Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy

By Lisa J. Servon. 2002

420 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/97fd1b3b7e14ad27cb8b0bad1320fb3b668c774b

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (2009, background): “Many writers propose theories of how literacy can bridge the digital divides and have research to support this claimed link (Norris, 2001 ; Servon, 2002 ; Warschauer, 2003).”
The Information Have-Less: Inequality, Mobility, and Translocal Networks in Chinese Cities (2005, background): “…has accelerated in tandem with the remarkable growth of digital media, the emergence of “informational cities” around the world still gives rise to “dual cities” facing the challenge of the digital divide (Castells, 1989, 1999; Mollenkopf and Castells, 1991; Castells and Hall, 1994; Servon, 2002).”
The challenges of redressing the digital divide: a tale of two US cities (2006, background): “In what follows, we highlight recent literature published by scholars in both camps.”
Understanding the Complexity in Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature (2005, background): “For instance, the E-rate program in the US has wired almost all public libraries and schools, but the negative side shows that school districts are dependent on the funding, and the policy has produced disincentives to undertake collaborative projects (Servon, 2002).”
A nuanced understanding of Internet use and non-use among the elderly (2015, background): “Digital divide research describes which groups are most likely to be offline and has led to interventions aimed at providing Internet access for disadvantaged groups at community centres, libraries, schools and homes (Kuttan and Peters, 2003; Servon, 2002).”
Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework (2012, background): “• Digital divide(s) [6,47,53,55] • Information and community gatekeepers [7] • Participation and partnership [24,48] • Communication [15,48] • Education [19,24,58] • Quality of life [23,24,50] • Accessibility [49]”