Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

James, J.: Re-estimating the difficulty of closing the digital divide (2008) 0.02
```
0.018555403 = product of:
  0.037110806 = sum of:
    0.037110806 = product of:
      0.07422161 = sum of:
        0.07422161 = weight(_text_:i in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07422161 = score(doc=2379,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.43306938 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

While we now know the most important determinants of the digital divide, such as income, skills, and infrastructure, little has been written about how these variables relate to one another. Yet, it is on the basis of one's answer to this question that the difficulty of closing the divide ultimately depends. In this article, I have sought to challenge the (implicit) prevailing assumption in most of the digital-preparedness literature that variables can be perfectly substituted for one another and, hence, added together. In particular, and drawing on available evidence, I view the relationship between, say computers and computer skills, as being nearer the opposite extreme, of totally limited substitutability. On this basis, I suggest that the components of digital-preparedness indexes be multiplied rather than added. Using multiplication rather than addition in most current indexes of digital preparedness reveals a substantial understatement of the real difficulty in closing the digital divide and a different set of policies to deal with this larger problem. Such policies should include sharing arrangements and the use of intermediaries.
James, J.: Digital preparedness versus the digital divide : a confusion of means and ends (2008) 0.01
```
0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Composite indexes of digital preparedness, such as the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) and the Digital Opportunity Index (DOI), have caused a great deal of confusion in the more general literature on the digital divide. For whereas one would expect preparedness to be an input into the utilization of information technologies (the digital divide), the recent indicators add inputs and outputs, or means and ends. I suggest instead two separate indexes for means and ends, which can be more usefully related to one another in terms of productivity (one index divided by the other), or as dependent and independent variables (one index in a functional relationship to the other).