Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide

By Neil Selwyn. New Media & Society, 2004

1,298 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Media Technology, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b177abfc92f151f4eaee4e409909fcee91471f2a

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. Ellen J. Helsper
3. A. V. van Deursen
4. Sonia Livingstone
5. Katy E. Pearce
6. Ronald E. Rice
7. E. van Laar
8. Jos de Haan

In Media Technology

1. A. V. van Deursen
2. Ellen J. Helsper
3. J. V. van Dijk
4. E. van Laar
5. Jos de Haan
6. Esther Brainin
7. Leah A. Lievrouw
8. Sonia Livingstone

In Political Science and International Relations

1. J. V. van Dijk
2. A. V. van Deursen
3. E. van Laar
4. Jos de Haan
5. Esther Brainin
6. Leah A. Lievrouw
7. Sonia Livingstone
8. Ellen J. Helsper

Citations in the corpus

• Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide (2007, background): “(Selwyn, 2004a: 349) Technological innovation requires a recurrent rather than a one-off investment of money, time and effort on the part of the general public.”
• Race and racism in Internet Studies: A review and critique (2013, background): “Selwyn (2004) contends that digital divide formulations rely on the assumption that Internet access and usage is desirable and beneficial for everyone when, in fact, people might not be using the Internet because there is no perceived social benefit in doing so.”
• eHealth Literacy: Extending the Digital Divide to the Realm of Health Information (2012, background): “All of these variables focus on utilization rather than on mere accessibility [52]; these variables exemplify new differentiated usage patterns among the connected that have the potential to contribute to social inequality [17,50,51,53,54].”
• The digital divide shifts to differences in usage (2014, neutral): “…terms of physical access have diminished, significant differences may remain in terms of differential skills and the nature of Internet use (e.g. Brandtzæg, 2010; Chen and Wellman, 2005; DiMaggio et al., 2004; Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Selwyn, 2004; Van Dijk, 2005; Zillien and Hargittai, 2009).”
• Digital Divides From Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile and Personal Computer Internet Users (2013, background): “Similar to the Matthew effect is the knowledge gap hypothesis (Rogers, 2003; Selwyn, 2004; Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970).”
• How COVID-19 and the Dutch ‘intelligent lockdown’ change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the Netherlands (2020, neutral): “However, this increased importance of ICT in daily activities may have some negative effects in light of the so-called digital divide (Selwyn, 2004).”
• Handbook of new media : social shaping and consequences of ICTs (2002, background): “Others questioned the extent and/or the significance of the differences among social groups, or suggested that the problem would solve itself as the technologies diffused (see Bucy and Newhagen, 2004; Compaine, 2001; Gandy, 2002; Lievrouw and Farb, 2003; Light, 2001; Loader, 1998; Murdock, 2002; Sel”
• Determinants of 21st-Century Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A Systematic Literature Review (2020, background): “The digital divide approach based on inequalities in internet access has evolved into a divide that includes differences in skills to use the internet (Fuchs, 2009; Selwyn, 2004; Van Dijk, 2005).”