Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12739176 = product of:
  0.2547835 = sum of:
    0.2547835 = sum of:
      0.20583835 = weight(_text_:2004 in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20583835 = score(doc=3018,freq=17.0), product of:
          0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.9483335 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
            4.1231055 = tf(freq=17.0), with freq of:
              17.0 = termFreq=17.0
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
      0.04894516 = weight(_text_:22 in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04894516 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2008 14:21:53

RSWK

Bibliothek / Information und Dokumentation / Kongress / Leipzig <2004>
Bibliothek / Kongress / Leipzig <2004> (ÖVK)
Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände / Information / Bildung / Kongress / Geschichte 2004 (GBV)

Subject

Bibliothek / Information und Dokumentation / Kongress / Leipzig <2004>
Bibliothek / Kongress / Leipzig <2004> (ÖVK)
Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände / Information / Bildung / Kongress / Geschichte 2004 (GBV)

Year

2004

0.009264579 = product of:
  0.018529158 = sum of:
    0.018529158 = product of:
      0.037058316 = sum of:
        0.037058316 = weight(_text_:2004 in 1794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037058316 = score(doc=1794,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.17073418 = fieldWeight in 1794, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Year

2004

0.0071318764 = product of:
  0.014263753 = sum of:
    0.014263753 = product of:
      0.028527506 = sum of:
        0.028527506 = weight(_text_:2004 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028527506 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.13143124 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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).
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."