enable such servicesinclude providing access by putting the necessary infrastructurein place, including basic electronic communication services.A number of studies in recent years have argued that e-Inclusionhas multidimensional constructs, which adds more complex-ity when attempting to simplify the concept (e.g. Cullen et al.,2007; Codagnone, 2009; Wright & Wadhwa, 2010). Variousresearchers have also attempted to conceptualize and definee-Inclusion (see, for example, Becker, Niehaves, Bergener,& Räckers, 2008; Bentivegna & Guerrieri, 2010; Hargittai,2004; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Helsper, 2008; Helsper &Eynon, 2010; Mancinelli, 2008). Drawing from the litera-ture, demographical, economic, social, cultural, political, andinfrastructural dimensions have been identified as key inhibitorsfor e-Inclusion. Notably, these themes emerged in the literaturefrom actual citizens’ behaviors in their day-to-day life situationswhile using electronic-government services. These five dimen-sions that influence citizens e-Inclusion in the public sectorservices are synthesized and conceptualized in Table 3, offeringa taxonomy of factors influencing e-Inclusion.

Demographical DimensionIt is well documented in the literature that elderly peo-

ple, especially the over50s, adopt technology less than otheryounger age groups (Helsper, 2008; Mordini et al., 2009). Giventhe fact that we are living in an aging community and peopleare living longer and healthier lives, there is a danger of exclud-ing the ageing population from adopting technology (Kinsella& He, 2009). Further, other studies have identified that menare more likely to adopt technology than women (Mossberger,Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003). Therefore, the disparity of adop-tion can be further compounded in likelihood to use technology(Mordini et al., 2009) and as a result, women will be more indanger than men of being excluded. Moreover, scholars such asHelsper (2008), Helsper and Eynon (2010), Heim et al. (2007),and Brandtzæg et al. (2011) suggest that family structure, suchas having children in the household, may increase the proba-bility that the household will acquire computers and internet

TAB

LE

3Ta

xono

my

ofFa

ctor

sIn

fluen

cing

E-i

nclu

sion

Fact

ors

Des

crip

tion

Ref

eren

ces

DE

MO

GR

APH

ICA

geA

gedi

ffer

ence

sin

skill

san

din

tern

etse

lf-e

ffica

cyin

the

usab

ility

and

acce

ssib

ility

ofon

line

oppo

rtun

ities

that

will

help

ines

tabl

ishi

ngne

wm

odel

sof

serv

ice

deliv

ery

and

care

Dig

italI

nclu

sion

Team

(200

7);H

elsp

er(2

008,

2009

);B

rand

tzæ

g,H

eim

,and

Kar

ahas

anov

ic(2

011)

;O’S

ulliv

an,

Mul

gan,

and

Vas

conc

elos

(201

0)G

ende

rG

ende

rdi

vide

inth

eus

eof

Inte

rnet

and

inte

chno

logy

adop

tion

taki

ngin

toco

nsid

erat

ion

orie

ntat

ion,

phys

ical

acce

ss,l

ife

expe

ctan

cydi

ffer

ence

s

Har

gitta

i(20

10);

Bim

ber

(200

0);V

enka

tesh

,Mor

ris,

Dav

is,

and

Dav

is(2

003)

;Hel

sper

(200

7,20

08);

Bra

ndtz

æg

etal

.(2

011)

;Bro

wn

and

Ven

kate

sh(2

005)

;Age

rwal

etal

.(20

09);

Bél

ange

ran

dC

arte

r(2

009)

;van

Dijk

(200

6);M

ordi

niet

al.

(200

9)Fa

mily

Stru

ctur

eU

nder

stan

ding

the

anat

omy

offa

mili

esin

clud

ing

sing

le,

mar

ried

,and

with

/w

ithou

tchi

ldre

n,an

dho

wth

isca

nha

vean

impa

cton

the

oppo

rtun

ityin

acqu

irin

gre

sour

ces

and

acce

ssib

ility

ofon

line

reso

urce

s

Hel

sper

(200

8);H

eim

,Bra

ndtz

æg,

Kaa

re,E

ndes

tad,

and

Torg

erse

n(2

007)

;Bra

ndtz

æg

etal

.(20

11)

Eth

nici

ty&

Rac

eU

nder

stan

ding

the

back

grou

ndan

det

hnic

ityst

ruct

ure

ofth

eso

ciet

yin

clud

ing

pove

rty,

race

,rel

igio

n,de

priv

atio

n,an

dim

mig

ratio

nst

atus

Hel

sper

(200

8,20

09);

Dig

italI

nclu

sion

Team

(200

7);

Age

rwal

etal

.(20

09);

Bél

ange

ran

dC

arte

r(2

009)

;M

ordi

niet

al.(

2009

)E

CO

NO

MIC

Em

ploy

men

tV

aria

tions

ofem

ploy

men

tout

com

es(e

.g.e

mpl

oyed

,un

empl

oyed

,ret

ired

,hom

eca

reta

ker,

stud

ents

,and

othe

r)in

onlin

ese

rvic

esen

gage

men

tand

resp

onse

leve

lsan

dop

port

uniti

esw

hich

can

have

anim

pact

onth

ego

vern

men

t/so

ciet

yde

liver

yof

supp

ort

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

on(2

004)

Inco

me

Und

erst

andi

ngth

eim

pact

ofec

onom

icw

ealth

(i.e

.,in

com

epe

rca

pita

)in

the

disp

ariti

esin

com

pute

ran

dIn

tern

etpe

netr

atio

nra

tes

Chi

nnan

dFa

irlie

(200

7,20

10);

