Interview: "Digital Only" could put pressure on older women in particular

In the current coalition agreement between the CDU, SPD and CSU, the parties declare that they want to focus strongly on “digital only” in the future. However, this intention could put some sections of the population under considerable pressure. Business information scientist Prof. Dr. Doris Weßels advocates making these groups more visible, but also addressing them adequately – in a target group-specific manner. Older women are one of the largest groups. In an interview with heise online, Weßels explains why they in particular have less of a connection to digitalization.

Findings from the D21 Digital Index 2024/2025

According to the D21 Digital Index 2024/2025, 64% of offline users are female and only 36% are male. 88% of them are "retired and see no need to acquire digital skills in their private lives. They do not believe that they personally benefit from digitalization." Measured against the total population aged 14 and over, a total of 6 percent are offline (4.2 million) Around 52 percent of the total German population have a distanced, sceptical or negative attitude towards digitalization.

Prof. Dr. Weßels, you spoke at the Bitkom Education Conference about AI, learning systems and lifelong learning under the heading “AI is for everyone”. There, you also pointed out that older women in particular are among those who are digitally left behind and should actually be reached with further training. The whole thing also has a name: The Gender Digital Divide. Why is it so clearly visible in Germany?

First of all, we need to look at exactly which generations this affects. So who are we talking about here?

Recently, there was a Tagesschau report that shed light on what digital participation looks like in Germany. The oldest group of respondents were the 65- to 74-year-olds, of whom around twelve percent had never been online. This means that one in eight people in this age group is a digital outsider or offline user. But I also asked myself: why does the analysis stop at 74-year-olds, and don't we also need to look at older cohorts in our society? According to a study by the OECD, the average life expectancy in Germany is currently around 81 years; for women it is 83 years, around 5 years higher than for men at 78 years. We are an ageing society, and a relevant part of the population is obviously no longer surveyed at all. However, this group is also not so easy to reach because it is – so to assume – hardly accessible digitally or is not visible in the digital world.

In any case, the D21 Digital Index clarifies that there is indeed a digital divide, which also shows clear gender differences. They are evident in terms of usage behavior, digital affinity, self-assessment of one's own digital skills or access to technology in general.

The women who are now 80 years old or older were often “only” housewives and mothers and did not work. This traditional role model meant that, unlike their husbands, they did not get to know the increasing digitalization in the workplace because there were no points of contact for them. As a result, they often had no access to these tools and relied on their husband or partner to take over this technical part, or perhaps the children who then stepped in to support them.

I can observe this myself with my 93-year-old mother. She observes the usage behavior of her children and grandchildren, but has hardly any access herself, watches TV and reads the daily paper newspaper.

If you look at the history of equal rights in Germany, women were granted the right to vote in 1918, but it was not until 1958 that women were legally allowed to manage their assets and have their bank account. Women's employment was also restricted for a long time, as husbands could prohibit this until 1977. As you have already pointed out, a career could help to gain access to digitality. So there were clear structural barriers for older women.

Now, the current coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD includes the “digital only” principle as a goal for administrative services. This would inevitably turn offline users into online users. How can digital services be made more accessible or even appealing to groups that have been left behind so far?

“We are focusing on consistent digitalization and “digital-only”: administrative services should be made available digitally via a central platform (“one-stop store”) in an uncomplicated way, i.e., without going to the authorities or in writing. Every citizen is required to have a citizen account and a digital identity.”

Before we talk about this, we first need to take a step back. It often fails because of the financial framework conditions. The purchase of end devices and internet access – are additional burdens. In 2023, the average statutory pension for old age was 1,099 euros per month, with women receiving an average of just 903 euros. For younger women, there are still gender-related salary differences today, or because they work part-time due to care work. But back to the older cohorts.

Once the infrastructure has been acquired, it needs to be understood and maintained. This hurdle must first be overcome. However, there are also clear added values. For example, when it comes to social participation and avoiding loneliness in old age. Communication apps with video calls can help older people who live alone and are no longer very mobile – Just think of the many older women who live alone as widows. It could also be attractive for older people to be able to order their weekly groceries from the retailer with delivery, or their medication and care products from the pharmacy online. In addition, it is possible to carry out banking transactions online with fewer and fewer local bank branches. Such offers can make life easier and more enjoyable, and thus facilitate the transition from offline to online.

