Embedded media: Who we know, what we know, and society online

Society Online: The Internet in Context

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1-28

  Howard, Philip N ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84951176004     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4135/9781452229560.n1     Document Type: Chapter

References (14)

1. Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. [Online]. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from http://www.eff.org/~barlow/declaration-final.html.
2. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
3. Garrido, M., & Halavais, A. (2003). Mapping networks of support for the Zapatista movement: Applying social networks analysis to study contemporary social movements. In M.McCaughey & M.Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Critical practices and theories of online activism. London: Routledge.
4. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic-action and social-structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510. doi:10.1086/228311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228311
5. Howard, P. N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media & Society, 4, 550-574. doi:10.1177/146144402321466813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146144402321466813
6. Howard, P. N., Jones, S., & Rainie, H. (2001). Days and nights on the internet: The impact of a diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 382-404.
7. Jones, S. (2002). The internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
8. Lenhart, A. (2000). Who's not online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
9. Manovich, L. (2000). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Nie, N., & Erbing, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society.
11. Peterson, R., & Kern, R. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review, 61, 900-907. doi:10.2307/2096460 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096460
12. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
13. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698. doi:10.2307/2096399 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096399
14. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36, 579-616. doi:10.2307/2111583 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111583