Dig

italI

nclu

sion

Team

(200

7);W

agne

ran

dH

anna

(198

3);B

row

nan

dV

enka

tesh

(200

5);A

gerw

alet

al.(

2009

);B

élan

ger

and

Car

ter

(200

9)C

ost

Und

erst

andi

ngth

eim

pact

ofIC

Teq

uipm

entc

osts

inth

eac

cess

ibili

tyof

digi

talt

echn

olog

ies

inre

latio

nto

affo

rdab

ility

Ben

tiveg

naan

dG

uerr

ieri

(201

0);E

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

(200

4)

SOC

IAL

Edu

catio

nD

iffe

renc

esin

educ

atio

nle

vel(

i.e.,

uned

ucat

ed,p

rim

ary,

seco

ndar

y,te

chni

calc

olle

ge,f

urth

ered

ucat

ion,

unde

rgra

duat

e,gr

adua

te,p

ostg

radu

ate)

and

itsro

lein

enha

ncin

gci

tizen

s’en

gage

men

tsan

din

tere

sts

indi

gita

lte

chno

logi

es

Hel

sper

(200

9);v

anD

ijk(2

006)

;Age

rwal

etal

.(20

09);

Bél

ange

ran

dC

arte

r(2

009)

(Con

tinu

ed)

309

TAB

LE

3(C

ontin

ued)

Fact

ors

Des

crip

tion

Ref

eren

ces

Hea

lthU

nder

stan

ding

the

impa

ctof

heal

than

dw

ell-

bein

gon

impr

ovin

gci

tizen

s’ac

cess

ibili

tyof

heal

thin

form

atio

nan

dse

rvic

eson

line

enab

ling

them

toliv

ein

depe

nden

tly

Hel

sper

(200

8,20

09);

Dig

italI

nclu

sion

Team

(200

7)

Lif

esty

leU

nder

stan

ding

the

impa

ctof

citiz

ens’

soci

alst

atus

esan

dth

eir

indi

vidu

alin

tere

sts

and

inte

ract

ions

onlin

eM

arië

nan

dV

anA

uden

hove

(201

0);H

elsp

er(2

008)

;V

erde

gem

(201

1);D

igita

lInc

lusi

onTe

am(2

007)

Mot

ivat

ion

Insp

irin

gci

tizen

san

dnu

dgin

gth

emto

war

dstr

ying

the

Inte

rnet

and

unde

rsta

ndin

gth

eir

spec

ific

need

s,pe

rcep

tion,

trus

t,an

dkn

owle

dge

ofsp

ecifi

cse

rvic

es

Epr

actic

e.eu

(201

0;e-

Incl

usio

nfa

ctsh

eet—

UK

)

CU

LTU

RA

LL

angu

age

Und

erst

andi

ngla

ngua

geba

rrie

rsth

atm

aypr

even

tco

mm

uniti

esfr

omac

cess

ing

the

rele

vant

info

rmat

ion

onlin

eE

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

(200

4);E

prac

tice.

eu(2

010)

Kno

wle

dge

Und

erst

andi

ngth

eva

riat

ions

inci

tizen

s’IC

Tex

peri

ence

and

know

ledg

eon

the

serv

ices

avai

labl

eon

line

Wor

cman

(200

2);V

erde

gem

(201

1)

Tra

ditio

nsT

heim

pact

ofth

eIC

Ton

soci

ety

trad

ition

san

dva

lues

inre

-eng

inee

ring

thei

rw

ayof

thin

king

from

tech

nolo

gy-d

rive

nin

nova

tion

tow

ard

user

and

soci

ety

driv

enin

nova

tion

Ver

dege

m(2

011)

;Hel

sper

(200

8)

Skill

s,IT

Lite

racy

Und

erst

andi

ngdi

ffer

ence

sin

citiz

ens’

ICT

skill

sPe

ople

with

ICT

skill

sin

clud

ing

the

deve

lopm

ento

fba

sic

skill

sw

ithdi

gita

ltec

hnol

ogie

s

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

on(2

004)

;Fer

roet

al.(

2011

);W

arsc

haue

r(2

004)

;Har

gitta

i(20

02,2

009)

;Bél

ange

ran

dC

arte

r(2

009)

POL

ITIC

AL

Leg

isla

tion

&R

egul

atio

nT

hepo

licie

san

dst

rate

gies

,coo

rdin

atio

n,im

plem

enta

tion

and

supp

ortt

hati

spu

tin

plac

eto

supp

orts

ocia

land

digi

tal

incl

usio

n

Kap

lan

(200

5);E

urop

ean

Com

mis

sion

(200

4)

Acc

essi

ble

Info

rmat

ion

Prov

idin

gci

tizen

sw

itha

plat

form

topa

rtic

ipat

ean

dun

ders

tand

thei

rri

ghts

asw

ella

spr

omot

ing

valu

esof

acco

unta

bilit

y,tr

ansp

aren

cy,o

penn

ess,

and

resp

onsi

vene

ssin

the

affa

irs

ofgo

vern

men

tins

titut

ions

Eur

opea

nC

omm

issi

on(2

004)

INFR

AST

RU

CT

UR

AL

Res

ourc

esIn

vest

ing

inna

tiona

linf

rast

ruct

ure

toin

crea

seth

eso

cial

impa

ctof

tech

nolo

gyD

igita

lInc

lusi

onTe

am(2

007)

;Epr

actic

e.eu

(201

0)

Acc

ess

The

avai

labi

lity

ofva

riou

sIn

tern

etac

cess

tech

nolo

gies

(inc

ludi

ngdi

al-u

p,br

oad-

band

,or

wir

eles

s)to

acco

mm

odat

eci

tizen

s’de

man

d

Bra

ndtz

æg

etal

.(20

11);

Mor

dini

etal

.(20

09)

Urb

aniz

atio

nU

nder

stan

ding

Inte

rnet

conn

ectiv

itypa

rtic

ular

sof

com

mun

ities

indi

ffer

entg

eogr

aphi

clo

catio

nsin

clud

ing

rura

l,ur

ban,

isol

ated

and

rem

ote

area

s

Dig

italI

nclu

sion

Team

(200

7);M

ordi

niet

al.(

2009

)

310

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 311

access. Similarly, ethnic groups often depend on group-wideaction and coherence rather than purely individual incentives(O’Sullivan et al., 2010).

