Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide

By R. Audunson. J. Documentation, 2006

1,620 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af46eae8afb0838019958fba220158a7705e71ed

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

Citations in the corpus

Digital Divide: Impact of Access (2017, background): “In the first years of the millennium more than 30% of new American Internet users reported that they were moderately to highly technophobic (UCLA, Center for Communication Policy, 2003, p. 25).”
CRITICAL LITERACIES AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION: GLOBAL AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES (2005, methodology): “Kramsch and Thorne’s study, however, offers a countervailing microperspective on the tensions that pervade globalization processes and the technoscapes and mediascapes (cf. Appadurai, 1996; Warschauer, 2004) that seem both unifying and divisive in ways unforeseen.”
New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes (2010, background): “(Warschauer, 2003, pp. 7–8) In this review, we take a much broader perspective on how to analyze issues of technology and equity for youth in the United States.”
Toward a Theory of New Literacies Emerging From the Internet and Other Information and Communication Technologies (2008, background): “…are seldom taught in schools (Padron & Waxman, 1996; Warschauer, 2003; Wenglinski, 1998), the skills are more often acquired at home by those economically advantaged members of society who have the greatest access to the Internet and more extensive learning opportunities (Warschauer, 2003).”
Interest and Self-Sustained Learning as Catalysts of Development: A Learning Ecology Perspective (2006, background): “There is substantial data that suggest that differences in use of computing technology occur along socioeconomic status, gender, and cultural lines [Attewell, 2001; Camp, 1997; Warschauer, 2003].”
The digital divide shifts to differences in usage (2014, positive): “Several conceptualizations of the digital divide exist (e.g. DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001; Katz and Rice, 2002; Mossber et al., 2003; Norris, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).”
Digital Gender Divide or Technologically Empowered Women in Developing Countries? A Typical Case of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics (2011, neutral): “…as other aspects of social life, such as those related to income, education, skills, employment, geography, age and ethnicity, and gender, among others (e.g. Cullen, 2001; Compaine, 2001; OECD, 2002; Warschauer, 2003; Mossberger, et.at., 2003; van Dijk, 2005; OSILAC, 2007; Hilbert, 2010).”
Making Sense of an Information World: The Everyday‐Life Information Behavior of Preteens (2009, background): “Moreover, not all youth today, not in the United States and certainly not worldwide, are growing up digital, as great efforts remain to be undertaken at promoting digital inclusion [11–13].”
Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide (2004, background): “New technologies are widely viewed as having the potential to either alleviate or exacerbate existing inequalities (see discussions in Warschauer, 2000, 2003) On one hand, if computers and the Internet are dis - tributed equally and used well, they are viewed as powerful tools to increase learning…”
Hearing Ordinary Voices: Cultural Studies, Vernacular Creativity and Digital Storytelling (2006, background): “…that lomography endorses actually relies on very particular cultural competencies as well as creative and technological literacies that we cannot assume to be shared by the majority of the population—that is, by those whose participation in media culture is relatively peripheral (Warschauer, 2003).”
Understanding the Complexity in Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature (2005, background): “Definitions use demographic attributes such as race, ethnicity, income, and geography to express differences among groups and see the digital divide or divides as a mirror of social inequality (Castells, 2001; Norris, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).”
Designing for Learning in an Open World (2012, background): “, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawes, S. (2004). Practice makes imperfect. In D. Hay”
Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy and Intercultural Competence through Study Abroad (2011, background): “Over the years, research on CALL has shifted away from learners’ interaction with computers to interaction with human beings through a computer (Warschauer, 2003).”
Alternative and Activist New Media (2011, neutral): “Indeed, the serious and persistent unevenness and inequity of access across geographic areas and social groups has become the subject of numerous studies and enduring debates surrounding various “digital divides” (Norris, 2001; Warschauer, 2004).”
Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States (2008, background): “, between developed and developing countries) (Baskaran and Muchie, 2006; Warschauer, 2004).”
Using the Internet: Skill related problems in users' online behavior (2009, background): “Besides gender, education and age – the three most important factors in digital divide research (Norris, 2001; Mossberger et al., 2003; Warschauer, 2003; van Dijk, 2005) – other factors that are accounted for and come forward as important contributors in digital divide discussions are Internet…”
Technology and Education: Computers, Software, and the Internet (2015, neutral): “19 See Hoffman and Novak (1998), Mossberger et al. (2003), Warschauer (2003), Ono and Zavodny (2007), Fairlie (2004),Mossberger et al. (2006), and Goldfarb and Prince (2008) for examples of previous studies of disparities in computer and Internet use within countries.”