In recent decades, many European countries have experienced simultaneous population ageing and technological development. Population ageing has resulted in the workforce getting older, and workplaces being forced to adapt (Truxillo et al., 2015). Meanwhile, digital technologies are transforming how work is done. Many workplaces are experiencing digitalisation, which has resulted in automation of many tasks as well as requiring new skills when using technology such as computers (Muro et al., 2017; Hecker & Loprest, 2019; Parker & Grote, 2022). In the increasingly digital work environment, opportunities for maintaining one’s position in the labour market as well as being able to develop one’s capabilities has become dependent on meeting this demand for digital skills (Alcover et al., 2021). At the same time, rapid changes in the required digital competences results in an increased vulnerability to being pushed out of work due to skill obsolescence if sufficient investment towards improving one’s skills is not made (Hudomiet & Willis, 2022). While this development may create opportunities for some, many risk falling behind in wage or career development (Muro et al., 2017). These changes are especially pressing for older workers, since their computer skills are usually weaker than those of the younger generations, making their position in the labour market more precarious (Hecker et al., 2021). Older workers are conventionally understood as people aged 50 or older (Komp-Leukkunen, 2023), since at that age they begin to qualify for early retirement schemes in many countries (OECD, 2023). The technological transition, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Pit et al., 2021), may therefore pose a threat of exclusion to the older workers (Nedeljko et al., 2022). People who are nearing the age of statutory retirement may not find the investment towards upkeeping their skills worthwhile which could push them out of the labour market prematurely (Hudomiet & Willis, 2022). This threat of exclusion forms the basis of the digital divide, which refers to disparities in population segments’ ability to use computers (van Dijk, 2017).

The phenomenon of a divide between the skilled and unskilled has been conceptualised in academic discourse in numerous ways (van Dijk, 2000; Selhofer & Hüsing, 2002; Hudomiet & Willis, 2022). However, with the proliferation of digital technologies, this division has become characterised as the digital divide. Part of the population may lack the necessary devices, skills or opportunities for using digital technologies (van Dijk & Hacker, 2003). This divide may cause social exclusion of non-users if the digitalisation of societies necessitates the use of digital devices (Selhofer & Hüsing, 2002). The digital divide can apply to a wide array of technologies, but for the context of this study, digital devices refer primarily to computers.

According to Prensky’s description of the digital divide (2001a; 2001b), there is a major generational gap, with younger generations being digital natives who have grown up using digital devices (Prensky, 2004), while digital immigrants are older generations for whom digital devices had to be learnt and whose usage lags behind. Although Prensky’s theory of a generational gap has empirical support (Blank et al., 2020; Bergström, 2017), it has also been criticised due to vagueness (Jones & Czerniewicz, 2010) and significant unaccounted variation (Bullen et al., 2011; Kania-Lundholm & Torres, 2015). Furthermore, the division into two groups does not capture the full diversity of adaptation to computers (Hargittai & Dobransky, 2017). Some digital immigrants are adept at using computers, while others are averse to using them (Morris et al., 2007). Treating all older adults homogeneously neglects the differences between them.

As such, analysing differences within the older generations warrants the introduction of a third group: the digital hermit. This third classification accounts for a shortcoming in Prensky’s notion of digital immigrants, as people who do not use digital devices at all have been neglected even though they have entirely distinct experiences from the digital immigrants (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010). They are likely to face tougher challenges than their peers in the digitalising world due to their lack of experience with digital devices (Coelho, 2022). The understanding of the digital divide necessitates considering those who might have never had an opportunity to utilise a computer due to the increased relevance of digital skills (Ala-Mutka, 2011).

Despite the multifaceted academic discourse on the issue, the role of the workplace has been missing as a contributor in the digital divide. Workplaces can help workers acquire computer skills through training and similar opportunities (Themistocleous et al., 2010; Muro et al., 2017; Behaghel et al., 2014). Likewise, people who have experience of using a computer at work are more likely to engage with technology during old age (König et al., 2018). With older workers being potentially at risk of being seen less productive than their younger counterparts (Børing & Grøgaard, 2023), the importance of workplace training becomes more critical to understand.

