We apologize for a recent technical issue with our email system, which temporarily affected account activations. Accounts have now been activated. Authors may proceed with paper submissions. PhDFocusTM
CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Correlates of the Digital Diversity in the Information Age: A Bird's Eye View

by Parul
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 106 - Number 9
Year of Publication: 2014
Authors: Parul
10.5120/18551-9810

Parul . Correlates of the Digital Diversity in the Information Age: A Bird's Eye View. International Journal of Computer Applications. 106, 9 ( November 2014), 41-53. DOI=10.5120/18551-9810

@article{ 10.5120/18551-9810,
author = { Parul },
title = { Correlates of the Digital Diversity in the Information Age: A Bird's Eye View },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { November 2014 },
volume = { 106 },
number = { 9 },
month = { November },
year = { 2014 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 41-53 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume106/number9/18551-9810/ },
doi = { 10.5120/18551-9810 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T22:39:00.239675+05:30
%A Parul
%T Correlates of the Digital Diversity in the Information Age: A Bird's Eye View
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 106
%N 9
%P 41-53
%D 2014
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

The digital diversity generally refers to differences between individuals in likelihood of accessing and using the information technologies, specifically the Internet resources. The thrust of this attempt is to provide an overview of digital diversity. Several factors influence diversity. Digital diversity exists not only in underdeveloped and developing nations but also in the so called rich and developed nations. It reflects differences among nations. The phrase of digital diversity is seen as well as due to demographical, socio-cultural, psychological and political characteristics. The crucial variables highlighted in the present work include income, education, gender, age, race/ethnicity, caste, infrastructure indicators, pricing regulatory quality etc. The need for further research that identifies new correlates is also called for.

References
  1. Adler, R. (1996). Research about Older Adults and Computers: Report of a National Survey, Senior Net. [online] [accessed 25 January, 2002]
  2. Akiyoshi, M. and Ono, H. (2008). The diffusion of mobile Internet in Japan. The Information Society, 4(5), 292–303.
  3. Bargh, J. A. and McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.
  4. Basant, R. (2007). Social, economic and educational conditions of Indian Muslims. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(10), 828–832.
  5. Bure, C. 2005, 'Digital Inclusion Without Social Inclusion: Consumption Of Information And Communication Technologies (ICTs) Within Homeless Subculture In Scotland. ' The Journal of Community Informatics, 1 (2). pp. 116-133.
  6. Carpentier, N. (2003). Access and participation in the discourse of the digital divide: The European perspective at/on the WSIS. In J. Servaes (ed. ) The European information society: A reality check. Bristol, UK: Intellect, 99–120.
  7. Caste system main barrier to India's IT superpower ambitions? November 3, 2000, Available at URL:http://www. expressindia. com/news/dailyI20001103/00202300. htm
  8. Castells, M. (1996, 2000, 2010). The rise of the network society: The information age. Oxford, U. K. : Blackwell.
  9. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Landon:Oxford University Press.
  10. Cooper, M. N. 2000. Disconnected, Disadvantaged, and Disenfranchised: Explorations in the Digital Divide. Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, October 11. [http://www. consumersunion. org/resources/publications. htm]
  11. Cuervo, M. R. V. and Menendez, A. J. L. (2006). A Multivariate Framework for the Analysis of the Digital Divide: Evidence for the European Union-15. Information & Management 43, 756–766.
  12. Cuneo, C. (2002). Globalized and Localized Digital Divide along the Information Highway: A Fragile Synthesis across Bridges, Ramps, Cloverleaves, and Ladders. The 23rd Annual Sorokin Lecture. University of Saskatchewan, January 31.
  13. Cunningham, D. (2001). "The Situation and Future Prospects of Multilingual Access to Information Sources. " Language Diversity in the Information Society Colloquium. French Commission for UNESCO. Paris, France. [online] [available December 22nd, 2001] http://www. unesco. org/comnat/france/dcunning. pdf
  14. Cutler, D. M. ,Glaeser, E. L. and J. L. Vigdor. 2005. "Is the Melting Pot Still Hot? Explaining the Resurgence of Immigrant Segregation. " NBER Working Paper No. 11295
  15. Dasgupta S. , Lall S. and Wheeler D. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth and the digital divide, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 June, pp. 229-243
  16. Davidson, K. , Pennebaker, J. , and Dickerson, S. (2000). Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups. American Psychologist, 55, 205-217.