Economic DimensionAnother societal challenge that has been identified in the lit-

erature relates to economic aspects. While the affordability andcost of ICT equipment in different European countries vary,the discrepancy of income and employment levels among cit-izens across European countries can also have an impact. Thisis further compounded by the employment status of individu-als (Agerwal et al., 2009; Brown & Venkatesh, 2005). Policymakers have argued that e-Inclusion initiatives can create jobopportunities for the unemployed through access to a varietyof resources (Digital Inclusion Team, 2007). Simultaneously,it could also enhance the employment status for those alreadyemployed and help to increase their earnings/income (ibid).

Social DimensionAccess to ICT and the internet, for example, provides a

platform for enabling and encouraging citizens to re-engagewith learning, increasing their skills and qualifications. Further,e-Inclusion initiatives can enable citizens with special needsand/or the elderly to lead independent lifestyles. A prime exam-ple is the delivery of electronic health services; this not onlyreduces delivery costs for the government but also improvesaccessibility of essential services for citizens. However, stud-ies have also raised concern regarding the adoption of suche-Services, due to issues such as trust and motivation (Wang& Emurian, 2005).

Culture DimensionVerdegem (2011) and Helsper (2008, 2010) posit that in

certain ethnic minority groups, cultural traditions and normsmay prevent them from adopting technology and new waysof engagement with public services (i.e., some may preferface-to-face communication to e-Services). Developing therequired ICT skills requires investment in both time and effort tocope with use of new technologies (Ferro et al., 2011; Hargittai,2002, 2009; Warschauer, 2004).

Political DimensionWithin the European context, studies have positioned politi-

cal support in the core of the European Strategies for e-Inclusion(European Commission 2004; Kaplan, 2005). Moreover, infor-mation accessibility gives the opportunity for citizens to beincluded as part of their society by knowing their rights.

Infrastructure DimensionBrandtzæg et al. (2011) and Mordini et al. (2009) argue

that poor access to an appropriate technical infrastructure andfacilities alienates citizens from benefiting from technology

and widens e-Exclusion. Further, the development of wirelesstechnology can also enable seniors/special needs citizens to bemore independent through the use of home based devices suchas home-based health, wellness measurement and monitoring,location technology, emergency calls, alarm systems, and so on.(Cullen et al., 2007). Moreover, multi-channels such as mobilephones, digital TV, and kiosks allow access to a wider vari-ety of digital content that is now widely available to citizens.Ultimately, such infrastructures will maximize benefits and con-venience for all citizens and enable them to engage actively, sothat no one excluded in the information society.

METHODOLOGYIn order to evaluate the conceptual taxonomy and factors

proposed in this research (in Table 3), we used a question-naire that was prepared based on a comprehensive review ofe-Inclusion literature. Since it is difficult to collect data from alarge number of respondents in order to make generalizationsusing interviews, focus groups, or any other qualitative method,a quantitative approach was deemed appropriate due to the factthat it increases generalizability, facilitates the ability for repli-cation, and provides statistical rigor (Dooley, 2000). Further, theconceptual taxonomy proposed within this study requires quan-titative data in order to evaluate the impact of the factors one-Inclusion. Keeping these points in mind, a survey method wasadopted (Creswell, 2003; Saunders et al., 2003 ).

Following the questionnaire design, a pilot study was con-ducted using two researchers and one practitioner. The pilot hadtwo main aims: to improve the questions and to test respon-dents’ comprehension and clarity before the actual survey wasadministered (Saunders et al., 2003). This helped to eliminateand identify redundancies in the questionnaire structure/designbefore it was sent to the target sample (Miles & Huberman,1994). To obtain citizens’ perceptions of e-Inclusion, the finalsurvey was administered in Greater London (south, west,north, and east) in the United Kingdom between the period ofSeptember 2011 and February 2012. The researchers handedout the questionnaire physically to the participants using threetypes of locations—concentrated community markets, commu-nity schools, and public transportation (trains)—and collectedthe completed questionnaires subsequently. This enabled theresearchers to clarify any ambiguity to participants enablingthem to understand the importance of the research, which,according to Heje, Vedsted, and Olesen, (2006), can encouragea higher response rate.

A representative sample is required to make conclusionsabout the whole population (Zikmund, 2002). For this study,a total sample of 245 participants was targeted, resulting in221 completed questionnaires being collected. Out of thesecompleted questionnaires, 201 were validated and 20 weredeemed invalid, due to incomplete answers or respondents out-lining more than one answer to a question that expects onlyone answer. The responses were analyzed using the SPSS v.16(SPSS Inc., 2008) and are presented in the next section.

312 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONThe results obtained in the survey revealed a number of

interesting aspects which clearly explains the impact of howthe key demographic, economic, social, cultural, political, andinfrastructural factors can influence e-Inclusion.