Due to the unequal access to digital environments, there have been calls for a more comprehensive analysis on the impact of the digital divide (van Dijk, 2017). This analysis fills the gap in knowledge of how different societies have been able to disseminate computer skills through the country-specific working-life cultures in Europe. Furthermore, the understanding of how computer skills are distributed within populations is expanded through analysing the work-based digital divide as a three-way split between digital natives, migrants and hermits rather than the traditional two-way approach. Overall, this study gives a comprehensive image of the digital divide across European countries that will facilitate responding to the challenges of digitalisation.

This article explores how work-based computer skills differ among older Europeans. To do this, three research questions are asked: (1) How does the prevalence of digital natives, immigrants and hermits differ across cohorts? This question captures the shift in computer usage across cohorts. (2) What is the proportion of digital natives, immigrants and hermits among older people in different European countries? This question takes an inventory of computer usage of the older population. (3) How does the cohort difference vary across countries? This question looks at the interplay between country and cohort differences in older people’s computer usage. These research questions guide us towards a more comprehensive understanding of how digital technology use at work has developed in Europe across both countries and generations, and how workplace remains a critical piece of embracing the digital development of societies.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: First, the extant distinction between digital natives and immigrants is discussed. Then, the concept of the digital hermit is developed as a complement to this distinction. Afterwards, we reflect on the combination of these three concepts. Subsequently, the situation of digital natives, immigrants and hermits across Europe is observed. Next, we present the analysis and findings. The article ends with a discussion and conclusions.

The digital divide often includes the concepts of digital natives and digital immigrants, drawing on Prensky (2001a, 2001b). According to his observations, people that grew up surrounded by digital technology are digital natives and for them using these technologies is natural. In contrast, digital immigrants represent older generations who did not grow up with digital technologies and had to learn them later, making their digital ‘accent’ more pronounced. This division forms the basis of the digital divide in Prensky’s writing.

The proposition of a generational divide has garnered attention over the past years (Judd, 2018) due to the increased importance of digital competences (Nedeljko et al., 2022), and it has been examined from different perspectives. The diffusion of the digital devices and their acceptance among populations can be described through the lens of Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory, which posits that innovations, such as computers, are communicated within social systems through the members of the system, with some members being at the forefront of the diffusion process while others are latecomers (Rogers, 2003). Similarly, perceived usefulness, ease of use and user acceptance have regularly been utilised as explanatory factors for adoption of new technologies, which have guided theory formation and conducting research on the attitudes towards digital devices (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003). However, what makes Prensky’s theory informative is its adaptability for studying larger populations’ capability to use digital devices, as studies focused on attitudes and positions in the innovation diffusion process may be more susceptible to changes in social systems. Prensky’s framework provides a more direct manner of understanding the digital experiences of larger geographic units like countries and how their composition might impact the country’s ability to proceed with digitalisation.

The digital divide, as characterised by Prensky’s theory, can be perceived in different ways. Traditionally it may have been seen as having access to a device or knowing how to use it, which is called the ‘primary digital divide’. However, digital devices and broadband access have become more commonplace across OECD countries, reducing the role of access for the digital divide (OECD, 2013). As the gap between people with greater access and lesser access has been closing in many countries, the digital divide has more recently become seen through differences in usage rather than access (van Dijk, 2013). van Dijk (2013) describes this ‘usage gap’ as the ability to use a computer for advanced applications that go beyond the basic functions. It forms the basis of the ‘secondary digital divide’, which focuses on how computers are used (Hargittai, 2002).

When studying the usage patterns of computer users, van Deursen & van Dijk (2014) observe that the more advantaged segments of the population (highly educated, employed, young) tend to use computers for purposes associated with personal development such as career, education or improving one’s social position. These include exploring career opportunities or gathering information. In contrast, the less advantaged population segments (lower educated, unemployed, or older people) were more likely to use computers for purposes of entertainment and consumption, such as playing games or casual browsing. This division between serious use cases with benefits and entertainment usage with little advantages is reflective of the current phase of the societal digitalisation process (van Dijk, 2013). The less skilled individuals may possess computers and the motivation to use them, but their lack of intermediate skills prevents them from using the devices to their fullest (Zadražilová, 2018), putting them in a less favourable position in the labour market.

