Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.055086322 = product of:
  0.110172644 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=145,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
    0.024008986 = product of:
      0.04801797 = sum of:
        0.04801797 = weight(_text_:22 in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04801797 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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(2/4)

Date

20.12.2006 18:22:32

Isbn

3-936931-22-4

LCSH

World Summit on the Information Society ; Information society ; Digital divide
Digital divide

Subject

World Summit on the Information Society ; Information society ; Digital divide
Digital divide

0.033676524 = product of:
  0.06735305 = sum of:
    0.059695937 = weight(_text_:digital in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059695937 = score(doc=1795,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30194187 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.0076571116 = weight(_text_:library in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076571116 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.058101606 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

That there is a "digital divide" - which falls between those who have and can afford the latest in technological tools and those who have neither in our society - is indisputable. "Virtual Inequality" redefines the issue as it explores the cascades of that divide, which involve access, skill, political participation, as well as the obvious economics. Computer and Internet access are insufficient without the skill to use the technology, and economic opportunity and political participation provide primary justification for realizing that this inequality is a public problem and not simply a matter of private misfortune. Defying those who say the divide is growing smaller, this volume, based on a national survey that includes data from over 1800 respondents in low-income communities, shows otherwise. In addition to demonstrating why disparities persist in such areas as technological abilities, the survey also shows that the digitally disadvantaged often share many of the same beliefs as their more privileged counterparts. African-Americans, for instance, are even more positive in their attitudes toward technology than whites are in many respects, contrary to conventional wisdom. The rigorous research on which the conclusions are based is presented accessibly and in an easy-to-follow manner. Not content with analysis alone, nor the untangling of the complexities of policymaking, "Virtual Inequality" views the digital divide compassionately in its human dimensions and recommends a set of practical and common-sense policy strategies. Inequality, even in a virtual form this book reminds us, is unacceptable and a situation that society is compelled to address.

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."

LCSH

Digital divide

Subject

Digital divide

0.029847968 = product of:
  0.11939187 = sum of:
    0.11939187 = weight(_text_:digital in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11939187 = score(doc=1972,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.60388374 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Content

Inhalt: Defining digital citizenship -- Benefits of society online : economic opportunity / with Kimberly Johns -- Benefits of society online : civic engagement / with Jason McDonald -- Benefits of society online : political participation -- From the digital divide to digital citizenship / with Bridgett King -- Broadband and digital citizenship -- Public education and universal access : beyond the digital divide -- Appendix : multivariate regression models.

0.012185382 = product of:
  0.048741527 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 1668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=1668,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 1668, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1668)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Originaltitel: Being digital

0.009139037 = product of:
  0.036556147 = sum of:
    0.036556147 = weight(_text_:digital in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036556147 = score(doc=18,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.18490088 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Jedoch zeigt es gleichzeitig eine erhebliche Schwäche, die auch für die Konzeption als Lehrbuch sehr problematisch ist. In den ersten beiden Kapiteln versucht der Autor, sehr gerafft existierende ethische Ansätze aufzuzeigen und ihren Zusammenhang zur Informationsethik zu skizzieren bzw. Menschenrechtskonzeptionen für die Ziele der Informationsethik nutzbar zu machen. Liest man jedoch weiter, so tauchen die angeführten ethischen Positionen nur noch vereinzelt, unsystematisch und kaum reflektiert auf. Im Wesentlichen erschöpfen sich die Kapitel 3 bis 8 darin, Sachverhalte aufzuzeigen, Konfliktlinien nachzuzeichnen und Argumentationen verschiedenster Interessengruppierungen darzustellen - reine Deskription also. Gleichzeitig werden in den hervorgehobenen Passagen gleichsam apodiktisch und ohne Begründung ethische Postulate formuliert: So und so ist es eben, so und so soll es sein. Dies fällt weit hinter den aktuellen Stand der Diskussion allein im deutschsprachigen Bereich zurück, wie sich an vielen Beispielen deutlich machen lässt: 1) Zwar geht Kuhlen in Kap. 5 auf Beate Rösslers Texte zur Privatheit ein, aber deutet nicht einmal an, wie umfassend sie und viele andere Autoren mit Rückgriff auf Argumente der politischen Philosophie den Anspruch auf Privatheit normativ begründet. z) Obwohl Helmut Spinner mit"Die Wissensordnung" 1994 und "Die Architektur der Informationsgesellschaft" 1998 ausführlich eine (normative) Antwort gegeben hat, wie mit Informationen in einer rechtsstaatlichen Demokratie umgegangen werden sollte, um Rechte und Freiheiten der Bürger zu erhalten und Konflikte zu lösen, geht Kuhlen darauf nicht ein. Dabei ist das Zonen-Konzept Spinners zumindest ein Ausgangspunkt für normative Überlegungen. 3) Auch wenn es problematisch ist, in einer Rezension für sich selbst Partei zu ergreifen, sei der Hinweis erlaubt, dass der Rezensent seit geraumer Zeit versucht, die Konzepte der verschiedenen liberalen Strömungen der politischen Philosophie für die Grundlegung einer Informationsethik - bspw. in Bezug auf die Wahrung von Bürgerrechten und den Digital Divide -fruchtbar zu machen. 4) Allenfalls kursorisch werden die mehr als wichtigen Beiträge von Rafael Capurro, Thomas Hausmanninger und vielen weiteren Autoren in den ICIE-Bänden und anderen Publikationen genannt. Zuletzt: Im internationalen Kontext ist die Forschung viel weiter, als dies Kuhlen darlegt. So ist die Debatte um den Digital Divide weit über das Problem der mangelnden technischen Infrastruktur hinausgegangen - ein Blick bspw. in Mark Warschauers Texte wäre sehr erhellend. Weiterhin, die Liste ist beileibe unvollständig, fehlt die gesamte Auseinandersetzung um die Postmoderne, die wichtigen Beiträge aus den USA werden nur angeschnitten, Luciano Floridi oder Manuel Castells werden bloß kurz zitiert - als Laie könnte man den (mehr als falschen) Eindruck gewinnen, dass Rainer Kuhlen die Informationsethik erfunden hätte. Problematisch ist dabei nicht die gekränkte Eitelkeit der übergangenen Autoren (obwohl intellektuelle Redlichkeit sowie informationswissenschaftliche Ansprüche fordern, auf andere Ansätze hinzuweisen); vielmehr erweckt Kuhlen den Eindruck, dass es gar nicht notwendig sei, normative Aussagen zu begründen oder deutlich zu machen, dass elaborierte Begründungen existieren und bedeutsam für die Ausarbeitung einer Informationsethik sind. Studierende, die Kuhlens Buch nutzen, müssen fast zwangsläufig den Eindruck bekommen, dass es in ethischen Diskursen nur darauf ankommt, wer etwas behauptet, statt darauf, wie das Gesagte begründet wird. Fazit: Rainer Kuhlens "Informationsethik" liefert eine Fülle von Informationen. Aber weder als Lehrbuch noch als Beitrag zur systematischen Debatte der Informationsethik kann es wirklich überzeugen, dazu ist es zu sehr von Auslassungen geprägt."