However, there must be people to help with infrastructure procurement, use, and maintenance. This support does not fall from the sky. In some cases, it is provided by adult education centers or senior citizen networks, but this varies greatly from region to region in the municipalities and local authorities.

So even if someone is interested in digital participation and could even see benefits, whether this can actually be achieved depends on many individual and structural factors. The fact that all population groups should learn how to use digital tools and acquire media skills is strongly emphasized in the coalition agreement, however: “The confident, secure and critical use of digital tools and media increases the resilience of our society, the resilience of our democracy and the competitiveness of our economy.” The coalition therefore wants to launch a “cross-age digital skills offensive”. That sounds sensible at first, but is it that simple?

The problem I see is that we have long been talking about the need for lifelong learning in a professional context. The 3 Ls as an acronym have been preached like a mantra, but not really practiced in the past. There is still an alarmingly prevalent opinion that learning as we know it from school “fortunately and finally” stops after vocational training. We also need to address this mindset and communicate the value of digital education for professional and private life more strongly.

During the coalition negotiations, Bitkom therefore advocated that a federal center for digital education should be set up at federal level. This is now not in the coalition agreement. But what do you think of the idea?

I think it's a very good idea in principle because it would underline the paradigm shift towards lifelong learning. Unfortunately, learning is very often perceived as a burden that has no practical benefit and therefore has negative connotations. Especially for the older population group, we need target group-oriented, low-threshold and preferably inclusive offers.

The now widespread availability of AI alone has made us realize that this lifelong learning is indeed necessary. And I know from my experience that it has accelerated significantly and will probably accelerate even more in the future. I see this more intensely than ever before in my life and every day in my environment. But that shouldn't be a deterrent. I actually enjoy it most of the time!

Due to the rapid cycles of change that generative AI confronts us with, continuous training opportunities are very important. And we can't expect offline users to simply overcome their fears or reservations when it comes to using technology. They need to receive targeted support. Even among teachers in our German educational institutions, we see that it is not taken for granted that they will continue their training in these areas. Those who are interested do it, some wait, others avoid it. Relying solely on intrinsically motivated autodidacts is not enough.

Regarding teachers, it is therefore often criticized that such further training is not mandatory.

I often have this discussion, and it is usually very emotional. There are always two worlds clashing. One faction argues that mandatory further training measures are useless because we can't force people to learn something they don't want to learn. But teachers have a special role and an educational mandate. They should prepare young people for the present and, in particular, for the future and give them the best possible qualifications. Unfortunately, I have also experienced students coming to me in schools and saying: We need to explain to our teachers how to use this technology.

Incidentally, the principle of “freedom of research and teaching” is often referred to in the university sector. This is also a noble principle, but it must not lead to future skills being excluded from teaching and teaching not being adapted to changing conditions. In my opinion, teachers should set a good example – here as learners themselves – and are also always multipliers.

Back to the question: How do you get this across to the general public? According to the coalition partners, “all population groups […] should receive innovative and sustainable offers” for continuing education. For people who have left formal education and are therefore no longer reached by media education in schools or the slowly introduced compulsory subject of computer science, these offers are to come from “start-ups, business, public education providers[] and social associations[]”. Do you think this approach is realistic? It won't be possible for every citizen to be prescribed a digital course. However, the “digital only” announcement is based on coercion in the negative interpretation and on the principle of nudging in the more benevolent interpretation.

The challenges are great, and we need to find new ways to reach the breadth of society – i.e., down to the municipal level. This is easier said than done because we have to overcome many hurdles: How do we reach people who are in employment, and how do we reach the large group of retirees who are offline? But how do we also reach people who are socio-economically left behind? Because the D21 Digital Index also shows that offline users tend to be socio-economically weaker and have lower educational qualifications.

To really reach a broad section of the population, there must be clear concepts and also financial resources to make offers for the many different groups.

What can help to reach groups with multiple disadvantages, however, is AI again, for example. If there are language barriers, these can now be reduced by AI simultaneous translations and automatic translations of information material. Or AI can translate complex explanations into simple language.