  17. Demunter, C. (2005). The Digital Divide in Europe. Statistics in focus, Eurostat.
  18. Denny-Brown, C. and Thomas, A. (2013) The Inequality of the "Great Equalizer:" Closing the Internet access gender gap. Available at http://dalberg. com/blog/?p=1555Development, 11(3), 280-289. doi:10. 1108/14626000410551546
  19. Dewan, S. and Riggins, F. J. (2005). Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Direction. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 6 (2), pp-298-337.
  20. Dickinson, P and J. Ellison. (2000). Plugging In: The Increase of Household Internet Use Continues into 1999. Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada, November. [http://www. statcan. ca/english/IPS/Data/11-010-XPB010015461. htm]
  21. DiMaggio P. and Hargittai E. , (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality: studying Internet users as penetration increases, Working Paper 15, Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princton University, New Jersey.
  22. DiMaggio, P. , Hargittai, E. , Celeste, C. and Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (ed. ) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 355–400.
  23. Donnermeyer,J. F. and Hollifield, C. A. (2003). Digital Divide Evidence in Four Rural Towns. IT & Society, 1(4),107-117.
  24. Drucker, P. (1994). Knowledge Work and Knowledge Society: The Social Transformation of this Century. Edwin l. Godkin Lecture.
  25. Dupagne, M. and Swalden, M. B. (2005). Communication technology adoption and ethnicity. Howard Journal of Communication, 16, 21–32.
  26. Durkheim, E. (1984
  27. ). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
  28. Eastin, M. S. and LaRose, R. (2000). Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications. 6 (1) [online] [accessed 13th December, 2001] http://www. ascusc. org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin. html
  29. Fairlie, R. W. (2003). Is there a digital divide? Ethnic and racial differences in access to technology and possible explanations. Final report to the University of California, Latino Policy Institute and California Policy Research Center. Accessed 15 September 2012 from: http://www. cjtc. ucsc. edu/docs/r_techreport5. pdf.
  30. Fallon, H. (1998). "WOW-Women on the Web: A Guide to Gender Related Resources on the Internet". Dublin: Women's Education Research and Resource Centre University College.
  31. FCC. (2012). Measuring Broadband America. FCC's office of the engineering and technology and Consumer & Government Affair Bureau. From http://www. fcc. gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july
  32. Fong, E. , Wellman, B. , Kew, M. , & Wilkes, R. (2001). Correlates of the digital divide: Individual,household and spatial variation(Report to Office of LearningTechnologies, Human Resources Development Canada). Toronto, Canada.
  33. Forman, C. (2005). The Corporate Digital Divide: Determinants of Internet Adoption. Management Science 51(4), 641–654.
  34. Fox, S. (2005). Digital divisions: There are clear differences among those with broadband connections, dial-up connections, and no connections at all to the Internet/ Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  35. Frideres, J. S. , Goldenberg, S. , Distanto, J. and Fleising, U. (2006). Technophobia: Incidence and Potential Causal Factors. Nov. 2007, web: http://www. sringerlink. com/index/GG81311214028407. pdf.
  36. Friedman, W, H. (2001). The Digital Divide: Theoretical Foundations and Research Method. Seventh American Conference on Information Systems, p2081-2086.
  37. Fuller, C. J. and Narasimhan, H. (2008). From landlords to software engineers: Migration and urbanization among Tamil Brahmans. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50(1), 170–196.
  38. Gee, J. P. & Green, J. (1998). Discourse Analysis, Learning and Social Practice: A Methodological Study. Review of Research in Education, 23:119-170.
  39. Glass, C. G. , Knight, L. A. , and Baggett, H. L. (1985). "Bibliography on Computer Anxiety and Psychological Aspect of Computer Use. " Psychological Report. 15.
  40. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360. doi:10. 1086/225469
  41. Grogan, P. (2003). Bridging the Digital Divide: Enhancing Homeless Youth People's Access to Computer. Parity. Melbourne, 16(7), 24-26.
  42. Guillen, M. (2005). "Explaining the Global Digital Divide", Social Forces, Vol. 84, pp 681-708.
  43. Gutierrez, H. L. and Gamboa. L. F. (2010). Determinants of ICT Usage among Low-Income Groups in Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. The Information Society. 26(5), pp-346-63.
  44. Haddon, L. (2000). Social exclusion and information and communication technologies: lesion from studies of single parents and young elderly. New Media and Society, 2 (4), pp-387-406.
  45. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First Monday7 (4).
