The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon

By J. V. van Dijk, Kenneth L. Hacker. The Information Society, 2003

1,578 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Media Technology, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48ed49d13be59ed7e2c223fa9b43f2442484693f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Media Technology

1. A. V. van Deursen
2. J. V. van Dijk
3. Thomas N. Friemel
4. Christian Fuchs
5. Eva Horak
6. Oscar Peters
7. Arun Rai
8. Adamantios Diamantopoulos

In Strategy and Management

1. Thomas N. Friemel
2. J. V. van Dijk
3. Christian Fuchs
4. Mark Keil
5. J. Hsieh
6. Arun Rai

Citations in the corpus

• Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings (2006, background): “There is a lack of dynamic approach (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).”
• Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas (2017, background): “The determining factors that are frequently observed are age, education, gender, and income (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003; Mills and Whitacre, 2003; Michailidis et al., 2011; Lengsfeld, 2011).”
• Africa and the digital divide (2008, background): “It is naive to believe that mental and material access is enough so that problems of skill access and usage access will diminish (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).”
• Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: university students’ use of web‐based instruction (2006, background): “Indeed, it has recently been noticed that differences in access according to gender, age and ethnicity are gradually disappearing (NTIA, 2000; van Dijk & Hacker 2003).”
• The Gender Digital Divide in Developing Countries (2014, neutral): “Van Dijk and Hacker [4] discuss the idea that access to digital resources is a multi-faceted phenomenon consisting of four factors that work to regulate access; psychological, material, skills and usage.”
• Understanding digital inequality: comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged (2008, background): “Many people stubbornly cling to the belief that digital inequality can be solved by addressing a single factor: technology access (e.g., Kvasny 2002; Van Dijk and Hacker 2003).”
• The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors (2016, background): “Terms such as ‘digital divide’ and ‘digital exclusion’ emphasize that existing gaps of digital technology use should be bridged, aiming for social inclusion and equal distribution of resources and life chances (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003).”
• Rethinking Internet skills: The contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills (2011, background): “Both Bawden (2001) and Virkus (2003) concluded that, in most cases, the exact nature of these concepts is not adequately defined.”
• New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad (2015, background): “…young children are developing considerable skills and knowledge about new technologies by participating in supported activities at home, whilst others have little or no opportunity to engage with digital technology at home and even less so in education (van Dijk and Hacker, 2003; author, 2010).”