The Role of Institutional Motivations in Technological Adoption: Implementation of DeKalb County's Family Technology Resource Centers

Information Society

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 305-314

  O'Neil, Dara V ^a,b   Baker, Paul M A ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b GTRI   (United States)

Author keywords

Community technology center; Digital divide; Implementation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141636269     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01972240309485     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anderson, Robert, Tora Bikson, Sally Law, and Bridger Mitchell. 1995. Universal access to e-mail: Feasibility and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
2. Anderson, Robert, and Tora Bikson. 1998. Focus on generic stills for information technology literacy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
3. Atlanta Journal and Constitution. 1999. Census figures show trend toward three georgias. 13 February, p. F2.
4. Baker, Paul. 2000. The role of community information in the virtual metropolis: The co-existence of the virtual and proximate terrains. In Community informatics: Enabling communities with information and communications technologies, ed. M. Gurstein, pp. 104-135. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
5. Baker, Paul, and Andrew Ward. 2000. Searching for "civitas" in the digital city: Community formation and dynamics in the virtual metropolis. National Civic Review October.
6. Bar, Francois, and Annemarie Munk Riis. 1998. From welfare to innovation: Toward a new rationale for universal service. Proceedings of the 26th Telecommunications Policy Conference, Alexandria, VA, 3-5 October.
7. Bartfai, Nicole, Joy Frechtling, Gary Silverstein, Kyle Snow, and Laurie Somers. 1999. Collected case study evaluations: Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance program.Report conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Commerce, contract 50SBNT7C1049.
8. Benton Foundation. 1998. Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
9. Bouie, Edward. 1996. Family technology resource centers: Serving parents, students and community. White Paper. Atlanta, GA: DeKalb County School System.
10. Brown, Jill. 2000. Numerical equity is not equity. Proceedings of the Association for Computers and the Social Sciences Conference, 15 April-15 May.
11. Carnegie Mellon University. 1996. Information technology access for low-income communities. Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Department of Social and Decision Sciences and H. John Heinze in School of Public Policy and Management.
12. Casey, James, Randy Ross, and Marcia Warren. 1999. Native networking: Telecommunications and information technology in indian country. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
13. Chow, Clifton, Jan Ellis, June Mark, and Bart Wise. 1998. Impact of CTCNet affiliates: Findings from a national survey of users of community technology centers. Report submitted to the National Science Foundation, grant ESI-9552567. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
14. DeKalb County School System. 1999. Family technology resource centers annual report. Atlanta, GA: DeKalb County School System.
15. DiSalvo, Mindy. 2000: Interview by Dara O'Neil on 25 July, at Rehoboth Instructional Center, Atlanta, GA.
16. Dutton, William, Malcolm Peltu, and Margaret Brice, eds. 1999. Society on the line: Information politics in the digital age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Frechtling, Joy, John Lockwood, Gary Silverstein, Laurie Somers, and Paul Tuss. 1999. Evaluation of the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance program for the 1994 and 1995 grant years. Report conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Commerce, contract 50SBNT7C1049.
18. Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunication Technology. 2000. Digital Georgia: A white paper on information and communication technology in Georgia. Prepared for the Office of the Governor, Georgia Technology Authority by the Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunication Technology Board of Directors, 15 September.
19. Georgia Department of Education. 1997.1996-97 Georgia public education report card. 〈http://168.31.216.85/〉
20. Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. 1998. DeKalb county community goes back to school. Higher Standard 6(1): 1.
21. Hoffman, Donna, and Thomas Novak. 1998. Bridging the racial gap on the Internet. Science 280(5362):390-391.
22. Kahin, Brian, and James Keller. 1995. Public access to the internet. Cambridge, MA: MTT Press.
23. Katz, James, and Philip Aspden. 1997. Motivations for and barriers to Internet usage: Results from a national public opinion survey. Internet Research 7(3):170-188.
24. Kling, Rob. 2000a. Asking the right questions about the Internet. Information Impacts Magazine, 22 September. 〈http://www.cisp.org/imp/september_2000/09_00/kling.htm〉
25. Kling, Rob. 2000b. Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society 16(3):217-232.
26. Lentz, Becky, Joseph Straubhaar, Antonio LaPastina, Stan Main, and Julie Taylor. 2000. Structuring access: The role of public access centers in the "digital divide." Report from the Digital Divide Research and Community Development Project. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute. 〈http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/〉
27. Mark, June, Janet Cornebise, and Ellen Wahl. 1997. Community technology centers: Impact on individual participants and their commit nities. Report submitted to the National Science Foundation. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
28. Mazmanian, Daniel, and Paul Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and public policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
29. O'Neil, Dara. 1999. Ubiquitous access to telecommunications technologies: Is access a positive freedom? In The right to privacy and the constitution, vol. 2, Electronic speech rights, ed. M. M. Placencia, pp. 242-251. New York: Garland.
30. O'Neil, Dara, and Jim Demmers. 2000. Leavers and takers: Alternative perspectives on universal access to telecommunications technologies. Techn'e: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology 5(2):40-61.
31. O'Neil, Dara, and Claudia Huff. 1998. Ensuring universal access to telecommunications technologies for all citizens: Equity vs economic considerations. Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, pp. 170-175.
32. Rose, S. 1997. The role of community access centers in bridging the technology gap. Master's thesis, Department of Urban and Environmental Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
33. Rossi, Peter, Howard Freeman, and Mark Lipsey. 1998. Evaluation: A systematic approach, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Twist, Kade, and Chic Smith. 2000. The role of faith-based organizations in bridging the digital divide. Digital Beat Extra, Email publication, 13 June. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
35. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991. What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Labor Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
36. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995. Falling through the net: A survey of the "Have-Nots" in rural and urban America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
37. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Falling through the Net II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
38. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999a. America's new deficit - The digital workforce: Building infotech skills at the speed of innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
39. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999b. The emerging digital economy II. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
40. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999c. Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
41. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Adminisration.
42. Westat. 2000. Technology opportunities program evaluation guide: Community networking and services project. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DC, January.
43. Wilhelm, Anthony. 1996. Latinos and information technology: Perspectives for the 21st century. Claremont, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.
44. Yin, Robert. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.