Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concept Classification Model for Digital Divide

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Technological Developments in Education and Automation

  • 2483 Accesses

Abstract

Digital divide has been used as a central concept in number of studies, yet this concept has many different definitions. This paper discusses the meaning and definition of digital divide and provides a dichotomy to be used for analyzing different definitions of this concept. Main contribution of this paper is on providing a theoretical dichotomy for understanding the meaning and underlying assumptions related to concept of digital divide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide – Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University press: USA, p.233.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Payton, F. C. (2003). Rethinking the digital divide. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 Iss. 6, pp. 89-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Norris, P. (2001), pp 3, 95-112.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Järvinen, P. (2004) On Research methods. Opinpajan kirja: Tampere, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid, p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burrell, G. & G. Morgan (1988). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. England: Gower publishing Company Limited. Reprint.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deetz S. (1996), Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy, Organization Science 7, No 2, 191-207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Järvinen, P. (2004) On Research methods. Opinpajan kirja: Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lee, A.S. & Baskerville, R.L., 2003. Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burrell, G. & G. Morgan (1988). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. England: Gower publishing Company Limited. Reprint. p. 21-23.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deetz S. (1996), Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy, Organization Science 7, No 2, p. 193-194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid., p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3:3, 398-427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sahay S. & D. Robey (1996). Organizational context, social interpretation, and the implementation and consequences of geographic information systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 6:4, p. 260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Doherty, N.F., Coombs, C.R. & J. Loan-Clarke (2006). A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: Redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems, 15:6, 569-582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. OED Online, cited October 13th, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. (T. McCarthy, Ed.). (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Salter, L. (2003). Democracy, New Social Movements, and the Internet: A Habermasian Analysis. In L. L. Brennan & V. E. Johnsson (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. (pp. 117-144). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Association of College and Research Libraries (2001). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved October 13th, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

  22. Holmlund, S., Mikola, M., Mäkinen, O. (2008). Good and Bad in Information Retrieval – Ethics in Information Literacy Education: Case The Tritonia Academic Library. Vaasa: Tritonia (IN PRINT).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mäensivu, V. (2003). Ikääntyvien viestintävalmiudet ja digitaalinen epätasa-arvo (Telecommunication skills of aging adults and the risk of a digital divide). Helsinki: KELA, pp. 158-161.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid, 159.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid, p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  27. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2007). The 2007 e-readiness rankings, Raising the bar. A white paper from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Cited October 5th, 2008. Retrieved from: http://graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2007Ereadiness_Ranking_WP.pdf

  29. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide – Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University press: USA, p.233.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Payton, F. C. (2003). Rethinking the digital divide. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 Iss. 6, pp. 89-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Norris, P. (2001), pp. 95-112.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Curtin, J. (2001). A Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia? Cited October 5th, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/cib/2001-02/02cib01.htm

  34. Bucy, E.P. (2000). Social Access to the Internet. Press/Politics 5 (1), pp 50-61.

    Google Scholar 

  35. von Wright, G. H. (1968). The Varieties of Goodness. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, pp. 3-5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School. Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 652.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ferdinand, P. (2005). Cyberpower: Only the power to Disturb? Concilium 2005/1, pp. 27-35.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Habermas, J. (1994). Kommunikatiivisen toiminnan käsitteen tarkastelu. In Jürgen Habermas Järki ja kommuniikatio (ed. and transl. by Jussi Kotkavirta). Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp. 68-97.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kotkavirta, J. (1994). Jälkisanat. In In Jürgen Habermas Järki ja kommuniikatio (Ed. and transl. by Jussi Kotkavirta). Helsinki: Gaudeamus, pp. 240-260.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid, 242.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vaasa, P.O. Box 700, FI-65101, Vaasa, Finland

    J. Naarmala

  2. Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 412, FI-60101, Seinäjoki, Finland

    O. Mäkinen

Authors
  1. J. Naarmala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. Mäkinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Naarmala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic University, Jay Street 333, Brooklyn, 11201, U.S.A.

    Magued Iskander

  2. Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic University, Jay Street 333, Brooklyn, 11201, U.S.A.

    Vikram Kapila

  3. Old Dominion University, Monarch Way 4111, Norfolk, 23508, U.S.A.

    Mohammad A. Karim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Naarmala, J., Mäkinen, O. (2010). Concept Classification Model for Digital Divide. In: Iskander, M., Kapila, V., Karim, M. (eds) Technological Developments in Education and Automation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3656-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation