Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012619056 = product of:
  0.025238112 = sum of:
    0.025238112 = product of:
      0.050476223 = sum of:
        0.050476223 = weight(_text_:22 in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050476223 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20.12.2006 18:22:32

Isbn

3-936931-22-4

0.010477224 = product of:
  0.020954449 = sum of:
    0.020954449 = product of:
      0.083817795 = sum of:
        0.083817795 = weight(_text_:authors in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083817795 = score(doc=1795,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.5, S.467-468 (W. Koehler): "Virtual Inequality is an important contribution to the digital divide debate. That debate takes two basic forms. One centers an the divide between the "information rich" developed countries and the "information poor" developing countries. The second is concerned with the rift between information "haves" and "have-nots" within countries. This book addresses the latter domain and is concerned with the digital divide in the United States. This book is the product of a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Mossberger and Tolbert are both members of the Kent State University political science department while Stansbury is an the Library and Information Science faculty. The book is extremely well documented. Perhaps the chapter an the democracy divide and e-government is the best done, reflecting the political science bent of two of the authors. E-government is very well covered. Unfortunately, e-commerce and e-education go virtually unmentioned. If e-government is important to defining the digital divide, then certainly e-commerce and e-education are as well. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury argue that the digital divide should be described as four different divides: the access divide, the skills divide, the economic opportunity divide, and the democratic divide. Each of these divides is developed in its own chapter. Each chapter draws well an the existing literature. The book is valuable if for no other reason than that it provides an excellent critique of the current state of the understanding of the digital divide in the United States. It is particularly good in its contrast of the approaches taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Perhaps this is a function of the multidisciplinary strength of the book's authorship, for indeed it shows here. The access divide is defined along "connectivity" lines: who has access to digital technologies. The authors tonfirm the conventional wisdom that age and education are important predictors of in-home access, but they also argue that rate and ethnicity are also factors (pp. 32-33): Asian Americans have greatest access followed by whites, Latinos, and African Americans in that order. Most access the Internet from home or work, followed by friends' computers, libraries, and other access points. The skills divide is defined as technical competence and information literacy (p. 38). Variation was found along technical competence for age, education, affluence, rate, and ethnicity, but not gender (p. 47). The authors conclude that for the most part the skills divide mirrors the access divide (p. 55). While they found no gender difference, they did find a gender preference for skills acquisition: males prefer a more impersonal delivery ("online help and tutorials") while females prefer more personal instruction (p. 56).
The economic opportunity divide is predicated an the hypothesis that there has, indeed, been a major shift in opportunities driven by changes in the information environment. The authors document this paradigm shift well with arguments from the political and economic right and left. This chapter might be described as an "attitudinal" chapter. The authors are concerned here with the perceptions of their respondents of their information skills and skill levels with their economic outlook and opportunities. Technological skills and economic opportunities are correlated, one finds, in the minds of all across all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, and income levels. African Americans in particular are ". . attuned to the use of technology for economic opportunity" (p. 80). The fourth divide is the democratic divide. The Internet may increase political participation, the authors posit, but only among groups predisposed to participate and perhaps among those with the skills necessary to take advantage of the electronic environment (p. 86). Certainly the Web has played an important role in disseminating and distributing political messages and in some cases in political fund raising. But by the analysis here, we must conclude that the message does not reach everyone equally. Thus, the Internet may widen the political participation gap rather than narrow it. The book has one major, perhaps fatal, flaw: its methodology and statistical application. The book draws upon a survey performed for the authors in June and July 2001 by the Kent State University's Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) lab (pp. 7-9). CATI employed a survey protocol provided to the reader as Appendix 2. An examination of the questionnaire reveals that all questions yield either nominal or ordinal responses, including the income variable (pp. 9-10). Nevertheless, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury performed a series of multiple regression analyses (reported in a series of tables in Appendix 1) utilizing these data. Regression analysis requires interval/ratio data in order to be valid although nominal and ordinal data can be incorporated by building dichotomous dummy variables. Perhaps Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury utilized dummy variables; but 1 do not find that discussed. Moreover, 1 would question a multiple regression made up completely of dichotomous dummy variables. I come away from Virtual Inequality with mixed feelings. It is useful to think of the digital divide as more than one phenomenon. The four divides that Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury offeraccess, skills, economic opportunity, and democratic-are useful as a point of departure and debate. No doubt, other divides will be identified and documented. This book will lead the way. Second, without question, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury provide us with an extremely well-documented, -written, and -argued work. Third, the authors are to be commended for the multidisciplinarity of their work. Would that we could see more like it. My reservations about their methodological approach, however, hang over this review like a shroud."
Anmerkung des Rezensenten in JASIST 55(2004) no.11, S.1024: "After reflecting an a requestfrom the authors of the reviewed book, 1 find that I did indeed err in my criticism of their methodology. The work's fault lies not with the methodology but rather with the discussion and explanation provided for the methodology. The authors do offer brief methodological explanation and justification in endnotes and appendices but are less clear in the book's text. I apologize to both the readers of the review and the authors for misinterpreting the text. For the authors' part, a methodology chapter would have been welcome. I am pleased to put right this misinterpretation that cast a shadow over an otherwise fine work."

