Who's responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications

Information Society

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 92-104

  Epstein, Dmitry ^a   Nisbet, Erik C ^b   Gillespie, Tarleton ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital divide; Experiment; Framing; ICT; Responsibility; Telecommunication policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952419243     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2011.548695     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. ACRL. 2000. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Association of College and Research Libraries. January 18. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm (accessed December 1, 2010).
2. Barzilai-Nahon, K. 2006. Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society 22:269-78.
3. Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-39.
4. Boyle, J. 1997. A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the Net? Duke Law Journal 47(1):87-116.
5. Chinn, M. D., and R. W. Fairlie. 2004. The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and Internet penetration. Center Discussion Paper 881, EconomicGrowth Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, March.
6. Chomsky, N. 2004. Hegemony or survival: America's quest for global dominance. New York: Holt.
7. Chong, D., and J. N. Druckman. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10:103-26.
8. Clark, L. S., C. Demont-Heinrich, and S. A. Webber. 2004. Ethnographic interviews on the digital divide. New Media & Society 6(4):529.
9. Courtright, C., and A. Robbin. 2001. Deconstructing the digital divide in the United States: An interpretive policy analytic perspective. Working Paper 02-07, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, November. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/html/2022/150/WP02-07B.htm
10. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34:221-35.
11. van Dijk, J. A. G.M., and K. Hacker. 2003. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society 19(4):315-26.
12. DiMaggio, P., Eszter Hargittai, C. Celeste, and S. Shafer. 2004. Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In Social inequality, ed. K. M. Neckerman, 355-400. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
13. Eberhart, D. 2004. Kerry on the record: The great "digital divide. " NewsMax. com, May 29.
14. Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4):51-58.
15. Entman, R. M. 2004. Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Federal Communications Commission. 2010. Connecting America: The national broadband plan. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. http://www.broadband.gov/plan/ (accessed December 1, 2010).
17. Fischer, F., and J. Forester, eds. 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18. Gamson, W. A. 1992. Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95(1):1.
20. Gandy, O. 2002. The real digital divide: Citizens versus consumers. In The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs, 448-460. London: Sage.
21. Gitlin, T. 1980. The wholeworld is watching: Mass media in themaking & unmaking of the new left. Berkley: University of California Press.
22. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Gollust, S. E, P. M. Lantz, and P. A Ubel. 2009. The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health. American Journal of Public Health 99(12):2160.
24. Gunkel, D. J. 2003. Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New Media Society 5(4):499-522.
25. Hamelink, C. J. 2004. DidWSIS achieve anything at all? International Communication Gazette 66(3):281.
26. Hardisty, D. J., E. J. Johnson, and E. U. Weber. 2010. A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychological Science 21(1):86-92.
27. Hargittai, E. 2002. Second-level digital divide. First Monday 7(4), http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue74/hargittai/index.html (accessed December 1, 2010).
28. ITU. 2005. World Summit on Information Society: Outcome documents. International Telecommunication Union, December. http://www.itu.int/wsis/outcome/booklet.pdf (accessed December 1, 2010).
29. Iyengar, S. 1994. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Kvasny, L., and D. Truex. 2001. Defining away the digital divide: A content analysis of institutional influences on popular representations of technology. In Realigning research and practice in information systems development. Social and organizational perspective, ed. N. L. Russo, B. Fitzgerald, J. I. DeGrass, 399-414. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
31. Lenhart, A., and J. B. Horrigan. 2003. Re-visualizing the digital divide as a digital spectrum. IT & Society 1(5):23-39.
32. Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Meredyth, D., and J. Thomas. 2002. Digital divides: Framing the issues. International Conference on the Digital Divide: Technology & Politics in the Information Age. August 22-24. http://www.sisr.net/publications/0208meredyth1.pdf (accessed December 1, 2010).
34. Mossberger, K., C. J. Tolbert, and M. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
35. Muir, A., and C. Oppenheim. 2002. National Information Policy developments worldwide II: Universal access-Addressing the digital divide. Journal of Information Science 28(4):263-73.
36. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. 1991. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78(3): 691-92.
37. Nelson, T. E., Z. M. Oxley, and R. A. Clawson. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19(3):221-46.
38. Nisbet, M. C., and M. Huge. 2006. Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2):3-40.
39. Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Pan, Z. D., and G. M Kosicki. 2005. Framing and understanding of citizenship. In The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring JackM. McLeod, ed. S. Dunwoody, L. Becker, D. McLeod, and G. M. Kosicki, 165-204. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
41. Parsons, W. 1995. Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.
42. Philippa, B. 2003. Information and communication technology development indices. Geneva: United Nations Publications. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs//iteipc20031en.pdf (accessed December 1, 2010).
43. Pohjola, M. 2001. Information technology, productivity and economic growth: International evidence and implications for economic development. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Reddick, A., C. Boucher, and M. Groseilliers. 2000. The dual digital divide: The information highway in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Google Scholar. http://dsppsd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/RH4-5-2000E.pdf (accessed December 1, 2010).
45. Rein, M., and D. Scḧon. 1993. Reframing policy discourse. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, ed. Frank Fischer and John Forester, 145-166. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
46. Rochefort, D., and R. Cobb. 1994. Problem definition: An emerging perspective. In The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda, ed. D. Rochefort and R. Cobb, 1-31. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
47. Rohde, G. 2000. The 2000 agenda for NTIA-Promoting universal service, competition and innovation. Speech presented at the Federal Communications Bar Association, February 17, Washington, DC. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/fcba21700.htm (accessed December 1, 2010).
48. Rooney, D. 2005. Knowledge, economy, technology and society: The politics of discourse. Telematics and Informatics 22(4):405-22.
49. Scheufele, D. A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication 49(1):103-22.
50. Scheufele, D. A., and D. Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1):9.
51. Schiller, H. 1992. Mass communications and American empire. Boulder, CO: Westview.
52. Schwartz, J. 2002. Report disputes Bush approach to bridging 'digital divide'. New York Times, July 11. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E4DB1230F932A25754C0A9649C8B63-&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (accessed December 1, 2010).
53. Selwyn, N. 2004. Reconsidering political and popular understanding of the digital divide. New Media and Society 6(3):341-62.
54. Smith, M. R. 1994. Technological determinism in American culture. In Does technology drive history? The dillema of technological determinism, ed. Merrit R. Smith and Leo Marx, 1-35. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Stevenson, S. 2009. Digital divide: A discursive move away from the real inequities. The Information Society 25(1):1-22.
56. Stewart, C. M., G. Gil-Egui, Y. Tian, and M. I. Pileggi. 2006. Framing the digital divide: A comparison of US and EU policy approaches. New Media and Society 8(5):731-51.
57. Thompson, M. 2004. Discourse, "development" & the "digital divide": ICT and the World Bank. Review of African Political Economy 99:103-23.
58. Vehovar, V., P. Sicherl, T. Husing, and V. Dolnicar. 2006. Methodological challenges of digital divide measurements. The Information Society 22:279-90.
59. Warschauer, M. 2002. Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday 7(7), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue77/warschauer (accessed December 1, 2010).
60. Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Wilgoren, J., and D. A. Sanger. 2004. The 2004 campaign: Looking ahead; Bush and Kerry offer plans for high-tech growth. New York Times, June 24. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E2DA1F39F936A15755C0A9629C8B63-&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (accessed December 1, 2010).