This is particularly salient for older generations of computer users, as their more cautious (Thygesen et al., 2015) and less frequent (De Koning & Gelderblom, 2006; Morris et al., 2007; Ferro et al., 2011) usage of the devices may limit their ability to accumulate the social, economic and cultural capital needed in digital societies (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014). The more advanced users may be intensifying their usage by utilising more devices for multiple purposes (Blank et al., 2020), which widens the digital divide as the younger generations are diversifying their computer usage more rapidly than older ones (Lissitsa & Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2015). As such, there is a risk of less technologically proficient individuals falling behind.

However, the debate around the digital divide has been subject to criticism. The generational distinction is seen as an unnecessarily dichotomous and stereotypical simplification (Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Bencivenga, 2017). The exact timing of the generational divide is vague in Prensky’s description (Jones & Czerniewicz, 2010), and the differences between the generations have been found to be exaggerated (Rapetti & Cantoni, 2010; Thompson, 2013) or not significant (Guo et al., 2008; Bullen & Morgan, 2011). While older generations might initially possess weaker computer skills, they may fare better in other areas, such as applying them in practice (Ransdell et al., 2011; Bencivenga, 2017).

Likewise, there is considerable variation within generations that poses challenges to generalising statements (Jones et al., 2010). Many older adults are already using computers at a comparable level to the general population, with mainly the oldest generations lagging behind (Bergström, 2017; Friemel, 2016). Older adults that have been at work either currently or during recent years have likely been exposed to on-the-job training and other workplace incentives, which has allowed them to familiarise themselves with computers (Hargittai & Dobransky, 2017). As such, tech-savvy older adults may even characterise themselves as ‘active older users’, distinct from other older adults, due to their accumulated experience with computers (Kania-Lundholm & Torres, 2015). Therefore, it would be misleading to speak of the digital divide purely as a gap between young and old generations. Instead, people’s experiences play a more profound role in determining their prowess with computers.

The discussion about the divide between digital natives and immigrants has covered the inadequacy of these concepts. There have been calls to redefine the digital divide by introducing a third category to capture individuals that do not fit either of the other two categories (Bencivenga, 2017; Brown & Czerniwicz, 2010; Coelho, 2022; Ransdell et al., 2011). These until now neglected individuals have not engaged with digital devices throughout their lives. Their expertise with computers is limited, and they face more difficulties with computers than their peers (Coelho, 2022). The proportion of people who would match this profile varies from one country to another. On average this group could represent one fifth of the European population (Berger & Frey, 2016; Blank et al., 2020), making it a substantial part of the population. This group disproportionately consists of older adults with roughly 40 per cent being either non-users or considering themselves to have no computer skills at all in prior studies (Midão et al., 2020; König et al., 2018; Brandtzæg et al., 2011). This suggested category has been referred to as digital strangers (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010), digital refugees (Ransdell et al., 2011) and analog natives (Bencivenga, 2017), among others.

The idea that the digital divide is not limited to just the extent of one’s skills has been recognised. McCosker et al. (2021) noted that there is considerable diversity among older generations in their digital skills and confidence in using them. While some adults from the older generations had greater skills and confidence, others possessed moderate skills and lower confidence or fairly few skills and great reluctance towards using computers (Gonzalez et al., 2021). Similar divisions between active users, reluctant users and non-users have also been formulated in other studies (Ferro et al., 2011; Midão et al., 2020; Choudrie et al., 2013). Overall, there is a large degree of diversity within the older generations that traverses multiple dividing lines, necessitating a nuanced approach. As such, a bigger picture is needed that goes beyond the conventional two-class understanding of the digital divide.

The discourse on the digital divide was built on a division between those who were proficient at using digital devices and those who were not. However, among digital immigrants a substantial difference remains between them. Their preparedness towards digitalisation and the proliferation of new technologies is vastly different. The rationalisation behind considering these cases as digital immigrants ignores the entirely unique way in which these two groups approach digital devices. As such, this study advances the discussion on digital natives and digital immigrants by utilising a third category: the digital hermit.

Digital hermits differ from both digital natives and immigrants in that they have very little experience in using digital devices and often lack the skills to use these devices. In contrast, the digital immigrant is someone who came into contact with computers at a later point in life but remains a user of these devices. The digital native’s life, on the other hand, has been immersed in digital technologies for its entirety. Studying the digital divide from a perspective that acknowledges the existence of the d