0.010477224 = product of:
  0.020954449 = sum of:
    0.020954449 = product of:
      0.083817795 = sum of:
        0.083817795 = weight(_text_:authors in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083817795 = score(doc=1972,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This analysis of how the ability to participate in society online affects political and economic opportunity and finds that technology use matters in wages and income and civic participation and voting.Just as education has promoted democracy and economic growth, the Internet has the potential to benefit society as a whole. Digital citizenship, or the ability to participate in society online, promotes social inclusion. But statistics show that significant segments of the population are still excluded from digital citizenship.The authors of this book define digital citizens as those who are online daily. By focusing on frequent use, they reconceptualize debates about the digital divide to include both the means and the skills to participate online. They offer new evidence (drawn from recent national opinion surveys and Current Population Surveys) that technology use matters for wages and income, and for civic engagement and voting."Digital Citizenship" examines three aspects of participation in society online: economic opportunity, democratic participation, and inclusion in prevailing forms of communication. The authors find that Internet use at work increases wages, with less-educated and minority workers receiving the greatest benefit, and that Internet use is significantly related to political participation, especially among the young. The authors examine in detail the gaps in technological access among minorities and the poor and predict that this digital inequality is not likely to disappear in the near future. Public policy, they argue, must address educational and technological disparities if we are to achieve full participation and citizenship in the twenty-first century.

0.0071862456 = product of:
  0.014372491 = sum of:
    0.014372491 = product of:
      0.028744983 = sum of:
        0.028744983 = weight(_text_:h in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028744983 = score(doc=1668,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: pl@net 1996, H.3/4, S.54-57 (H. Rheingold); Spektrum der Wissenschaft 1997, H.9, S.117-118 (T. Scheuer); nfd 52(2001) H.2, S.115-120 (C. Gülich)

0.0035931228 = product of:
  0.0071862456 = sum of:
    0.0071862456 = product of:
      0.014372491 = sum of:
        0.014372491 = weight(_text_:h in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014372491 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2012, H.6, S.94-96 (R. Pilous): " ... Bei aller Materialfülle nimmt Gleick einen technokratischen Standpunkt ein - so konsequent, dass er Gedanken zum Verstehen von Information durch den Menschen oder zur Philosophie selbst dort weglässt, wo sie sich aufdrängen. Seiner leidenschaftlich vorgebrachten Vision, die moderne Physik auf eine Art Quanteninformationstheorie zu reduzieren, fehlt eine gründliche Reflexion ebenso wie seiner Darstellung der Theorie der Meme. Und dennoch: Gleicks Projekt einer Gesamtdarstellung des Informationsbegriffs ist mutig, bisher einmalig und im Wesentlichen gelungen."

0.0035931228 = product of:
  0.0071862456 = sum of:
    0.0071862456 = product of:
      0.014372491 = sum of:
        0.014372491 = weight(_text_:h in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014372491 = score(doc=213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Beiträge des sechsten Symposiums zur Medienethik der Stuttgarter Hochschule der Medien. Rez. in: ZfBB 57(2010) H.1, S.65-66 (W. Gödert)

0.002694842 = product of:
  0.005389684 = sum of:
    0.005389684 = product of:
      0.010779368 = sum of:
        0.010779368 = weight(_text_:h in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010779368 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.08234863 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 56(2005) H.2, S.121 (K. Weber): "Rainer Kuhlen ist Professor für Informationswissenschaft an der Universität Konstanz und Lehrbeauftragter am Institut für Bibliothekswissenschaft der HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. Seine "Informationsethik" ist als Lehrbuch konzipiert; dies ist schon allein daran ersichtlich, dass jedes Kapitel mit "Kontrollfragen" schließt, die Studierenden ermöglichen sollen, zu prüfen, ob der bisher thematisierte Stoff erfasst wurde. Der Text selbst ist in verschiedenen Schriftgrößen gesetzt. Es finden sich kleiner gesetzte Passagen, die der Autor als besonders wichtig und als Kondensat der bis dahin gebotenen Ausführungen anzusehen scheint. Dies mag für ein Selbststudium hilfreich sein, sofern man beim Autor studiert. Ob dies aber für alle Studierenden der Informationswissenschaft oder angrenzender Fächer gilt, kann man bezweifeln. Das Feld der Informationsethik ist stark in Bewegung, das Feld ist recht heterogen. Es ist zwar legitim und wünschenswert, den Versuch der Kanonisierung in der Lehre zu unternehmen, doch scheint dies noch verfrüht. Kuhlen selbst verweist mehrfach darauf, dass die Debatte der Informationsethik im Fluss ist; daher kann der Ausweis vermeintlich wichtiger und weniger wichtiger Aussagen gerade dann fehlleiten, wenn gleichzeitig der Anspruch der Allgemeingültigkeit und Vollständigkeit erhoben wird - und dieser Anspruch steckt überall in Kuhlens Buch. Die Stärke des Buchs liegt darin, dass es eine Fülle von Informationen zur Informationsethik und der darin behandelten Fragen bietet - es werden die großen Probleme angesprochen. Hier an Details zu mäkeln würde dem Anspruch des Buchs nicht gerecht werden; nimmt man die Konzeption als Lehrbuch ernst, so muss das Hauptziel sein, den Studierenden einen breiten Einblick in die jeweiligen Problemlagen zu verschaffen. Dies leistet das Buch ohne Zweifel.