Demographic Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionThe normative discussion presented above identified four

demographic determinants: gender, age, family structure, andethnicity. However, from the findings, only gender and age (seeTable 4) emerged as significant determinants of e-Inclusion (i.e.,adoption of electronic government). In terms of gender differ-ences on e-Inclusion, Table 4 illustrates that more females (C =71) compared to the males (C = 55) have undertaken govern-ment transaction online. In the non-adopters category, females(C = 52) exceeded the males (C = 20). This confirms theliterature (e.g. Mossberger et al., 2003) where it is predictedthat males are more likely to adopt technology than females.Pearson’s chi-square test (Table 4) confirmed that there was asignificant difference between the gender of the adopters and

non-adopters of e-government (df [1, N = 198] = 4.906, p =.033). Although, the numbers of male respondents were fewerthan female respondents, this is an interesting observation thatneeds to be investigated further, in which the data collectionshould focus on collecting data from equal number from bothgenders to confirm if the observation of this research is a truereflection of current trends. These findings confirm the resultsreported in many other studies, which indicate gender differ-ences in the adoption of technology and internet (e.g., Bimber,2000; DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; DiMaggio et al., 2004;Igbaria, 1993; Venkatesh et al., 2003).The findings also showthat the adoption of online government transaction amongst sur-veyed respondents appears to decrease with age. The majorityof respondents who undertook government transactions onlinewere between 18 and 44 years. The findings in Table 4 clearlysuggest that adopters belong to the youthful and middle-agedaged groups. Pearson’s chi-square test (Table 4) confirmedthat there was a significant difference between the ages of theadopters and non-adopters of e-government (df [5, N = 197] =11.458, p = .038). These findings generally comport with theresults of earlier studies where older citizens have been found

TABLE 4Demographic dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Gender Male 20 55 75 4.906 1 .033 SignificantFemale 52 71 123Total 72 126 198

Age 18–24 37 41 78 11.458 5 .038 Significant25–34 12 46 5835–44 10 20 3044–54 7 16 2355–64 2 2 465–74 2 2 4Total 70 127 197

Family structure Single 35 60 95 1.630 5 .915 Non-significantPartnered 10 14 24Married 21 44 65Separated 1 3 4Divorced 3 3 6Widowed 1 1 2Total 71 125 196

Ethnicity White 25 52 77 4.954 5 .434 Non-significantBlack or Black British 6 13 19Mixed 3 3 6Chinese 4 2 6Asian or Asian British 26 37 63Other 8 20 28Total 72 127 199

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 313

less likely to adopt e-government (Kinsella & He, 2009; Norris,2001). Therefore, the age variable is anticipated to have a neg-ative coefficient, where age is negatively related to the adoptionof electronic government (i.e., as age increases, citizens are lesslikely to choose e-government over off-line modes of contact).

In terms of other two factors (family structure and ethnic-ity), although clear differences can be seen in the proportionof adopters and non-adopters, the difference was found tobe statistically insignificant (See Table 4). This is consistentwith prior studies. For instance, the study of Bélanger andCarter (2006) did not find a dominant influence of ethnicity one-government use, which supports our findings. Although manyresearchers (for example, Brandtzæg et al., 2011; Heim et al.,2007; Helsper, 2008) suggest that family structure may increasethe probability that the household will acquire computers andinternet access, our study found that family structure seems tobe less relevant.

Economic Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionAll three factors identified within this category were found

to be statistically significant (See Table 5). The survey find-ings also reveal that, although over 74 respondents are infull-time employment, in comparison with a large number ofadopters (C = 55), only 19 respondents were not engagedwith electronic-government services. Pearson’s chi-square test(Table 5) confirmed that this difference was significant (df [3,N = 197] = 8.045, p = .044).The high rate of employmentin the selected sample indicates that the majority of citizensare able to afford internet access from home and consequentlyengage with e-Services provided by the government. Clearly,this relates to the annual income of the surveyed participants inthis study as outlined in Table 5. In terms of cost, both num-ber of computers at home and who pays for the internet accesswere found to be significant determinants of e-Inclusion (seeTable 5). These findings confirm results of previous empiricalstudies that suggest certain groups of citizens are more likely to

TABLE 5Economic dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Employment Full time 19 55 74 8.045 3 .044 SignificantPart time 13 22 35Unemployed 8 5 13Student 31 44 75Total 71 126 197

Income <= £10,000 26 22 48 16.45 5 .004 Significant£10,000–£24,999 19 31 50£25,000–£49,000 14 48 62£50,000–£86,999 4 11 15£87,000–£99,999 0 5 5=>£300,000 0 2 2Total 63 119 182

Cost: Numberof computersat home

None 1 1 2 9.069 3 .022 SignificantOne 31 30 61Two 17 45 62More than two 23 53 76Total 72 129 201

Cost: Who paysfor theinternet?

Self 30 81 111 12.16 6 .42 SignificantParent 27 31 58Work 1 2 3School 3 2 5Spouse 5 9 14Don’t know 1 0 1Other 5 3 8Total 72 128 200

314 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

adopt electronic-government services, including younger, bettereducated, and higher income citizens (Carter & Belanger, 2005;Dimitrova & Chen, 2006; Montoya-Weiss, Voss, & Gruwel,2003; Rice & Katz, 2003; Warkentin, Gefen, Pavlou, & Rose,2002; Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005).

Social Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionEducation and motivational factors were found to be signifi-

cant determinants of e-Inclusion (See Table 6). Findings clearlyindicate that education is an important vehicle for increasinge-Inclusion. This might be due to the fact that educational insti-tutions provide the opportunity for citizens to use computersand the internet without incurring any cost. Furthermore, con-firming previous research, self-satisfaction was found in thisstudy to be a significant factor in motivating citizens to useelectronic-government services for their own internal content-ment and fulfillment. The findings also indicate that time savingwas considered by most citizens as an important determinant forengaging with electronic-government services. This confirmsprevious studies that have identified time saving as an influ-encer of electronic-government services adoption (e.g., Kumar,Mukerji, Butt, & Persaud, 2007).

In contrast, disability and lifestyle appears not to have a sig-nificant effect on accessing online public services (See Table 6).Such findings are consistent with those reported in previousstudies which identified education as significant predictors ofaccess to technology (Mossberger et al., 2003; Thomas &Streib,2003).

