Social Facilitators and Inhibitors to Online Fluency

Studies of Internet use continue to show a gap between those with and without access to the Internet and its resources. However, recent work indicates that this is not a straightforward divide about access; instead there are many variants of access, use, and presence online. This paper examines these variants, bringing together primarily US and European studies on the digital divide to identify social facilitators and inhibitors to online use that can inform policy and practice. This paper reviews research on who is and is not online, where access is gained, and what promotes or inhibits use of the Internet. This leads to identification of a number of interrelated social and technical factors that underlie access differences, including technical and social infrastructures, social networks, and content

[1]  D. Stark,et al.  Socio-Technologies of Assembly: Sense-Making and Demonstration in Rebuilding Lower Manhattan , 2005 .

[2]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Technology and Social Inclusion , 2003 .

[3]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Email, Gender, and Personal Relationships , 2008 .

[4]  J. Copley,et al.  Oceanography: All wired up , 2004, Nature.

[5]  Kyle Nicholas,et al.  Geo-Policy Barriers and Rural Internet Access: The Regulatory Role in Constructing the Digital Divide , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[6]  R. Rice.  Primary Issues in Internet use: Access, Civic and Community Involvement, and Social Interaction and Expression , 2002 .

[7]  André Brock,et al.  "A Belief in Humanity is a Belief in Colored Men: " Using Culture to Span the Digital Divide , 2005, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[8]  Marcy M. Allen,et al.  The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look At Internet Access and the Digital Divide, Amanda Lenhart (Ed.). The Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC (2003) , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[9]  Steven G. Jones,et al.  Days and Nights on the Internet , 2001 .

[10]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[11]  J. Horrigan.  BROADBAND ADOPTION AT HOME IN THE UNITED STATES: GROWING BUT SLOWING , 2005 .

[12]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[13]  Randal D. Pinkett,et al.  Bridging the Digital Divide: Sociocultural Constructionism and an Asset-Based Approach to Community Technology and Community Building , 2000 .

[14]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Dissecting the "Digital Divide": A Case Study in Egypt , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[15]  Christine Hagar.  The Farming Community in Crisis: The information needs of Cumbrian Farmers during the UK 2001 foot and mouth outbreak and the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) , 2005 .

[16]  Ernest J. Wilson,et al.  New IT and Social Inequality: resetting the research and Policy Agenda , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[17]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Bringing the Internet Home: Adult Distance Learners and Their Internet, Home, and Work Worlds , 2008 .

[18]  Johannes A.G.M..  The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. , 2000 .

[19]  Jeffrey Barlow,et al.  Internet and American Life Project , 2006 .

[20]  Neil Gandal,et al.  The Effect of Native Language on Internet Usage , 2001, ArXiv.

[21]  Rob Kling,et al.  Can the "Next Generation Internet" Effectively Support "Ordinary Citizens"? , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[22]  Ann Peterson Bishop,et al.  Afya: Social and Digital Technologies that Reach across the Digital Divide , 2001, First Monday.

[23]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Social networks and Internet connectivity effects , 2005 .

[24]  N. Nie,et al.  Internet and society: a preliminary report , 2001 .

[25]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  ARTICULATING DIVIDES IN DISTRIBUTED KNOWLEDGE PRACTICE , 2006 .

[26]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Culture and Computer-Mediated Communication: Toward New Understandings , 2005, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[27]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Community Development Among Distance Learners: Temporal and Technological Dimensions , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[28]  N. Nie.  Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet , 2001 .

[29]  Ben Anderson,et al.  Digital Living: The Impact (or Otherwise) of the Internet on Everyday British Life , 2008 .

[30]  S. Livingstone,et al.  UK Children Go Online : final report of key project findings , 2005 .

[31]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Differences in Actual and Perceived Online Skills: The Role of Gender* , 2006 .

[32]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Strength of Internet Ties, The , 2006 .

[33]  B. Wellman,et al.  The Internet in everyday life , 2002 .

[34]  P. Howard,et al.  Society Online: The Internet in Context , 2003 .

[35]  W. Shrum,et al.  Kerala Connections: Will the Internet Affect Science in Developing Areas? , 2008 .

[36]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Design: Cultural probes , 1999, INTR.

[37]  John C. Paolillo,et al.  Measuring linguistic diversity on the internet , 2005 .

[38]  Laura Dianne Stanley,et al.  Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[39]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Radicals of presentation: visibility, relation, and co-presence in persistent conversation , 2003, New Media Soc..

[40]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide , 2002, First Monday.

[41]  Anthony G. Wilhelm.  Leveraging Sunken Investments in Communications Infrastructure: A Policy Perspective From the United States , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[42]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media , 2002, Inf. Soc..