Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Beyond Access: A Learning-Centered Model of Digital Inclusion among Agricultural Women in Rural Pakistan

Rabia ORCID ,  Aqeela Saghir ORCID ,  Ijaz Ashraf ORCID
    Received: 28 July 2026; Revised: 5 October 2026; Accepted: 12 October 2026; Published: 6 November 2026

    Abstract

    Digital inclusion among rural agricultural women cannot be described based on availability of devices and connectivity alone. This study examines the learning-related factors with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility (IA) and meaningful utilization (MU) among rural agricultural women in Faisalabad District. Quantitative data from 384 participants were statistically analyzed followed by three focus group discussions in Faisalabad District by an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Formal Education (FE), Learning-Related and Contextual Constraints (LRCC), and Daily ICT Time (DIT) were examined in relation to ICT Accessibility (IA) and Meaningful Utilization (MU). In Model I, FE was neither significantly associated with nor an independent predictor of IA, whereas LRCC was positively associated with and significantly predicted IA. In Model II, FE was positively associated with and significantly predicted MU (β = 0.534), whereas LRCC had a small, non-significant bivariate association with MU but a small negative conditional coefficient. DIT was positively associated with FE and MU but negatively associated with IA and LRCC. In Model III, FE positively predicted DIT, whereas LRCC negatively predicted DIT. Qualitative data identified four interconnected domains: Literacy, Language Competence, and Digital Skills; Awareness of Digital Opportunities; Informal Learning and Support; and Contextual Conditions shaping learning opportunities. Integration indicates that IA represents an opportunity rather than an endpoint. FE, learning capabilities, social support, and contextual conditions help explain how women convert digital opportunities into purposeful use, while DIT represents intensity rather than meaningful utilization. Therefore, the study develops a Learning-Centered Model of Digital Inclusion that distinguishes access, exposure, and meaningful use.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. The Digital Divide; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK; Medford, MA, USA, 2020. Available online: https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-digital-divide-2/
    2. 2. Passey, D.; Ntebutse, J.G.; Yazbak Abu Ahmad, M.; et al. Populations Digitally Excluded from Education: Issues, Factors, Contributions and Actions for Policy, Practice and Research in a Post-Pandemic Era. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2024, 29, 1733–1750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09767-w
    3. 3. Lybeck, R.; Koiranen, I.; Koivula, A. From Digital Divide to Digital Capital: The Role of Education and Digital Skills in Social Media Participation. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 2024, 23, 1657–1669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00961-0
    4. 4. Zhao, L.; Cao, C.; Li, Y.; et al. Determinants of the Digital Outcome Divide in E-Learning between Rural and Urban Students: Empirical Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on Capital Theory. Comput. Human Behav. 2022, 130, 107177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107177
    5. 5. Kuhn, C.; Khoo, S.-M.; Czerniewicz, L.; et al. Understanding Digital Inequality: A Theoretical Kaleidoscope. Postdigit. Sci. Educ. 2023, 5, 894–932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00395-8
    6. 6. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; Helsper, E.J. The Third-Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? In Communication and Information Technologies Annual; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2015; 10, pp. 29–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002
    7. 7. International Telecommunication Union. Digital Skills Toolkit. Available online: https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-phcb-cap_bld-02-2024/ (accessed on 27 July 2026).
    8. 8. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M.; van Dijk, J.A.G.M. IQ and Digital Inequality: An Empirical Investigation. New Media Soc. 2023, 25, 1248–1270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211024012
    9. 9. International Telecommunication Union. Global Connectivity Report 2025; ITU: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025. Available online: https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/global-connectivity-report-2025/
    10. 10. OECD. OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en
    11. 11. OECD. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024, Volume 1: Embracing the Technology Frontier; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en
    12. 12. OECD. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024, Volume 2: Strengthening Connectivity, Innovation and Trust; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/3adf705b-en
    13. 13. GSMA. The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2026; GSMA: London, UK, 2026. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/gender-gap/
    14. 14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc5343en
    15. 15. Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. Available online: https://sen.scholars.harvard.edu/publications/development-freedom
    16. 16. Nussbaum, M.C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
    17. 17. Ragnedda, M.; Ruiu, M.L. Digital Capital: A Bourdieusian Perspective on the Digital Divide; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/9781839095504
    18. 18. Helsper, E.J. The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities; SAGE: London, UK, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526492982
    19. 19. Redecker, C. European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
    20. 20. Vuorikari, R.; Kluzer, S.; Punie, Y. DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens: With New Examples of Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
    21. 21. Qualter, D. From Digital Exclusion to Digital Inclusion: Shaping the Role of Parental Involvement in Home-Based Digital Learning—A Narrative Literature Review. Comput. Sch. 2024, 41, 120–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2024.2322167
    22. 22. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    23. 23. Khan, N.A.; Shah, A.A.; Tariq, M.A.U.R.; et al. Impact of Farmers’ Climate Risk Perception and Socio-Economic Attributes on Their Choice of ICT-Based Agricultural Information Services: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610196
    24. 24. Aslam, S. Digital Exclusion in Agricultural Communication: Exploring Socioeconomic and Infrastructural Barriers to ICT Use in Rural Pakistan. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2025, 12, 102264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102264
    25. 25. Shahzad, A.R.; Ahmad, S.; Anjum, F. An Investigation on the Effect of Prior Knowledge on Farmers’ Decisions to Use Computers in Agriculture: Empirical Evidence from Rural Punjab, Pakistan. J. Asian Dev. Stud. 2024, 13, 1443–1454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.3.117
    26. 26. Wenz, A.; Keusch, F. The Second-Level Smartphone Divide: A Typology of Smartphone Use Based on Frequency of Use, Skills, and Types of Activities. Mob. Media Commun. 2023, 11, 459–483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579221140761
    27. 27. Correa, T.; Valenzuela, S.; Pavez, I. For Better and for Worse: A Panel Survey of How Mobile-Only and Hybrid Internet Use Affects Digital Skills over Time. New Media Soc. 2024, 26, 995–1017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211059114
    28. 28. Banerjee, R.; Trappel, J.; Van Audenhove, L. Evaluating ‘Meaningful Connectivity’: Digital Literacy and Women in West Bengal, India. In Digital Inclusion; Yates, S., Carmi, E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 225–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28930-9_11
    29. 29. Hidrobo, M.; Kosec, K.; Gartaula, H.N.; et al. Making Complementary Agricultural Resources, Technologies, and Services More Gender-Responsive. Glob. Food Secur. 2024, 42, 100778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100778
    30. 30. Illeris, K., Ed. Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists... in Their Own Words, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277
    31. 31. Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. Available online: https://www.sagepub.com/shop/buy-a-book/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research-3-241842
    32. 32. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977. Available online: https://www.wiley-vch.de/en/areas-interest/mathematics-statistics/sampling-techniques-978-0-471-16240-7
    33. 33. Hennink, M.M.; Kaiser, B.N.; Weber, M.B. What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research. Qual. Health Res. 2019, 29, 1483–1496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692
    34. 34. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    ×