The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s
Abstract
Three arguments are raised in this article with regard to the indices used to measure the digital divide. First, I criticize policymakers who rely on simplistic measures of the digital divide, at the expense of a thoughtful analysis of (1) the purpose of the tool, (2) the level of observation, and (3) the method of approaching the data. Second, I argue that networks and associated technologies are not neutral artifacts but are political and social spaces in their structure as well as in their content levels. Accordingly, we need to factor in the context as an important actor in conceptualizing and measuring the digital divide. Third, two general types of indices are used for the measurement of the digital divide(s): focused monotopical indices and comprehensive indices. Monotopical indices are more widely available, while comprehensive ones are rare. I argue that policymakers need to promote comprehensive indices over monotopical indices. Finally, I present a conceptual definition of the digital divide and a framework for developing a comprehensive index to measure it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide
Norris, P. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164887 · Cited by 2,921
Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills
Hargittai, E. (2002) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v7i4.942 · Cited by 1,951 · cited 3×
“For example, in the factor index of use , we can find studies that measure how the length of time surfing online or frequency of surfing reflect the digital divide, but they do not measure the whole index that I refer to as “use” (e.g., (Cultural Access Group, 2001; Hargittai, 2002; Hoffman et al., 2000).”
BackgroundMass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge
Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/267786 · Cited by 1,537
Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts
Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/s0308-5961(03)00068-5 · Cited by 593
Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide
Warschauer, M. (2002) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v7i7.967 · Cited by 569
Cited by
Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012) · 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.615 · Cited by 2,599
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 · Cited by 2,451
Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”
Hargittai, E. (2010) · Sociological Inquiry · doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x · Cited by 1,564
Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the Internet
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 · Cited by 1,251
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2015) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972243.2015.1069770 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Barzilai-Nahon, K.
- Venue
- The Information Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 269-278
- ISSN
- 0197-2243 (ISSN-L)
- 1087-6537
- OpenAlex
- W2162513636
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 103.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01972240600903953
- The paper
- Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s. The Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240600903953
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.