Cultural Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionFindings from the chi square test illustrated in Table 7 sug-

gest that a number of factors—namely, knowledge, tradition,and ICT skills—are significant determinants of e-Inclusion.In particular, gender was found to be a significant factor inusing and developing the necessary ICT skills to engage withelectronic-government services. In addition, as indicated inTable 7, family orientation and peer influence (profession) werealso seen to significantly affect the use of electric govern-ment services. These later findings are consistent with previousstudies (e.g., Digital Inclusion Team, 2007; Mancinelli, 2008;i2010 European Strategic Plan, 2007). However, language wasfound to be insignificant. In terms of knowledge, familiar-ity with services and their benefits and awareness of benefitsthrough government was found to be significant for explaining

TABLE 6Social dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Education Primary 2 1 3 9.764 4 .040 SignificantSecondary 17 22 39Undergraduate 25 51 76Postgraduate 16 48 64Other 10 7 17Total 70 129 199

Disability Yes 2 6 8 0.358 1 .716 Non-significantNo 66 121 187Total 68 127 195

Lifestyle Become MOREconnected withpeople like me

36 69 105 0.033 1 1.00 Non-significant

Become EQUALLYconnected withpeople like me

14 25 39

Total 50 94 144Self-satisfaction Yes 20 20 40 4.367 1 .43 Significant

No 52 109 161Total 72 129 201

Time saving Yes 26 86 112 17.486 1 .000 SignificantNo 46 43 89Total 72 129 201

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 315

TABLE 7Cultural dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Language English 53 95 148 0.000 1 1.00 Non-SignificantOthers 19 34 53Total 72 129 201

Knowledge:Familiaritywith onlineservices andtheir benefits

I am familiar withboth the servicesAND their benefits

19 61 80 18.284 2 .000 Significant

I am familiar with theservices BUT nottheir benefits

18 42 60

I am familiar withNITHER theservices NOR theirbenefits

35 26 61

Total 72 129 201Knowledge:

ConvenienceYes 28 79 107 9.273 1 .03 SignificantNo 44 50 94Total 72 129 201

Knowledge:Time saving

Yes 24 81 105 16.071 1 .000 SignificantNo 48 48 96Total 72 129 201

Tradition:Being part ofcommunity

Never 4 4 8 8.755 3 .028 SignificantSometime 34 61 95Always 27 62 89Don’t want to answer 7 2 9Total 72 129 201

Tradition:Genderinfluence

Yes 0 9 9 5.259 1 .028 SignificantNo 72 120 192Total 72 129 201

Tradition:Familystructure

Yes 13 55 68 6.448 1 .012 SignificantNo 59 74 133Total 72 129 201

Tradition: Peerinfluence

Yes 13 55 68 12.472 1 .001 SignificantNo 59 74 133Total 72 129 201

ICT skills level Proficient 26 76 102 10.852 3 .010 SignificantIntermediate 35 45 80Beginner 7 7 14Poor 3 1 4Total 71 129 200

Assistance forUsing ICT

On my own 53 117 170 9.387 3 .021 SignificantNeed Assistance 5 2 7Sometimes need

assistance8 5 13

Prefer not to ask forassistance

3 4 7

Total 69 128 197

316 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

differences between adopters and non-adopters (See Table 7).These findings are similar to those reported by AlShihi (2005),Beynon-Davies (2005), and Baker and Bellordre (2004), whichindicate the necessity of awareness of electronic-governmentservices and associated benefits in their use.

In terms of how citizens’ computer skills may impact theirengagement with public e-Services, there are significant differ-ences between proportion of adopters and non-adopters in termsof ICT skills level, assistance needed for using ICT, and abilityto change cookie preferences (See Table 7).

Political Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionLegislation was found to be significant in explaining dif-

ferences between adopters and non-adopters (see Table 8).However, in contrast, the second factor in this category, which isfrequency of accessing information from the internet, was foundto be insignificant for explaining differences between adoptersand non-adopters (See Table 8). This finding is consistent withthe findings of Bélanger and Carter (2006) who stated that fre-quency of internet shopping was an insignificant predictor ofelectronic-government use.

Infrastructural Dimensions as Determinants of e-InclusionIt is important to note that a large number of the par-

ticipants live in urban and sub-urban communities. This hasenabled them to obtain fast broadband including digital sub-scriber lines (DSL) and fiber-optics services (41 out of the42 e-Services adopters). As a result, many citizens surveyedappeared to fully embrace the internet, as most of them havepersonal computers in their households. Interestingly, urbaniza-tion still fails to explain significant differences between adoptersand non-adopters. This result might be a sampling issue, whichunderlines the necessity of further research in this field. In con-trast, three areas related to resources and access were found tosignificant (See Table 9). As such, citizens believe that payingfor online services or information is a critical issue that is fac-ing the internet. In addition, the ability to access and transact

with electronic-government services from work as well as froma variety of locations and sources (e.g. multi-channel usinga mobile device) are found to be significant determinants ofe-Inclusion (e.g., Mordini et al., 2009).

CONCLUSIONThis research attempted to highlight the influences that

social, demographic, cultural, political, infrastructural, and eco-nomic factors may have on citizens’ engagements with ICTand electronic-government services in the information society.It looks at e-Inclusion from a European context and reflectson how research and policies can help in the developmentof a sustainable participatory information society for all com-munities. The focus of this article is on citizens’ engagementwith public e-Services and how the increase in such ser-vices poses new challenges with regard to digital and socialinclusion. The various factors identified in the conceptual tax-onomy presented in this article show that e-Inclusion is multi-dimensional and affects socially and materially handicappedsocieties more than others. This indicates that researchershave an ethical responsibility to consider the impact of ICT-related innovations on the least powerful in society. In addi-tion, the following factors outline the significance of thisresearch:

• Progress in studies of ICT e-Inclusion is still lack-ing and in some cases even widening (Bentivegna &Guerrieri, 2010).

• Research has shown that e-Inclusion has a significantimpact at the individual level as much as at the sociallevel, and at the micro level as much as at the macrolevel.

• Recent research in Europe has shown that access todigital resources can promote social inclusion.

