CC BY
7
УДК 316.344
Rules and principles of differentiation regulation of digital technologies users
Правила и принципы регулирования дифференциации пользователей цифровыми технологиями
Пастюк А.В., ФГАОУ ВО «Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет», pastyuk_a@bsu.edu.ru
Пастюк М.В., ФГАОУ ВО «Белгородский государственный национальный исследовательский университет», pastyuk@bsu.edu.ru
Pastyuk A., FGAOU VO «BelgorodNational Research University», pastyuk_a@bsu.edu.ru Pastyuk M., FGAOU VO «BelgorodNational Research University», pastyuk@bsu.edu.ru
DOI: 10.34772/KPJ.2020.142.5.039
Статья подготовлена в рамках гранта РФФИ № 20-011-31535 (ОПН) «Публичное управление в цифровом обществе: к новому общественному договору» (Рук. Зотов В.В.).
Ключевые слова: экспертный опрос, институционализация социального неравенства, институционализация, цифровизация, дигитализация, социальное неравенство, неравенство, цифровые технологии, технологии, технологический прогресс.
Keywords: expert survey, institutionalization processes of social inequality, institutionalization, digitization, digitalization, social inequality, inequality, digital technologies, technology, technological progress.
Аннотация. В современную эпоху особое значение для общественной системы приобретает процесс дигитализации. Технологический прогресс развивается по экспоненте, и к настоящему времени практики использования цифровых технологий становятся массовым и повседневным явлением, проникая всё глубже в структуру социальной реальности. Объект исследования: общественное мнение населения и экспертного сообщества Белгородской области. Предмет исследования: представления населения и экспертов Белгородской области о процессах социального неравенства в условиях дигитализации. Цель настоящего исследования - изучить представления населения и экспертного сообщества о процессах дигитализации российского социума и основных тенденциях модификации социального неравенства. Научная новизна исследования заключается в следующем: определено, что общественное доверие к современным цифровым технологиям является важнейшим условием институционализации социального неравенства в условиях дигитализации российского общества и выступает предпосылкой для снижения неопределенности и превращения специфических социальных практик использования цифровых технологий в разряд повседневных. Дальнейшая институционализация социальных неравенств в условиях дигитализации является необратимым процессом ввиду массового использования цифровых технологий. Однако неконтролируемая институционализация в ходе стихийного социального взаимодействия может привести к возникновению противоречий и конфликтов в российском обществе. Институционализация социальных неравенств в условиях нестабильной социальной реальности должна носить регулируемый характер, исключающий закрепление деструктивных и асоциальных неформальных норм.
Abstract. The process of digitalization is currently becoming incredibly significant for the social system. Technological progress is developing exponentially and by now, the use of digital technologies is becoming a massive and ordinary phenomenon that gets ever deeper into the structure of social reality. Object of study: Belgorod region public opinion of the expert community and population. Subject of study: Belgorod region experts and population perceptions about the processes of social inequality in digitalization context. The purpose of this study is to research population and the expert community perceptions about the Russian society digitalization process and the social inequality variation main trends. Scientific novelty of the study is as follows: it was discovered that public confidence in modern digital technologies obtain the most important precondition for institutionalization of inequality in the Russian
society digitalization, and acts as a prerequisite for uncertainty reduction and transformation specific digital technology social practices into the everyday category. Because of massive digital technology use, further social inequality institutionalization in the digitalization context represents an irreversible process. However, uncontrolled institutionalization in spontaneous social interaction courses can lead to contradictions and conflicts in Russian society. The social inequality institutionalization in the context of an unstable social reality should be of a regulated nature, excluding the consolidation of destructive and asocial informal norms
Introduction. Deep social and political transformations in post-Soviet Russia have led to diverse changes in the social structure of society. The abrupt disappearance of some social classes and strata was accompanied by the emergence of new ones, which were not characteristic of the Soviet system. In recent decades, there has been a gradual institutionalization and legitimization of the forms of social inequality that emerged in the 90s, and even to date these processes have not come close to their completion.
Social inequality is also influenced by the specific social transformations inherent in modern Russia, and such global processes as urbanization, globalization and modern society digitalization.
In these conditions, the institutionalization processes of new social inequality forms and traditional ones actualisation have special scientific and research importance due to the unique nature of Russian society transformations.
The studying of the specifics of the social inequality institutionalization in Russian reality should be based on the public opinion analysis regarding the consolidation and recognition of social differentiation regulation rules, norms and principles. Public recognition of the very existence of social inequality is one of the institutionalization primary stages, determination of its justness and consolidation in the relevant norms.
