Factors inhibiting the internet adoption by base of the pyramid in India
| Date | 11 June 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-01-2018-0001 |
| Pages | 323-336 |
| Published date | 11 June 2018 |
| Author | Sumedha Chauhan,Parul Gupta,Mahadeo Jaiswal |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information policy |
Factors inhibiting the internet adoption by
base of the pyramid in India
Sumedha Chauhan, Parul Gupta and Mahadeo Jaiswal
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims toexplore the factors inhibiting the internet adoptionamong base of pyramid
(BoP) and to developfurther insights of such factors.
Design/methodology/approach –Researchers used a mixed-method study with QUAL/QUAN
sequence in this research. Given the dearth of research on the internet usage by the BoP segment
in India, the authors began with the exploratory qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews in
local language were carried out with the people belonging to the BoP segment in India using
common interview protocol. Face-to-face interviews were conducted for 20-30 min with ten
people. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was conducted on the interview transcripts
which lead to five themes. These themes were identified as the potential inhibitors to the internet
adoption by the BoP segment in India. This step was further followed by a confirmatory
quantitative study.
Findings –The results confirmthat the factors such as lack of digital literacy, complexityand language
barrier play a significantrole in inhibiting the internet adoptionby the BoP segment. However, thereis no
impact of perceived risk and cost on the internet adoption. The significant relationship between lack of
digital literacyand intention to use implies that if the BoP segmentis capable to locate, evaluate and use
digital information,it is more likely to use the internet. Similarly,the relationship between complexity and
the intention to usesuggests that if the BoP segment finds it easy to use and understandthe internet, it is
more likelyto use it.
Practical implications –This research has the implications for government departments and
policymakers that are responsible for promoting use of the internet. Therefore, such departments and
policymakers are advised to channelize their effort on resting the digital literacy, especially in terms of
internet adoption. Findingsof this study show that digital literacy, complexity and languagebarriers are
major inhabitantsin the internet adoption. Directed and focused governmentpolicies and initiatives such
as subsidized seminars and training programmes specially designed for the BoP segment can help in
increasinginternet adoption.
Social implications –The adoption and useof the internet services by BoP have majorimplications for
digital equality. Therefore, it would be important to explore the factors inhibiting the internet adoption
among BoP.
Originality/value –This paper not only explores the factors inhibitinginternet adoption among BoP in
developing countriessuch as India but also provides deeper insights to these factors by collectingfirst-
hand information from target segment. The finding of this research provides meaningful inputs to
policymakers and also to industry to remove digital divide in the target population. This is how this
research adds value tothe existing knowledge available in this domain andit also provides agenda for
futureresearch.
Keywords Digital divide, Internet adoption, Bottom of Pyramid (BoP)
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In almost every country in the world, the use of the internet services has grown
significantly during the past decade. The internet facilitates the interacti on between
individuals and businesses to share information, resources and services (Sahin,
Sumedha Chauhan is
based at Indian Institute of
Management, Rohtak,
India. Parul Gupta is
Assistant Professor at
Public Policy and
Governance, Management
Development Institute,
Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
Mahadeo Jaiswal is based
at Indian Institute of
Management, Sambalpur,
India.
Received 8 January 2018
Revised 30 March 2018
Accepted 11 April 2018
DOI 10.1108/DPRG-01-2018-0001 VOL. 20 NO. 4 2018, pp. 323-336, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2398-5038 jDIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE jPAGE 323
To continue reading
Request your trial