## 1 Introduction
### The Digital Practice Perspective  
Exclusive focus on access to, and ownership of, technology by comparing haves and have nots, leads to the assumption that all haves use technologies similarly, and that differences in quality of connection to the internet are not significant [22]. The dichotomy between haves and have nots fails to account for the social context in which the technology is used [22]. Our analysis goes beyond the dichotomous distinction between haves and have nots in exploring how this distinction is manifested within a specific population previously perceived of as consisting primarily of have nots. The majority of benefits that can be gained from ICT usage are now available to more people due to the lower economic and technical costs of entry. Scholars have identified various divides in society which hinge on resource disparities of time, money, expertise, and beliefs about technology for certain groups [23, 24, 25, 26]. However, in technologically advanced societies, ICTs have become domesticated [27], and many benefits which accrue from ICT usage such as development of social capital and communication, do not require high levels of expertise or investment in very expensive devices. Thus, while the wealthiest segments of society can afford the fastest download speeds, this does not prevent lower income internet users from accessing the websites that are of most benefit to them. Or, while highly educated and tech-savvy users may have knowledge of the latest web applications, this will not prevent less skilled users from molding more common applications to their needs. The notion that differences narrow as ICTs become more common seems obvious. However, we suggest that in addition to the narrowing of differences, groups previously thought of as have nots may now be considered as haves under certain measures. We suggest that as barriers such as skill and money recede, more of the variations in ICT usage will be determined by the instrumental needs of a group. Groups will use specific ICTs to accomplish specific goals. Given that population groups may face different tasks in their daily experiences, they may recruit certain aspects of ICTs to a greater or lesser extent. We term this approach which focuses on the instrumental needs of population groups as a primary determinant of ICT activity, as a digital practice perspective. With widespread access to the internet, it is now important to examine how people construct meaning and utility from their connection to the internet [22]. An initial task in developing this perspective is identifying populations within a society that exhibit _unexpected_ levels of ICT activity on a given dimension. The digital divide and digital inequality literature review suggests that higher income, higher education, and lower ages are strongly associated with greater ICT usage. Further, gender and race/ethnicity also affect ICT usage, although these effects are not uniform. Thus, we know what to expect given a digital divide/inequality perspective, but we wish to look for those occasions when these predictors are not as effective. Our task is made more difficult since most nationally representative data do not ask questions that reveal unique practices based on instrumental group needs. In other words, questions about a respondent's work environment, family structure and daily activities are not emphasized in these studies (presumably because they are not seen as determinants of ICT activity). Thus, the conventional statistical approach of running regression models and looking for the net effects of variables that indicate digital practice _versus_ variables that indicate digital divide/inequality is not available. Two mechanisms are available to overcome this difficulty. First, we can examine instances where predictors work together to produce unexpected outcomes. More income and more education are associated with a greater knowledge of ICTs and more opportunities to use that knowledge.