Research methodology. We implemented a comprehensive sociological diagnosis in January-February 2020. It included a questionnaire survey of the Belgorod region population (N = 500) and a survey of experts in social inequality field, Russian society digitalization, and information and communication technologies development (N = 50). The study implemented an age and gender quota sample, which allows a micro model construction of Belgorod region's general population. Academic degrees and publications on research issues, participation in research in the field of digital inequality and society digitalization were taken into account when recruiting respondents to the expert survey.
Research results. Expert assessment of Russian society's digitalization features is an important part of scientific understanding of the processes of changing social inequality in modern conditions. At the same time, there is no consensus regarding the concepts of digitalization, digitization and virtualization, their
correlation, similarities and differences within the existing scientific approaches [1-3]. As confirmed in the works of many experts, digitalization is a process that has broader implications than digitization and the transfer of information into electronic form.
Some experts focused on information and communication technologies, their growing role in society and spread into various areas of people's lives. Other experts marked that digitization is the process of transferring data and information into a digital format. However, the dominant position was that digitalization is a process of digital technology development and spread into various spheres of human life. According to a variety of experts, if digitization is the process of transferring information into digital form, then digitalization is a more global process in which, in the first place, there is a widespread use of electronic devices and digital information and, secondly, the emergence of new information in digital form. The following judgments were typical:
"These concepts are close, but not identical. Digitalization is the general use of digital electronic devices and digital information. Digitization is the translation of information into digital format" (woman, scientist, 49 years old).
"Digitization represents the process of converting information into digital form. Digitalization is a global process when new analogues are replacing traditional communication and interaction forms. In fact, with digitalization, information is in a digital format immediately and does not go through the process of digitization". (man, digital specialist, 34 years old).
As a process of social, economic, political and cultural integration of society into the digital space, digitalization is a source of not only traditional social inequalities transformation, but also the emergence of new ones. First of all, the digital inequality, expressed in unequal digital technology usage skills. As part of the expert survey, the respondents accepted that digital inequality can be distinguished as a separate form of social inequality. In this case, the leading differentiating factor is the availability of information and communication technologies and their usage experience. At the same time, experts separately mentioned that the Internet development and its spread into all spheres of human life had crucial importance for this inequality formation. As already noted, digital inequality is conditioned by individuals'
differentiation in line with the level of opportunities to use digital technologies in daily life, the possibility to get personal gain and benefit from their usage. The widespread digital technology use is one of primary institutionalization signs for this type of inequality. Currently, there is a spontaneous digital inequality rules formation due to the massive social interaction nature associated with the digital technology use. Digital methods are becoming general and used by an increasing number of people in a wide life sphere. Corresponding norms, rules and principles are crystallized and consolidated during the spontaneous usage of new practices. In this way, the omnipresence and high frequency of digital technology use are prerequisites for digital inequality institutionalization, however only at the informal level.
One should also include trust level among the main digital divide factors, in addition to objective accessibility and skills in digital technology usage. For example, one of the reasons for refusal of digital information usage is the lack of citizen confidence in various electronic platforms, which, for their opinion, for example, can be a good place for fraudsters. A purposeful refusal to use new, unusual ways of getting information may also be the reason. Hence, a digital divide forms a triad of factors:
- objective digital technology availability;
- population digital literacy;
- digital technology trust level.
According to the majority of native and foreign researchers, objective digital technology availability is a key factor. For example, V.Z. Garifullin, A.A. Gladkova, M. Ragnedda define Internet and information and communication technologies' accessibility as first level of digital inequality [4]. N. Beketov notes physical access as a key factor, i.e. the possibility to use infrastructure, software and hardware [7]. The possibility of using various digital technologies, either Internet, digital communication, digital file storage, etc., in everyday life have great importance at determining digital inequality [5]. The survey results showed that most of the respondents have the opportunity to use digital technologies in their daily lives; this option was chosen by 87.4% of respondents; 7.4% do not have such opportunity.
