SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3

Data Poverty: A Multıdımensıonal Framework for A New Form of Inequalıty in the Dıgıtal Age

Veri Yoksulluğu: Dijital Çağda Eşitsizliğin Yeni Biçimi Üzerine Kavramsal ve Eleştirel Bir Çerçeve

Serkan Çelik(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5835-1300
Pages
272–288
Publication Date
2026-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article identifies measurable dimensions and policy implications and proposes an analytical framework for future empirical research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article conceptualizes data poverty not merely as a lack of internet access, but as a multidimensional deprivation in the capacities to produce, access, interpret and use data and to be represented fairly in data systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It aims to integrate the literatures on information poverty, digital divide, digital inequality, data justice and health data poverty.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article identifies measurable dimensions and policy implications and proposes an analytical framework for future empirical research.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Veri Yoksulluğu · Dijital Bölünme · Dijital Eşitsizlik

Abstract

This article conceptualizes data poverty not merely as a lack of internet access, but as a multidimensional deprivation in the capacities to produce, access, interpret and use data and to be represented fairly in data systems. It aims to integrate the literatures on information poverty, digital divide, digital inequality, data justice and health data poverty. The study employs an integrative, non-systematic literature review and a conceptual synthesis design. Sources were selected according to their conceptual relevance, contribution to the access and representation dimensions of data poverty, currency and relevance to Türkiye; findings were comparatively coded under access, affordability, skills, use, representation, governance, temporality, spatiality, and language-culture. Data poverty is thus framed as a structural inequality regime shaped at the intersection of income, education, geography, gender, language and institutional capacity. Its central claim is dual: individuals and communities may lack meaningful access to data and digital resources, while data systems may underrepresent or misrepresent those same groups. The article identifies measurable dimensions and policy implications and proposes an analytical framework for future empirical research.

Özet

Bu makale, veri yoksulluğu kavramını yalnızca internet erişimi eksikliği olarak değil; veri üretme, veriye erişme, veriyi yorumlama, veriden fayda üretme ve veri sistemlerinde adil biçimde temsil edilme kapasitesindeki çok katmanlı yoksunluklar bütünü olarak ele almaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, bilgi yoksulluğu, dijital bölünme, dijital eşitsizlik, veri adaleti ve sağlık verisi yoksulluğu literatürlerini bütüncül bir perspektifte birleştirerek kavramın analitik sınırlarını yeniden tanımlamaktır. Araştırmada sistematik olmayan bütünleştirici literatür taraması ve kavramsal sentez deseni kullanılmıştır. Kaynaklar; kavramsal kurucu nitelik, veri yoksulluğunun erişim ve temsil boyutlarına katkı, güncellik ve Türkiye bağlamıyla ilişki ölçütleriyle seçilmiş; bulgular erişim, ekonomik karşılanabilirlik, beceri, kullanım, temsil, yönetişim, zamansallık, mekânsallık ve dil-kültür temaları altında karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu çerçevede veri yoksulluğu, gelir, eğitim, coğrafya, toplumsal cinsiyet, dil ve kurumsal kapasitenin kesişiminde oluşan yapısal bir eşitsizlik rejimi olarak kavramsallaştırılmaktadır. Makalenin temel savı, veri yoksulluğunun çift yönlü işlediğidir: bireyler ve topluluklar veriye ve dijital kaynaklara erişimde sınırlılıklar yaşarken veri sistemleri de bu grupları eksik veya çarpık biçimde temsil edebilmektedir. Çalışma, kavramın ölçülebilir boyutlarını ve politika sonuçlarını tartışarak gelecekteki ampirik araştırmalar için analitik bir çerçeve önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çelik, S. (2026). Data Poverty: A Multıdımensıonal Framework for A New Form of Inequalıty in the Dıgıtal Age. İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 272–288. https://ajindex.com/articles/1616791

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (66)

