Publication Date

July 1, 2009

"What does it mean if digital activists are part of the socio-economic elite? It implies a corollary to the political empowerment thesis of the Internet. Yes, the Internet does empower people who previously did not have the means of mass broadcast, collaboration, and collective action. Yes, the Internet does to some extent decouple money and power by decoupling money and mass communication... but only up to a point. Merely having Internet access does not appear to be sufficient to turn a user into a digital activist. Rather, intensity of use is key and this intensity of use is only accessible to people with the ability to pay for it. The Internet may be democratizing, but its effects are felt most strongly in the global middle class."

 

DigiActive is an all-volunteer organisation dedicated to helping grassroots activists around the world use the internet and mobile phones to increase their impact. The group conducted a survey from late mid-February to mid-April of 2009, collecting 122 responses through an open online form and then carrying out 3 rounds of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Their aim in gathering this international demographic data was to get a picture of "digital activists": people who use digital technology as part of grassroots campaigns for social and political change. The original data set is available for download separate from the report (see below); DigiActive welcomes comments at: survey@digiactive.org

 

Key Findings:

 

Age: Of the survey's 122 respondents, 28% were between the ages of 26 and 30, with 10% above age 50 and 2% below the age of 20. "The low activism rates of these young 'digital natives' may be explained by political apathy and entertainment preferences online."

 

Gender: Of North American respondents, 28 were female and 27 were male - a near 1:1 split. Outside North America, male respondents outnumbered female respondents by a margin of 7 to 3. "Does gender inequality in digital activism mirror the same cultural factors as technology access in general, or is it a result of other social dynamics? Are women under more pressure to avoid political persecution? Are they discouraged from taking on the public roles often associated with digital activism? Are they less comfortable with the technology? We look forward to seeing more research on the link between gender and online political participation around the world both to verify the gender gap in digital activism and to explain it."

 

Geography: North America represented 47% of survey respondents, while Asia as a whole accounted for 20% and Western Europe accounted for 13%. Geographic representation was largely consistent with global internet access but should not be used as representative of the true distribution of digital activists around the world.

 

Economics: Digital activists, particularly in developing countries, are much more likely than the population at large to pay a monthly subscription fee to have the internet at home, to be able to afford a high-speed connection, and to work in a white-collar job where the internet is also available. In short, digital activists are likely to be prosperous.

 

Access: When asked how often they accessed the internet, 98% of respondents replied that they went online multiple times a day. This means that intensity of use, rather than simple access, is critical as to whether or not a person is a digital activist. The survey found that home internet access is the key to heavy use: 92% of respondents have internet access in their homes. This high use is only possible for people with the ability to pay for it.

 

Mobiles:

• There was a fairly even division between those who used their mobile for advocacy (48%) and those who did not (51%).
• Respondents with more features on their mobile phone - such as internet, video, and global positioning system (GPS) - are more likely to use their phones for activism. This is another indicator of the importance of financial resources for digital activists, both quantitatively, in terms of greater technology access, and qualitatively, in terms of better (mobile) hardware.
• In general, people prefer to use their mobile to collect and disseminate content rather than for collective action. In the range of usage possibilities, short messaging service (SMS) and Twitter are on top - with 15% of respondents in each case. Taking photos and video follow - with 11% and 9%, respectively. "...[T]he use of social media for activism trends towards increasingly complexity of interaction and cooperation, beginning with simple content generation and ending with the reputation systems of collective intelligence."

 

Causes: Across regions, 47% were passionate about rights (a category which encompassed 21 types), while 31% were involved in environmental causes and 11% were fighting poverty or working for peace and nonviolence. Many causes differed from region to region: 87% of environmental activists live in North America or Western Europe, while 4 of the 8 activists concerned with freedom of speech came from countries where that right is contested (Egypt, Guatemala, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe). Though the sample is too small to say for certain, there are also indications that rights activism is more prevalent in certain regions. The digital medium itself did not have much effect on the causes represented. There were 2 activism categories related to technology: Technology Policy (privacy issues, net neutrality, open source, etc.) and Access to Technology and Information (digital divide issues). These categories combined only accounted for 10% of responses, with 7 out of the 8 respondents interested in tech policy from North American or Western Europe.

 

Broadcast: The plurality of respondents (37%) believes that digital technology's greatest value for activism is one-way communication. Specifically, 27% of respondents indicated that the ability to reach people one-on-one was the reason they initially used digital tools. The ability of the tools to then facilitate the broader, one-to-many dissemination of information was noted as important by 10% of respondents. Far fewer respondents value two-way communication, with 9% identifying communication and collaboration on a continual basis as being very important, while the opportunities for community-building were important to only 5%. A subsequent question as to how activists were using technologies also revealed the prominence of broadcast over interactive communication. The 4 most common responses from a list of tool uses were to "send news to supporters" with 84%, "post information in a static location" with 82%, "create groups" with 78%, and "mobilize supporters" with 70%. Thus, "What makes social media useful for digital activism may not be its interactivity but rather the fact that these technologies collapse the barrier to broadcast."

 

Platforms: "Social networks are the most common 'gateway drug' into digital activism", with 68% of respondents citing this tool as the first they started using in their activism or advocacy work. Email lists and newsgroups were identified as the first tool by nearly 15% of respondents. SMS usage, at 6%, accounted for lower first-time usage than may have been expected. "Those who highly value digital tools for advocacy are not using the latest tools like Twitter. Rather...email...is used by 52% of respondents in this group, followed by 24% using blogs, and 19% using Facebook. After that, the popularity of specific tools drops below 10%: for instance, only 9% are using Twitter, 5% video, and 3% podcasting."

 

Design: None of most popular activist tools – social networks, blogs, and email - were specifically made for activism. It is likely a combination of their open and agnostic architecture, as well as their high user base, that has made them popular with activists.

 

Skills: The majority of respondents, 53%, use digital tools for advocacy both as part of their jobs and as part of their own projects. When asked how respondents first began using digital tools in their activism and advocacy work, 39% indicated that they were first strong users of technology, while 27% responded that they were first advocates. Thirty-two percent said that they got involved in both at the same time. The finding challenges the assumption that those who have a facility with technology are significantly more likely to become digital activists and gives encouragement to programs that seek to teach technology skills to traditional activists.

 

Offline: While a 51- to 55-year-old is among the least likely to post information in a static location, like a blog or website, they are most likely to use digital technology to train supporters. This group is also most likely to use digital technology to collect evidence. Thus, older activists are most likely to use digital technology to increase the efficiency of offline activities and less likely to participate in activities which have gained popularity because of the availability of online tools, such as posting original content on websites.