  46. Hargittai, E. (2003) "Informed Web Surfing: The Social Context of User Sophistication," in Howard, P. and S. Jones (eds. ), Society Online: The Internet in Context, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 257-274.
  47. Hatfield, E. and Sprecher S . (1986). Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany: State Univ. NY Press.
  48. Herring, S. (2000). "Gender Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications" CPSR Newsletter 18 (1): http://www. Cpsr. org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring. html.
  49. Hersberger, J. (2003). Are the economically poor information? Does the digital divide affect the homeless and access to information? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27 (3), 45-63.
  50. Hilbert, M. (2010). When is Cheap, Cheap Enough to Bridge the Digital Divide? Modelling Income Related Structural Challenges of Technology Diffusion in Latin America. World Development. 38 (5), pp-756-770.
  51. Himma, K. (2007). The information gap, the digital divide and obligations of affluent nations. International Review of Information Ethics, vol. 7 (09/2007).
  52. Hooper, P. (1998). They Have Their Own Thoughts: Children's Learning of Computational Ideas from a Cultural Constructionist Perspective. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
  53. Hudiburg, R. A. (1999). Preliminary investigation of computer stress and the big five personality factors. Psychology Reports, 85,473–480.
  54. Iacovou, C. L. , Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. S. (1995) "Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology," Quarterly, (19)4, pp. 465-485.
  55. Igbaria, M. and Chakrabarti, A. (1990). "Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use". Behavior and Information Technology, 9(3), 229-241.
  56. Ilavarasan, P. V. (2007). Is Indian software workforce a case of uneven and combined development? Equal Opportunities International, 26(8), 802–822.
  57. Ilavarasan, P. V. (2008). Occupational classification of the software workforce: Case of India. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 51(1), 105–114.
  58. International Telecommunication Union (2014). Manual for measuring ICT Access and Use by Household and individual. CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
  59. Internet Society Survey (1996). Is The World Wide Web Really Worldwide? http://www. unesco. org/webworld/points_of_views/tawfik_1. html
  60. Jackson, L. A. , von Eye, A. , Barbatsis, G. , Biocca, F. , Zhao, Y. and Fitzgerald, H. E. (2003). Internet attitudes and Internet use: some surprising findings from the Home Net Too project. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59 (3), pp-355-382.
  61. Kang J. (2000). Cyber-race. Harvard Law Rev. 113:1130—1208
  62. Katz, J. E. and Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use, access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.
  63. Kaye, H, S. (2000). Disabilities and the Digital Divide. Disabilities Statistics Center. July, 2000. Abstract No. 22 [online] [accessed 29 December, 2001].
  64. Kennedy, T. , Wellman, B. and Klement, K. (2003). Gendering the Digital Divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 72-96.
  65. Kibati, M. (1999). "What is the Optimal Technological and Investment Path to Universal Wireless Local Loop Development in Developing Countries?" [online] [available December 21st, 2001] Internet Society Inet '99 Proceedings.
  66. Korupp, S. E. , and Szydlik, M. (2005). Causesand Trends of the Digital Divide. European Sociological Review 21(4), 409–422.
  67. Krauss, M. (1992). The world's languages in crisis. Language, 68, 6-10.
  68. Kraut, R. , Kiesler, S. , Boneva, B. , Cummings, J. , Helgeson, V. and Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
  69. Kumar, R. and Best, M. L. (2006). Social impact and diffusion of telecenter use: A study from the Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI) Project. Community Informatics, 2(2), 116 –136.
  70. Lazarus, W. (2000). Online Content for Low -Income and Underserved Americans: The Digital Divide's New Frontier. The Children's Partnership, March. [http://www. childrenspartnership. org]
  71. Lebo, H. (2000). Surveying the Digital Future. UCLACenter for Communication Policy. [ http://www. ccp. ucla. edu/pages/internet -report. asp]
  72. Lee, C. D. &Smagorinsky, P. (2000). Introduction: Constructing Meaning Through collaborative inquiry. C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Editors). Neo-Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Looker, E. d. and Thiessen, V, (2003). Beyond the Digital Divide in Canadian Schools- From Access to Competence in the Use of Information technology. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 475-490.
  74. Maclaren, J. and Zappala, G. (2002). The 'Digital Divide'among Financially Disadvantaged Families in Australia. First Monday, 7(11), November, 2002.
  75. Mahajan, S. (2003) "Impact of Digital Divide on Developing Countries with Special Reference to India. " SERALS Journal of Information Management. Vol. 40, No. 4, pp 328–329.