• There is a lack of theoretical frameworks for e-Inclusion. In digital divide research, the notion ofinequality mostly refers to inequality of technologicalopportunities (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008).

TABLE 8Political dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Legislation Yes 20 60 80 6.420 1 .016 SignificantNo 51 69 120Total 71 129 200

Accessible Information Never 1 2 3 0.041 2 .945 Non-significantSometimes 42 75 117Always 26 44 70Total 69 121 190

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 317

TABLE 9Infrastructural dimensions as determinant of e-Inclusion

Adoption of e-gov transaction Pearson χ2

Variable Categories Non-adopters Adopters Total Value dfp (two-sided)

Significance at5% level

Affordability Yes 2 14 16 4.112 1 .056 SignificantNo 70 115 185Total 72 129 201

Availability Yes 23 75 98 12.691 1 .000 SignificantNo 49 54 103Total 72 129 201

Multi-channel Access Yes 0 9 9 5.259 1 .028 SignificantNo 72 120 192Total 72 129 201

Urbanization Urban 40 69 109 0.40 2 .856 Non-significantSub-urban 27 50 77Rural 3 8 11Total 70 127 197

In order to address the above research gaps from a theo-retical angle, this article has contributed by conceptualizinge-Inclusion through a review and synthesis of the limited nor-mative sources available and policy documents. In this respect,the more traditional definitions of digital divide, social exclu-sion and inequality, and social cohesion were examined torelate and draw from. This resulted in the formulation of aconceptual taxonomy of the key demographic, social, cultural,political, infrastructural, and economic factors that can influ-ence e-Inclusion. Indeed, the theoretical contribution of thisresearch was focused on extending the current boundaries ofknowledge in the area of e-Inclusion. It was found that thelack of conceptual definitions and theoretical frameworks fore-Inclusion has prevented the development of reliable mea-surement and identification of specific factors that influencee-Inclusion. To this end, it is hoped that the developed taxon-omy offers greater elaboration and refinement of the variablesthat can be used to assess e-Inclusion and will thus contributetowards addressing these gaps in the literature and currente-Inclusion research.

From a practical perspective, the study has empiricallyinvestigated the impact of these factors and extrapolated theirpotential impact on citizens’ engagements with electronic-government services. The results offer policy makers andpractitioners a better overview of the broader dimensions ofe-Inclusion as well as the most critical factors that prevent peo-ple from being part of the information society. In this respect,policy makers should take into account factors of a politi-cal dimension, such as legislation, in addition to economicdimensions such as employment, income, and the cost of inter-net access and related equipment. Further, from demographic,social, and cultural dimensions, gender and age differences,

education, self-satisfaction, time saving, traditional influencessuch as family and peers, and the need to maintain sup-port and assistance for the use of ICT should be taken intoconsideration when introducing electronic services. Finally,from an infrastructural dimension, it is imperative for pol-icy makers to ensure the availability and affordability ofelectronic-government services by utilizing multiple channels(e.g., mobile phones, televisions, kiosks) to accommodate thediverse needs of citizens. It is hoped that these findings willhelp policy makers to define new policies that meet bothusers and non-users’ needs when faced with the task of decid-ing the delivery of electronic-government services to theircommunities.

We acknowledge that this research has limitations, andtherefore the conclusions drawn should be interpreted assuch. The empirical conclusions in this study are drawnfrom a sample of 201 surveys. We acknowledge the factthat this sample may not be fully representative, as e-Inclusion should consider a wide range of citizens such asthose often excluded from society due to social, economic,and/or physical handicap reasons. Nevertheless, the researchapproach taken was purposeful for this study, as the keyempirical objective was to evaluate the conceptual taxon-omy and associated factors among a sample of citizens whowere conversant with ICT and electronic-government services.Moreover, the demographic analysis indicates that the abovee-Inclusion criteria are realistically covered within the sur-vey sample used. The next step in this research will be torefine the conceptual taxonomy in the light of the results anddevelop a research model and set of hypotheses that will beinvestigated using a larger and more representative sample ofcitizens.

318 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

AUTHOR BIOSVishanth Weerakkody is a senior lecturer in the Business School

at Brunel University, UK. His current research interests arefocused on service transformation and electronic-servicesimplementation and diffusion in the public sector. He haspublished over 100 peer-reviewed articles and guest-editedspecial issues of leading journals on these themes. Hechaired related sessions at international conferences and hasedited a number of books on digital services adoption in thepublic sector. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the InternationalJournal of Electronic Government Research and is currentlyan investigator in several European Commission fundedresearch projects on digital service adoption in the publicsector.

Yogesh K. Dwivedi is a senior lecturer (IS/E-Business) andDirector of Postgraduate Research Students in the Collegeof Business, Economics and Law, Swansea University, UK.He obtained his PhD and MSc from Brunel University, UK.He has co-authored several papers which have appeared ininternational referred journals such as CACM, DATA BASE,EJIS, ISJ, ISF, JIT, and JORS. He is Associate Editor ofEJIS, Assistant Editor of TGPPP & JEIM, Managing Editorof JECR, and member of the editorial board/review board ofseveral journals. He is a member of the AIS and IFIP WG8.6.He can be reached at ykdwivedi@gmail.com.

Ramzi El-Haddadeh is a full time faculty in the BusinessSchool at Brunel University, UK. He holds a PhD in datacommunication and information technology. His currentresearch interests include technology infrastructure adoptionand evaluation, in addition to information-security manage-ment and electronic-government adoption and diffusion. Hecurrently serves as the managing editor for the InternationalJournal of Electronic Government Research. He has pub-lished peer reviewed articles, guest-edited a number of spe-cial issues of international journals, and co-chaired sessionsat international conferences. He is currently an investigatorin several European Commission-funded research projectson technology usability and adoption.