At the same time, the modern technological development level has led to an increase in digital technologies' availability. So 87% of respondents, i.e. actually all of those who use digital technologies at all have access to them from home. 54% apply such technologies at the workplace, 42% use them in common areas, and 40.6% take advantage of digital technologies even outdoors. Mass character, relative cheapness and electronic device interface simplification have led to digital technology omnipresence. More than 30 years ago, the most
daring science fiction writers' forecasts and futurologist ideas spoke of computerization spread in the 21st century. For example, the American writer I. Asimov foresaw that in 2019 there will be personal computer at every house [6]. But even Asimov could not expect that computers would also become not only personal but pocket. Digital device size reduction and their price decrease have led to global pocket computer spread - smartphones have almost all necessary personal computer functions.
Under the circumstances, as confirmed by the results of our study, there is a decrease in use of full-size personal computers in everyday life. So, 83% of the respondents use smartphones as devices for digital technology access, and only 64.6% of respondents use personal computers and laptops for this.
Native scientists' similar studies confirm the fact that more and more people prefer mobile devices. According to "Information and digital inequality and ways to overcome it in the region" study, 65% of residents in Ulyanovsk and Samara regions utilize a mobile phone (smartphone) to access the Internet and only 51% use a personal computer [10]. Definitely, the Internet is not the only digital technology, but assessment of level and frequency with which population use it, is often taken to describe country and region digitalization level.
In this way, the objective availability of digital technology and devices is no longer the major reason for digital inequality existence by now, although it has certain importance. Even a low income level does not lead to digital device abandonment, because of their extreme cheapness. At the same time, Internet availability for users has great importance when assessing the digital inequality. For example, the 2020 Internet World Stats study states that approximately 80% of Russian population are Internet users to some extent [8]. Russian Internet users coverage research is carried out by the Federal State Statistics Service within the scope of the "Comprehensive Survey of the Living Conditions of the Population" published in 2018. So, according to a study by Rosstat, 72.9% of Russian population use the Internet in one variation or another, and 55.7% - use it every or almost every day
[9].
According to the author's research results, 84.8% of the Belgorod Region population over 18 years old use the Internet. Also, 59.6% do it every or almost every day. In consequence, the overwhelming majority of the Belgorod region population has all the necessary capabilities for digital technology use, specifically, it has the necessary digital devices and Internet access.
But, in addition to the direct digital technology accessibility, population computer literacy has also major importance for the digital inequality, namely,
differentiation by the skill level and ability to use digital technologies in everyday life.
A simplified approach is used to study the regional population differentiation characteristics by the level of digital literacy, which most often includes
technical literacy assessment, as well as behavioral practices in digital technology using.
As part of a survey organized in the Belgorod Region, a study was carried out from population evaluation of their own skills in electronic devices and digital technologies' usage (Table 1).
Table 1. - Distribution of answers to the question "How do you assess your own skills in using electronic devices and digital technologies?"
№ Answer option Abs. %
i. Confident user i90 38
2. Above average 78 i5,6
3. Something in-between ii7 23,4
4. Below the average 79 i5,8
5. I don't have any skills 32 6,4
б. I am at a loss to answer 4 0,8
Total 500 i00
38% of Belgorod region residents consider themselves to be confident digital technology users, and 15.6% rate their skills above average. 23.4% of the respondents consider their skills in this area average, and 15.8% below the average. In its turn, 6.4% do not have such skills at all. Respectively, 77% of respondents have acceptable digital technology usage skills (average and higher). On the one hand, this undoubtedly emphasizes high levels of computer literacy among Belgorod Region population, on the other hand, the subjective respondents' assessment of their own skills level is carried out only in the context of individual needs that can be satisfied using digital technologies. In this regard, computer literacy level can be assessed more fully through the prism of assessing individuals' daily behavioral practices and digital technology interaction.
An individual's ability to master new technologies and devices is important for assessing digital literacy level. On the question "How quickly can you figure out new electronic devices or digital technologies that you see for the first time?", 18% of respondents replied that they are able to master new technologies almost immediately, 24.2% believe that they will figure it out quickly enough. More than half of the respondents answered that this would take time: "I will need some time" - 32.8%, "I will need a lot of time" - 21.6%.
The main behavioral practices of digital technology usage are communication and maintaining contacts (69.4%) and reading news information (52.2%). Slightly less often digital technologies are used for information search and ordering goods and services (47.4%). Respondents carry out financial transactions using digital technologies quite often (42.4%). In addition, a many selected respondents use the Internet to get digital content - books, music and movies (39%).
In this way, digital technologies by now no longer belong to specific practices used only in research or work. On the contrary, they have become part of everyday life, rules and norms for their application are gradually formed during spontaneous courses and massive use in society, so informal institutionalization takes place.