  76. Marcoulides, G. A. , Marcoulides, L. D. and Stocker, Y. O. (2004). "Examining the Psychological Impact of Computer Technology: An Update Cross-Cultural Study". Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64 (2): 311-318.
  77. Martin, S. P. (2003). Is the Digital Divide Really Closing? A Critique of Inequality Measurement in a Nation Online. IT & society, 1 (4), pp-1-13.
  78. Marx, K. (1976) Capital: A critique of political economy. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
  79. McKenna, K. Y. A. , Green, A. S. and Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
  80. Menkova, V. (2004). Digital Divide and Cross Country Diffusion of the Internet. Thesis of Master of Arts in Economics, National University 'Kyin-Mohyla Academy. http://kse. org. ua/library/matheses/2004/Menkova_Viktoriya/body. pdf
  81. Mesch, G. S. (2012). Minority Status and the Use of Computer-Mediated Communication: A Test of the Social Diversification Hypothesis. Communication Research, 39(3), 317-337. doi:10. 1177/0093650211398865
  82. Meuter, M. L. , Ostrom, A. , Bitner, M. J. and Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research, 56 (11), 899–906
  83. Millward, P. (2003). The 'Grey Digital Divide': Perception, Exclusion and Barriers of Access to the Internet for Older people. First Monday, 8 (7). http://firstmonday. org/issue/issue8_7/milward/index. html.
  84. Milner, H. V. (2003). "The Digital Divide: The Role of Political Institutions in Technology Diffusion. "Paper prepared for the 2003 APSA conference, Philadelphia, PA.
  85. Mohanty, M. (2006). Social inequality, labour market dynamics and reservation. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(35), 3777–378.
  86. Nohl, A. M. (2001). Bildung und Migration. In Gesemann, F. (Ed. ) Migration und Integration in Berlin. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 293- 312.
  87. Norris, P. (2001). The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty &the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp-123-126.
  88. Norris, P. (2002). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  89. NTIA (2000). Falling Through the Net:Toward Digital Inclusion, National Telecommunication Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
  90. NTIA (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their Use of the Internet, National Telecommunication Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
  91. NTIA (2004). A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age, National Telecommunication Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
  92. OECD (2000). Information Technology Outlook. Organization for Cooperation and development. Paris, France.
  93. OECD. (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris. France.
  94. OECD(2004). The Development of Broadband Access in Rural and Remote Areas. Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies. Pairs, France.
  95. OECD (2013). "The OECD model survey on ICT usage by Households and Individuals: proposal for the 2nd revision", DSTI/ICCP/IIS(2013)1.
  96. Ono, H. and Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A Five Country Comparison Using Microdata. Social Science Research 36, pp-1135-55.
  97. Oommen, U. and Sundararajan, A. (2005). Social structuring of human capital of the new global workforce. Paper presented to the International Conference on New Global Workforces and Virtual Workplaces: Connections, Culture, and Control, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India, 12–13 August 2005
  98. O'Sullivan, Tim, J. Hartley, D. Saunders and J. Fiske. (1983). Key Concepts in Communication. Landon: Methuen.
  99. Otani, S. (2003). Social, Cultural and Economic Issues in Digital Divide-Literature Review and Case Study of Japan. International Electronic Journal, Social and Cultural Issue, 5, pp. 1.
  100. Parul. (2014). Internet Usage Patterns Among Males and Females Student at Colleges of Bhiwani City: A Survey. International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology. 5 (2), pp-212-225
  101. Pew Research Internet Project (2010). Rural Areas and the Internet. http://www. pewinternet. org/2004/02/17/rural-areas-and-the-internet/
  102. Pew Research Internet Project (2012). Digital differences. http://www. pewinternet. org/2012/04/13/digital-differences/
  103. Pew Research Internet Project (2013). Health Online. http://www. pewinternet. org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
  104. Pew Research Internet Project (2014). Health Information Online. http://www. pewinternet. org/2014/02/13/health-information-online-2/
  105. Porter, C. and Donthu, N. (2006). Using the Technology Acceptance Model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 9, 999–1007.
  106. Prasad, C. (2000). The Pioneer. October 15.
  107. Quian, Z. and Daniel T. Lichter. (2007). "Racial Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racialand Ethnic Intermarriage. " American Sociological Review72: 68-94.
  108. Rasanen, P. (2008). The Persistence of Information Structures in Nordic Countries. The Information Society. 24(4), pp- 219-28.