Ahlam Almuwil is a PhD researcher in Management at BrunelUniversity Business School in the UK. She received herMSc in Information Systems Management from Universityof Greenwich and BSc in Information Technology andComputing from the Open University in the UK. Her currentresearch focuses on e-government, e-inclusion, and technol-ogy adoption. She is particularly interested in understandingthe factors that influence e-Inclusion. Ahlam is a professionalmember of the British Computer Society and a member ofBritish Academy of Management.

Ahmad Ghoneim is a full-time faculty member at BrunelBusiness School, UK. He holds a PhD in InformationSystems Evaluation and an MSc in Information Systems. Hehas published his work in well-acclaimed journals, includ-ing the European Journal of Operational Research, as wellas in international conferences and book chapters. He is onthe editorial team of both TGPPP and IJEGR journals. He

co-edited special issues for journals such as the EuropeanJournal of Information Systems. He is Chair of the Europeanand Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems con-ference. His research interests include ICT adoption andinvestment evaluation in the public sector, knowledge man-agement, and Web 2.0 applications.

REFERENCESAgerwal, R., Animesh, A., & Prasad, K. (2009). Social interactions and the

“digital divide”: Explaining variations in internet use. Information SystemsResearch, 20(2), 277–294.

Al-Shafi, S., & Weerakkody, V. (2010). Adoption and diffusion of free wirelessinternet parks in Qatar. International Journal of Value Chain Management,4(1–2), 68–85.

AlShihi, H. (2005). E-government development and adoption dilemma: Omancase study. Proceedings of the 6th International We-B (Working for e-Business) Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 23–25.

Anderson, G. F., & Hussey, P. S. (2000). Population aging: A comparisonamong industrialized countries. Health Affairs, 19(3), 191–203.

Anthias, F. (2001). The concept of social division and theorising socialstratification: Looking at ethnicity and class. Sociology, 35(4),835–854.

Baker, P. M. A., & Bellordre, C. (2004). Adoption of information and communi-cation technologies: Key policy issues, barriers and opportunities for peoplewith disabilities. Proceedings of 37th Hawaii International Conference onSystem Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 5–8.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements fordigital divide/s. The Information Society, 22(5), 269–278.

Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Bergener, P., & Räckers, M. (2008). Digital dividein eGovernment: The eInclusion gap model. Proceedings of ElectronicGovernment 7th International Conference (EGOV 2008), Turin, Italy,August 31–September 5.

Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2006). The effects of the digital divide one-Government: An empirical evaluation. Proceedings of 39th HawaiiInternational Conference on System Science, Hawaii, USA, January 4–7.

Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-Government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135.

Bentivegna, S., & Guerrieri, P. (2010). Analysis of e-Inclusion impact resultingfrom advanced RandD based on economic modelling in relation to inno-vation capacity, capital formation, productivity and employment. Brussels,Belgium: European Commission.

Beynon-Davies, P. (2005). Constructing electronic government: The case ofthe UK inland revenue. International Journal of Information Management,25(1), 3–20.

Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social ScienceQuarterly 81(3), 868–76.

Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanovic, A. (2011). Understanding the newdigital divide: A typology of internet users in Europe. International Journalof Human Computer Studies, 69(3), 123–138.

Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2005). Model of adoption of technology inhouseholds: A baseline model test and extension incorporating householdlife cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.

Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government ser-vices: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors Information SystemsJournal, 15(1), 5–25.

Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government adoption: A culturalcomparison, Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482.

Chapman, P., Phimister, E., Shucksmith, M., Upward, R., & Vera-Toscano, E.(1998) Poverty and exclusion in rural Britain: The dynamics of low incomeand employment. York, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd.

Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2007). The determinants of the global digi-tal divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and Internet penetration.Oxford Economic Papers, 59(1), 16–44.

Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W. (2010). ICT use in the developing world: Ananalysis of differences in computer and internet penetration. Review ofInternational Economics, 18(1), 153–167.

CONCEPTUALIZING E-INCLUSION IN EUROPE 319

Codagnone, C. (2009). Vienna study on inclusive innovation for growth andcohesion: Modelling and demonstrating the impact of eInclusion. Brussels,Belgium: European Commission.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixedmethods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cullen, J., Hadjivassiliou, K., Junge, K., & Fischer, T. (2007). Status of eIn-clusion measurement, analysis and approaches for improvement. TopicReport, 2.

Digital Inclusion Team. (2007). The digital inclusion landscape in England:Delivering social impact through information and communications technol-ogy. London: Digital Inclusion Team.

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequal-ity: Studying internet use as penetration increases. Princeton Centre for Artsand Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper Series number 15.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality:From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Socialinequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dimitrova, D. V., & Chen, Y.-C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-Governmentinformation and services: The influence of psychological characteristics,civic mindedness, and information channels. Social Science ComputerReview, 24(2), 172–188.

Dooley, D. (2000). Social Research Method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Epractice.eu. (2010). eInclusion factsheet—The United Kingdom. Retrievedfrom http://www.epractice.eu/files/eInclusion%20in%20UK-July%202010-2.0_0.pdf.

European Commission. (2004). eInclusion@EU: Strengthening eInclusion& eAccessibility across Europe: Analytic framework-eInclusion andeAccessibility priority issues. Retrieved from http://www.empirica.com/themen/einclusion/documents/eInclusion_Analytic-framework.pdf

Ferro, E., Helbig, N. C., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2011). The role of IT literacyin defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly,28(1), 3–10.

Foley, P. (2004). Does the internet help to overcome social exclusion?.Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(2), 139–146.

Frissen, V. A. J. (2000). ICTs in the rush hour of life. The Information Society,16(1), 65–75.

Galabuzi, G.-E. (2006). Canada’s economic apartheid: The social exclusion ofracialised groups in the new century. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

Galabuzi, G.-E., & Teelucksingh, C. (2010). Social cohesion, social exclusion,social capital. Regional Municipality of Peel. Retrieved from http://www.peelregion.ca/socialservices/pdfs/discussion-paper-1.pdf.

