Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide

By Mark Warschauer. First Monday, 2002

609 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper examines the concept of a digital divide by introducing problematic examples of community technology projects and analyzing models of technology access. It argues that the concept provides a poor framework for either analysis or policy, and suggests an alternate concept of technology for social inclusion. It then draws on the historical analogy of literacy to further critique the notion of a divide and to examine the resources necessary to promote access and social inclusion.

Subfields: Communication, Management of Technology and Innovation, Media Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/acb92ef419375ea35784a4ec6181a146cb5a293c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Communication

1. J. V. van Dijk
2. A. V. van Deursen
3. Ellen J. Helsper
4. Eszter Hargittai
5. Karine Nahon
6. Rebecca Eynon
7. Mark Warschauer
8. Reynol Junco

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. Karine Nahon
2. Eszter Hargittai
3. J. V. van Dijk
4. Rebecca Eynon
5. Ellen J. Helsper
6. A. V. van Deursen

In Media Technology

1. J. V. van Dijk
2. A. V. van Deursen
3. Ellen J. Helsper
4. Eszter Hargittai
5. Karine Nahon
6. Rebecca Eynon
7. Leeann Stone
8. Mark Warschauer

Citations in the corpus

• Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s (2006, methodology): “PES (Lenhart et al., 2003) 3 Use T (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; • Frequency Norris, 2004) • Time online SE (Chen & Wellman, 2003; Husing et al., • Purpose 2004; ITU, 2003; ITU • Users’ skills Telecommunication • Autonomy of use T Development Bureau, 2003) PEC ( Warschauer, 2002 )”
• The Digital Divide and What to Do About It (2003, background): “Warschauer ( 2002 ) has also offered an alternative approach suggesting that in addition to the physical sides of access , other factors such as content , language , literacy , education and institutional structures must also be taken into consideration when assessing the level of information and…”
• Digital natives: where is the evidence? (2010, background): “In addition, the findings presented here confirm that individuals’ Internet use lies along a continuum of engagement instead of being a dichotomous divide between users and non-users (see also Warschauer, 2002; Van Dijk, 2005).”
• Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide (2004, background): “…of technology access and inequality, has now perhaps outlived its value, at least when referring to a single construct focusing on physical access (Warschauer, 2002, 2003) As Rob Kling explains (Warschauer, 2002), [The] big problem with “the digital divide” framing is that it tends to connote…”
• Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? (2020, background): “We maintain that digital divide is not merely about access or use of digital technology, but about being able to integrate digital technology into meaningful social practices (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Mariën & Prodnik, 2014; Warschauer, 2002) and to gain bene fi ts of it (Song et al., 2020).”
• Internet skills and the digital divide (2011, background): “According to Warschauer (2002), users should participate within a social setting: ‘digital literacy’ is a social practice, involving access to physical artifacts, content, skills, and social support.”