  109. Rice, R. E. and Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing Internet and Mobile Phone usage: Digital Divide of Usage, Adoption, and Dropouts. Telecommunication Policy, 27(8-9), 597-623.
  110. Robinson, J. P. , DiMaggio, P. and Harhittai, E. (2003). New Social Survey Perspectives on the Digital Divide, IT & Society, 1(5), 1-22.
  111. Saha, G. G. (2014). A Paradigam shift from Digital Divide to Digital Inclusiveness. IBMRD's Journal of Management and Research, 3 (1), 75-84.
  112. Sangmoon, K. (2011). The Diffusion of the Internet: Trend and Causes. Social Science Research. 40(2), pp-602-13.
  113. Shaw, A. C. (1995). Social Constructionism and the Inner City: Designing Environments for Social Development and Urban Renewal. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
  114. Singh, P. (2004). Information Technology and the Digital Divide in India: Ethical Perspectives. IJT, 46 (1&2), pp-33-44.
  115. Singh, R. P. (2010a). The Strange Case of Digital Divide. University News, 48 (01), pp-4-10.
  116. Singh, S. (2010b). Digital Divide in India: Measurement, Determinants and Policy for Addressing the Challenges in Bridging the Digital Divide from http://www. idra. it/garnetpapers/C06Sumanjeet_Singh. pdf
  118. Small, T. (1997). Computer and Education Stratification: Opening the Doors and Bridging the Gaps. Honour Thesis. Science, Technology, and Society. Stanford University, May 15th, 1997. [online] [accessed June 12th, 1997]
  119. Spooner, T. and Rainie, L. (2000). African-Americans and the InternetPew Internetand American Life Project, October. [http://www. pewinternet. org/reports/toc. asp?Report=25]
  120. Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy. The Information Society, 19 (5), pp. 407-416.
  121. Suraj Mal. (2008). Digital Divide: Psycho-Social Determinants. Lecture delivered at Psychology Refresher Course, I. C. College, Rohtak. May 26
  122. Taylor, M. , and Murphy, A. (2004). SMEs and e-business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(3), 280-289. doi:10. 1108/14626000410551546
  123. The Arab Social Media Report. (2012). Dubai, United Arab Emirates: Dubai School of Government. The Digital Divide_BOOK. indb 219 5/8/2013 2:33:14 PM
  124. Tu, C. and McIsaac, M. S. (2002). Anexamination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16 (3), pp-131-150.
  125. Turner, B. S. (2012). Post Secular Society:Consumerism and the Democratization of Religion. In Philip S. Gorsky, David k. Kim, John Torpey and Jonathan VanAntwerpen (Eds. ),The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society. New York: New York University Press.
  126. Twist, K. (2000). "Digital Divide Network, web: http://www. DigitalDivideNetwork. org/contentbeat. adp, November 13
  127. UN (2006) Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed on http: search. eb. com/eb/article-250455.
  128. UNESCO. (2005). Measuring Linguistic Diversity on the Internet. Publications for the World Submit on the Information Society. Paris, France.
  129. UNCTAD. (2009). Information economy report 2009, trends and outlook in turbulent times(No. UNCTAD/IER/2009) (p. 153). Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrievedfromhttp://www. unctad. org/Templates/webflyer. asp?docid=11915&intItemID=2068⟨=1
  130. Upadhya, C. and Vasavi, A. R. (2006). Work, culture and sociality in the Indian IT industry: A sociological study(Final Report submitted to IDPAD). Bangalore, India: National Institute of Advanced Studies.
  131. Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. and van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010). The Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 11(11), 1–19.
  132. Warschauer, M. (2003). Excellent Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.
  133. Weber, M. (1978
  134. ). Economy and society: An outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkley, CA, US: University of California Press.
  135. Wellman, B. , Quan-Haase, A. , Witte, J. and Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455.
  136. Wilhelm, B. S. (2000). "Changing Connectivity: A Future History of Y2. 03K. " Sociological Research Online 4, 4, February 2000: http://www. socresonline. org. uk/4/wellman.
  137. Wills, S and Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the "digital divide": internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 42 (1), 42-59.
  138. Wilson, E. (2004). The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press, Cambridge.
  139. Witte, J. C. and Mannon, S. E. (2010). The Internet and social inequalities. New York: Routledge.
  140. Zillien, N. and Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 274 –291.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Access broadband computer literacy culture digitally connected community digitally disadvantaged communities India ICT information gap infrastructure low-income level network policy psychosocial barriers.

Powered by PhDFocusTM