  1. Akkoç, G. K. (2025). Measuring Digital Inequality Across the Life Cycle: Age, Gender, and Education Effects in Türkiye. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(3), 1086-1103
  2. Barber, S. T. (2025). Information Poverty 2.0? The Endurance of Information Poverty and the Rise of the Impoverishment of Information. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 29(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2025.2504960
  3. Behrendt, F., & Sheller, M. (2024). Mobility data justice. Mobilities, 19(1), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2200148
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press.
  6. Britz, J. J. (2004). To know or not to know: A moral reflection on information poverty. Journal of Information Science, 30(3), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551504044666
  7. Carmi, E., Yates, S. J., Lockley, E., & Pawluczuk, A. (2020). Data citizenship: Rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Internet Policy Review, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.2.1481
  8. Çelik, N. (2025). Women’s position in digital inequality: An evaluation of policies and practices in Turkey. Marmara Üniversitesi Kadın ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 1-22.
  9. CGI.br. (2020). ICT Households Survey 2020. Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.
  10. Chatman, E. A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199603)47:3 3.0.CO;2-T
  11. Chatman, E. A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:3 3.0.CO;2-8
  12. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
  13. Dalgic-Tetikol, D. E., Guloğlu, B., & Köksal, E. (2022). Determinants of internet adoption in Turkey and the need for a more coherent vision on information and communication technologies policy. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 23(4), 311-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/17835917221143060
  14. Demir, İ., Olgun, C. K., & Özsöz, C. (2023). Confronting the first-level digital divide in the digital age: A comparison between public and private university students in Türkiye. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 67, 135-153.
  15. Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Cable, J. (2019). Exploring data justice: Conceptions, applications and directions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 873-881. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606268
  16. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
  17. Eurostat. (2022). Individuals—Internet use. Erişim Tarihi 28.03.2026 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  18. Figueroa, C. A., vd. (2025). Designing health recommender systems to promote equitable health equity: A socioecological perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e60138. https://doi.org/10.2196/60138
  19. Findahl, O. (2019). Swedes and the Internet 2019. Internetstiftelsen.
  20. Gillwald, A., Mothobi, O., & Rademan, B. (2019). The state of ICT in South Africa. Research ICT Africa.
  21. GSMA. (2021). The Mobile Economy Sub-Saharan Africa 2021. https://www.gsma.com
  22. Haider, J., & Bawden, D. (2007). Conceptions of information poverty in LIS: A discourse analysis. Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 524-557. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710759002
  23. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
  24. Hartman-van der Laan, M., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Laar, E., & Tuinstra, J. (2025). The role of social work in digital inclusion: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Social Work. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2025.2553856
  25. Hasler, L., Ruthven, I., & Buchanan, S. (2014). Using internet groups in situations of information poverty: Topics and information needs. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22962
  26. Heeks, R., & Renken, J. (2016). Data justice and development: What would it mean? Information Development, 34(1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12267
  27. Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01416.x
  28. Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. Sage.
  29. Ibrahim, H., Liu, X., Zariffa, N., Morris, A. D., & Denniston, A. K. (2021). Health data poverty: An assailable barrier to equitable digital health care. The Lancet Digital Health, 3(4), e260-e265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30317-4
  30. ITU. (2025). Türkiye data profile and ICT prices dashboard. International Telecommunication Union.
  31. Khera, R. (2019). Dissent on Aadhaar: Big data meets big brother. Orient Black Swan
  32. Kitchin, R. (2021). Data lives: How data are made and shape our world. Bristol University Press.
  33. Leidig, M., & Teeuw, R. (2015). Quantifying and mapping global data poverty. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0145591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145591
  34. Lloyds Bank. (2021). UK Consumer Digital Index 2021. https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index.html
  35. Matli, W., & Ngoepe, M. (2022). Extending information poverty theory to better understand the digital access and inequalities among young people who are not in education, employment or training in South Africa. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(3), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-05-2020-0107
  36. Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2020). The rise of the data poor: The COVID-19 pandemic seen from the margins. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948233
  37. Nemer, D. (2022). Technology of the oppressed: Inequity and the digital mundane in favelas of Brazil. MIT Press.
  38. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
  39. Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342
  40. OECD. (2025). Digital government review of Türkiye. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-government-review-of-turkiye_3958d102-en.html
  41. OECD. (2025). Going digital toolkit: Türkiye country profile. OECD. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/en/countries/tur
  42. Peate, I. (2022). Data poverty and inequality. British Journal of Nursing, 31(9), 467. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2022.31.9.467
  43. Polat, R. K. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.002
  44. Ragnedda, M. (2018). Conceptualizing digital capital. In M. Ragnedda (Ed.), Digital capital: A Bourdieusian perspective on the digital divide (pp. 15-34). Emerald Publishing.
  45. Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2020). Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media & Society, 22(5), 793-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819869604
  46. Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
  47. Scanlan, M. (2021). Reassessing the disability divide: Unequal access as the world is pushed online. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21(3), 725-735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00803-5
  48. Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607-1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
  49. Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519
  50. Sütlüoğlu, T., & Gökalp, E. (2022). From social to digital inequalities: The use of new media by the poor in Eskişehir, Turkey. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 63, 151-178. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2022-1130969
  51. Thomas, J., Barraket, J., Wilson, C. K., Rennie, E., Ewing, S., & MacDonald, T. (2023). Measuring Australia’s digital divide: Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2023. RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and Telstra.
  52. TÜİK. (2025). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması, 2025. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
  53. UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Technology in education. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4066661
  54. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774
  55. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2015). Toward a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The Information Society, 31(5), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.1069770
  56. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
  57. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2016). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 804-823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834
  58. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage.
  59. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006a). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4-5), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
  60. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006b). The network society (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  61. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
  62. W3C. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
  63. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
  64. Yates, S. J., Kirby, J., & Lockley, E. (2015). Digital media use: Differences and inequalities in relation to class and age. Sociological Research Online, 20(4), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3751
  65. Zeng, Z., Zhao, H., Zhong, H., Chen, J., Zhang, H., Wei, G., Zeng, Y., & Yang, Z. (2025). Information poverty in Southwest China: Self and interactive behaviors among heterogeneous rural groups. Journal of Documentation, 81(3), 723-746. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2024-0172
  66. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.