Conclusion. Analyzing results of sociological diagnostics and social inequality institutionalization processes in the context of Russian society digitalization, one can conclude that digital technologies have become common within the Russian society. By now, their use practices are becoming generally accepted everyday life norms. Gradual formation and consolidation of rules and principles for regulating differentiation are conditioned by digital technology's massive use, i.e. the digital inequality is institutionalized within the framework of spontaneous interaction.
Литература:
1. Abad F.M., Conde M.J.R., & Peñalvo F.J.G. Evaluación del impacto del término "MOOC" Vs "Elearning" en la literatura científica y de divulgación // Profesorado. - 2014. - № 18(1). - P. 187-201.
2. Harrington J.G. School/university/business partnership: Collaboration in a tripartite partnership //
Fordham: ETD Collection for Fordham University. 1989. URL: https://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/ AAI90071 3. How Digital Trust Drives Culture Change. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2020. URL: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-digital-trust-drives-culture-change/
4. Internet World Stats 2020 // Internet world stats. URL: https://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.html
5. Stewart F. Horizontal Inequalities // World Social Science Report 2016. Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World. UNESCO, 2016. URL: http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/world-social-science-report/2016-reportinequality/. - P. 52.
6. Thirty five years ago, Isaac Asimov was asked by the Star to predict the world of 2019. URL: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/27/35-years-ago-isaac-asimov-was-asked-by-the-star-to-predict-the-world-of-2019-here-is-what-he-wrote.html
7. Бекетов Н. Информационное разнообразие и цифровое неравенство в развитии России / Н. Бекетов // Информационные ресурсы России. - 2009. - № 5. - С. 27-31.
8. Гладкова А.А., Гарифуллин В.З., Рагнедда М. Модель трех уровней цифрового неравенства: современные возможности и ограничения (на примере исследования республики Татарстан) / А.А. Гладкова,
B.З. Гарифуллин, М. Рагнедда // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. - 2019. - № 4. -
C. 41-72.
9. Комплексное наблюдение условий жизни населения // Федеральная служба государственной статистики https://gks.ru/iree_doc/new_site/KGUZ18/ index.html
10. Шиняева О.В., Слепова О.М. Информационно-цифровое неравенство населения: факторы риска и антириска / О.В. Шиняева, О.М. Слепова // Изв. Сарат. ун-та. Нов. сер. Сер. Социология. Политология. - 2019. - Т. 19. - Вып. 1. - С. 53-61.
References:
1. Abad F.M., Conde M.J.R., & Peñalvo F.J.G. Evaluación del impacto del término "MOOC" Vs "Elearning" en la literatura científica y de divulgación // Profesorado. - 2014. - № 18(1). - P. 187-201.
2. Harrington J.G. School / university / business partnership: Collaboration in a tripartite partnership // Fordham: ETD Collection for Fordham University. 1989. url: https://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/ AAI900718
3. How Digital Trust Drives Culture Change. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2020. URL: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-digital-trust-drives-culture-change/
4. Internet World Stats 2020 // Internet world stats. URL: https://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.html
5. Stewart F. Horizontal Inequalities // World Social Science Report 2016. Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World. UNESCO, 2016. URL: http://www.worldsocialscience.org/activities/world-social-science-report/2016-reportinequality/. - P. 52.
6. Thirty five years ago, Isaac Asimov was asked by the Star to predict the world of 2019. URL:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/27/35-years-ago-isaac -asimov-was-asked-by-the-star-to-predict-the-world-of-2019-here-is-what-he-wrote.html
7. Beketov N. Information diversity and digital inequality in the development of Russia / N. Beketov // Information resources of Russia. - 2009. - № 5. - P. 27-31.
8. Gladkova A.A., Garifullin V.Z., Ragnedda M. Model of three levels of digital inequality: modern opportunities and limitations (on the example of the study of the Republic of Tatarstan) / А.А. Gladkova, V.Z. Garifullin, M. Ragnedda // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 10. Journalism. - 2019. - № 4. - P. 41-72.
9. Comprehensive monitoring of living conditions of the population // Federal State Statistics Service https://gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/KOUZ18/index.html
10. Shinyaeva O.V., Slepova O.M. Information-digital inequality of the population: risk factors and anti-risk / O.V. Shinyaeva, O.M. Slepova // Izv. Sarat. un-that. New ser. Ser. Sociology. Political science. - 2019. - T. 19. - Issue. 1. -P. 53-61.
22.00.04 - Социальная структура, социальные институты и процессы