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second level digital divide: Differences in people’sonline skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864

Hargittai, E. (2004). internet Access and Use in Context. New Media andSociety, 6(1), 137–143.

Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of web–oriented digitalliteracy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 130–137.

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and usesamong members of the ‘Net generation’. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1),92–113.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences inyoung adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5),602–621.

Hazlett, S.-A., & Hill, F. (2003). E-government: The realities of usingIT to transform the public sector. Managing Service Quality, 13(6),445–452.

Heim, J., Brandtzæg, P. B., Kaare, B. H., Endestad, T. & Torgersen, L. (2007).Children’s usage of media technologies and psychosocial factors. NewMedia and Society, 9(3), 425–454.

Heje H. N., Vedsted, P, & Olesen F. (2006). A cluster-randomized Trial ofthe significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey ingeneral practice. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 18(3),232–237.

Helbig, N., Ramón Gil-García, J., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding thecomplexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divideliterature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.

Helsper, E. J. (2008). Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage andthe information society. London: Department for Communities and LocalGovernment.

Helsper, E. J. (2009). The aging internet: Choice and exclusion from digitalservices of the elderly. Working with Older People, 13(4), 28–33.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence?.British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Keil, M.. (2011). Addressing digital inequality forthe socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Formsof capital that affect ICT utilization. Information Systems Research, 22(2),233–253.

i2010 European Strategic Plan (2007). i2010 - A European informationsociety for growth and employment. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm

Jenson, J. (2002, April). Citizenship: Its relationship to the Canadian diver-sity model. Presentation at the Forum for Program and Policy Officersof the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cprn.org/documents/28971_en.pdf

Igbaria, M. (1993). User acceptance of microcomputer technology: An empir-ical test. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, 21(1),73–90.

Kaplan, D. (2005). E-Inclusion: New challenges and policy recommendations.Brussels, Belgium: eEurope Advisory Group.

Kinsella, K., & He, W. (2009). An aging world: 2008. U.S. CensusBureau, International Population Reports, P95/09-1. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p95-09-1.pdf

Kumar, V., Mukerji B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successfule-Government adoption: A conceptual framework. The Electronic Journalof e-Government, 5(1), 63–76.

Kymlicka, W. (1998). Introduction: An emerging consensus? Ethical Theoryand Moral Practice, 1(2), 143–157.

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion:Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9(4),671–696.

Mancinelli, E. (2008). E-Inclusion in the Information Society. In R. Pintér (Ed.),Information society: From theory to political practice [Course book] (pp.171–182). Budapest, Hungary: Gondolt–Új Mandátum.

Mariën, I., & Van Audenhove, L. (2010). Embedding e-Inclusion initiativesin people’s daily reality: The role of social networks in tackling the digi-tal divide. Digitas Conference Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, DigitalAsylum-Seekers: The Clash of Cultures, Sibiu, Romania, June 21–23.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Voss, G. B., & Gruwel., D. (2003). Determinants ofonline channel use and overall satisfaction with a relational, multichan-nel service provider. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4),448–458.

Mordini, E., Wright, D., De Hert, P., Mantovani, E., Wadhwa, K. R., Thestrup,J., & Van Steendam, G. (2009). Ethics, e-Inclusion and ageing. Studies inEthics, Law, and Technology, 3(1), Article 5.

Morris, M.G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoptiondecisions: Implications for a changing work force, Personnel Psychology,53(2), 375–403.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality:Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: George Washington UniversityPress.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information povertyand the internet worldwide. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

O’Sullivan, C., Mulgan, G., & Vasconcelos, D. (2010). Innovating better waysof living in later life. Retrieved from http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/novating_better_ways_of_living_in_later_life.pdf

Phipps, L. (2000). New communication technologies: A conduit for socialinclusion. Information, Communication and Society, 3(1), 39–68.

Power, A., & Wilson, W. J. (2000). Social exclusion and the future of cities.London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School ofEconomics.

320 V. WEERAKKODY ET AL.

Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage:Digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. TelecommunicationsPolicy, 27(8–9), 597–623.

Saebø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipa-tion: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government InformationQuarterly, 25(3), 400–428.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods forbusiness students (3rd Ed.). Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of thedigital divide. New Media and Society, 6(3), 341–354.

Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide: Rethinking digitalinclusion for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf

Sipior, J., Ward, B., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-governmentin the United States: Using the technology acceptance model to understandusage. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 303–323

SPSS Inc. (2008). Helping consumers with low literacy interpret the new foodlabel. SPSS for Windows: Version 16. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government:Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-Government. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83–102.

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements andshortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptanceof information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3),425–478.

Verdegem, P. (2011). Social media for digital and social inclusion: Challengesfor information society 2.0 research & policies. Journal for a GlobalSustainable Information Society, 9(1), 28–38.

Wagner, J., & Hanna, S. (1983). The effectiveness of family life cycle variablesin consumer expenditure research. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3),281–291.

Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust:Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in Human Behavior,21(1), 105–125.

Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P., & Rose. G. (2002) Encouraging citi-zen adoption of e-Government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3),157–162.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digitaldivide. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Welch, E., Hinnant, C., & Moon, M. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction withe-Government and trust in government. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory, 15(3), 371–391.

Worcman, K. (2002, March). Digital division is cultural exclusion. But isdigital inclusion cultural inclusion? DLib Magazine, 8(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/march02/worcman/03worcman.html

Wright, D., & Wadhwa, K. (2010). Mainstreaming the e-excluded in Europe:Strategies, good practices and some ethical issues. Ethics and InformationTechnology, 12(2), 139–156.

Zikmund, W. G. (2002). Business research methods (7th ed.). New York:Southwestern College Publishers.

Copyright of Information Systems Management is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.