And this statement is correct: people are naturally driven into using digital technologies by “digital only” approaches or a narrowing down to digital offerings. This effect can be characterized as a pull effect. Will I no longer be able to get through to doctors' surgeries by phone or can I only make appointments online? Is train travel now only possible with a mobile device because tickets can only be purchased in apps and I can only find out about the many changes to the itinerary online? If I don't give in to this pressure to change and don't participate, I will inevitably withdraw from this mobility or will no longer be able to participate.

However, we don't actually want this form of access to digital services or training under duress. It has too many negative connotations: I have to do this now, there's no other way.

I would also like to emphasize another relevant aspect: Many people are afraid of technology. They find it difficult to talk to people with an affinity for technology because they feel incompetent and are overwhelmed by technical vocabulary.

In my professional life, this has always been an issue – even in an environment where there is a certain level of basic knowledge. I have always worked at an interface between customers and our own IT experts. And that's where different technical languages and needs come together, as well as different types of people. In this interface, I often felt like an interpreter who had to translate to promote mutual understanding and a common language. This means that the different population groups have to be addressed very differently. Lots of abbreviations. Anglicisms and acronyms need to be explained. Customer-centricity” must be applied, i.e., the information must be translated into the language of the target audience and their thought processes so that it can get through.

In my experience, simple images and analogies very often help to reduce fears and promote exchange – even those that would otherwise be thrown at me by my colleagues due to their lack of complexity. The motto is: the simpler, the better. The addressees should definitely understand: You don't have to be a techie or a nerd to participate.

Basically, I'm delighted that the coalition agreement promises a ministry for digitalization. I have wanted this form of centralization for a long time. So far, we have been dealing with a diffusion of responsibility in this cross-sectional task due to the fact that it is located in different ministries. I have already expressed this in parliamentary committees to which I have been invited. A central authority with the power to issue directives and issue instructions for key decisions is important for digital issues. The structure is not yet entirely clear, but the decision at least gives us hope. The importance of digitalization in Germany will be visibly enhanced by a separate ministry.

To look in the other direction: What are your experiences with younger women? It seems that society still often conveys to them that they cannot have an intuitive or acquired understanding of technology, mathematics, or science and that the entire STEM field is not for them.

I have actually had some interesting experiences. As a professor of business informatics, I also go into schools and promote it. A few years ago, two girls came up to me at a secondary school after my presentation. They said: “That was very exciting and interesting, but we're not allowed to study that.” I asked: “Why?”. The answer was: “Then we'll never get a boyfriend.” That statement really stuck with me. We therefore have to work on “role models”, drum up publicity and take part in the many formats such as Future Days, Girls Days and so on. Despite this, relatively few women still opt for IT-related courses. Our results are already considered positive if we end up with 15 percent female first-year students in our subject. Of course, we can't be satisfied with that.

In some other countries, this is not the case. There are almost 50/50 quotas in computer science. It really varies a lot around the world.

This may also be related to the access gap that has historically grown between men and women in Germany. In a professional context, men came into contact with more technology, had more rights than women for a long time and were also administrators of their goods – in negative terms: they were gatekeepers. In my generation, it was usually my father who held the remote control for the TV. This may only have anecdotal relevance, but it vividly reflects the distribution of roles in German families during my childhood. There are generations of women who did not experience the naturalness of using technology and digital tools and at the same time were unable to set an example for other women, especially their daughters. Even today, men still have to engage more with digitality in a professional context – due to more full-time work –.

However, regardless of gender, there is a great deal of fragmentation in society as a whole when it comes to digitality. The range between offline users and nerds or geeks is huge. The levels of knowledge are very different. And the sometimes rapid pace of technological development is widening the existing gaps even further.

Achieving basic digital literacy among the population is therefore a very ambitious goal. For the discourse, we need a common basic understanding of digital technologies in our society because the far-reaching effects of AI lead to equally far-reaching new questions that affect legal and ethical aspects in particular. All social groups should therefore be able to participate in this discourse because our common future in Germany is at stake. Only a few can currently have a say.

(kbe)