Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide

By S. Tefft. 2002

1,788 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/471bfa98aa8d31c72a4d0b35e3b1b85f23c5fb9e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

Citations in the corpus

iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets (2012, background): “Long has there been an ongoing discussion on the digital divide, the multidimensional phenomenon concerning global, social, and democratic disparities arising from utilitarian integration of and individual access to the Internet, in higher education (Norris, 2001).”
The digital divide shifts to differences in usage (2014, neutral): “Rather than equalization, the Internet tends to reinforce social inequality and lead to the formation of disadvantaged and excluded individuals (Golding, 1996; Norris, 2001; Van Dijk, 2005).”
Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research (2009, background): “that the Internet will serve to activate those citizens who are already pre-disposed or interested in politics (Bimber, 1999; Bonfadelli, 2002; DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004; Hendriks Vettehen, Hagemann, & Van Snippenburg, 2004; Krueger, 2002; Norris, 2001; Polat, 2005; Weber, Loumaki”
Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of online skills and internet self-efficacy (2010, background): “SES also affects the adoption and use of new technologies (Calvert et al., 2005; Norris, 2001).”
Three provocations for civic crowdfunding (2014, background): “…experience of digital resources is affected by whether or not their access is continuous and available as needed, or restricted to free or paid access points in public places, and whether they are able to access the internet via a range of devices or are limited to mobile devices (Norris, 2001).”
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (2009, background): “Norris (2001) also describes the concept of the digital divide as a multidimensional phenomenon comprising of three distinct aspects.”
The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions (2005, neutral): “Just as the government adopted a universal telephone policy in the early twentieth century that led to broader rural economic development (Hudson, 1984), there were calls at the close of the twentieth century for a policy encouraging universal access to the Internet (Norris, 2001).”
The Global Network Society and the Global Public Sphere (2003, background): “…still discusses ‘communication imbalances’, as for instance debates initiated by the 1980 UNESCO MacBride Report, now debated as ‘digital divide’ (Norris, 2001), ‘cultural imperialism’ (Schiller, 1976) and ‘international cultivation’ (Morgan, 1990), now rephrased in conjunction with cultural…”
Internet Addiction Prevalence and Quality of (Real) Life: A Meta-Analysis of 31 Nations Across Seven World Regions (2014, neutral): “13 In this light, a positive link may exist between GDP per capita and IA. Nations with higher GDP per capita are characterized by more advanced information technology and infrastructure that fosters a proliferation of the Internet.”
E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions (2003, background): “Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83-102.”
The Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confidence in Government (2003, background): “…been proposed as a solution for increasing efficiency, transparency, participation, and citizen communication with government agencies, and ultimately political trust (Peterson and Seifert,2002; Chadwick, 2001; West, forthcoming; Ho, 2003; Norris, 2001; Clift, 2000; Melitski, 2001; Tapscott 1997).”
Understanding digital inequality: comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged (2008, background): “As the SEA are better educated and tend to have more access to and experience with ICT (Norris 2001; NTIA 1999), they are in a better position than the SED to appreciate utilitarian ICT usage.”
Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review (2018, background): “However, several other authors (Burkhardt et al., 2014; Jaeger, 2011; Norris, 2001; Picazo-Vela et al., 2012) have highlighted the inherent potentially negative effects of technology and the ‘digital divide’ on the exclusion of certain categories of the general population (e.”
Social Justice-Oriented Interaction Design: Outlining Key Design Strategies and Commitments (2016, background): “[27], and issues pertaining to information access and use [95, 17, 93].”
Virtual enclaves or global networks? The role of Information and Communication Technologies in development cooperation (2005, background): “In reality, as stated by Pippa Norris (2001), rather than the Internet creating new active citizens eager to take part in political and social life it has merely activated the ones already active by giving them new instruments for pursuing their goals.”
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2020, background): “Conversely, one-sided augmentation is likely to cause another “ digital divide ” (Norris, 2001), with social tensions arising between the few who currently have the capabilities and resources for augmentation and those who do not (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 134f; see also Brynjolfsson & Mitchell,…”
Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0 (2012, background): “Citizen-sourcingmay be subject to the democratic divide—“a divergence between people who do and do not use digital resources to engage, mobilize, and participate in public life” (Norris, 2001: 4).”