Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Literacy, Media, and EducationDigital literacy in educationInformation Society and Technology Trends

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What do digital inclusion and data literacy mean today?

Open access
Carmi, Elinor, Yates, Simeon J.·2020·Internet Policy Review
DOI 10.14763/2020.2.1474
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This special issue is examining the different layers of digital inclusion and data literacy by drawing on research, policy, and practice developments around literacies in various regions and contexts. It highlights the politics around them so as to propose policies that are needed to include more people in datafied societies, and what types of literacies they should learn.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14763/2020.2.1474

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Andrejevic, M. (2014). The big data divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1673-1689. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2161
  2. Bitman, N., & John, N. A. (2019). Deaf and hard of hearing smartphone users: Intersectionality and the penetration of ableist communication norms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(2), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy024 · DOI
  3. Chadwick, D., & Wesson, C. (2016). Digital inclusion and disability. In A. Attrill, & C. Fullwood (Eds.), Applied cyberpsychology (pp. 1-23). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137517036_1 · DOI
  4. Cihak, D. F., Wright, R., Smith, C. C., McMahon, D., & Kraiss, K. (2015). Incorporating functional digital literacy skills as part of the curriculum for high school students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(2), 155-171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24827532
  5. Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? The MIT Press.
  6. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x · DOI
  7. Cotter, K., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2020). Algorithmic Knowledge Gaps: A New Dimension of (Digital) Inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14, 745-765. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12450
  8. Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381651 · DOI
  9. Dahlberg, L. (2015). Expanding the digital divides research: A critical political economy of social media. Communication Review, 18(4), 271-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.1085777 · DOI
  10. Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differen-tiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400).
  11. Dutton, W. H., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2019). Cultural divides and digital inequalities: attitudes shaping Internet and social media divides. Information, Communication & Society, 22(1), 18-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353640 · DOI
  12. The Grünwald Declaration on Media Education. (1983). Educational Media International, 20(3), 26-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523988308549128 · DOI
  13. Guo, B., Bricout, J. C., & Huang, J. (2005). A common open space or a digital divide? A social model perspective on the online disability community in China. Disability & Society, 20(1), 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759042000283638. · DOI
  14. Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-level digital divide: Mapping differences in people's online skills. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0109068 · arXiv
  15. Hargittai, E., Gruber, J., Djukaric, T., Fuchs, J., & Brombach, L. (2020). Black box measures? How to study people's algorithm skills. Information, Communication & Society, 764-775. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713846 · DOI
  16. Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
  17. Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., Thompson, K. M., Katz, S. M., & DeCoster, E. J. (2012). The intersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public library quarterly, 31(1), 1-20.
  18. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335 · DOI
  19. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277 · DOI
  20. Newman, L., Browne-Yung, K., Raghavendra, P., Wood, D., & Grace, E. (2017). Applying a critical approach to investigate barriers to digital inclusion and online social networking among young people with disabilities. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 559-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12106 · DOI
  21. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York Press. OECD. (2001). Annual report. OECD Publishing.
  22. Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2019). 'Personal data literacies': A critical literacies approach to enhancing understandings of personal digital data. New Media & Society, 21(2), 419-437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799523 · DOI
  23. Rhinesmith, C. (2012). Free library hot spots: Supporting broadband adoption in Philadelphia's low-income communities. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2529-2554. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1782
  24. Rhinesmith, C., & Stanton, C. L. U. (2018). Developing media literacy in public libraries: Learning from community media centers. Public Library Quarterly, 37(4), 420-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2018.1525527 · DOI
  25. Robinson, L., Chen, W., Schulz, J., & Khilnani, A. (2018). Digital inequality across major life realms. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9) 1159-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773800 · DOI
  26. Strover, S., Whitacre, B., Rhinesmith, C., & Schrubbe, A. (2020). The digital inclusion role of rural libraries: social inequalities through space and place. Media, Culture & Society, 42(2), 242-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719853504 · DOI
  27. Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital literacy learning. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412954 · DOI
  28. van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The information society, 19(4), 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Vartanova, E., & Gladkova, A. (2019). New forms of the digital divide. In J. Trappel (Ed.), Digital media inequalities: Policies against divides, distrust and discrimination (pp. 193-213).
  30. Wessels, B. (2013). The reproduction and reconfiguration of inequality: Differentiation and class, status, and power in the dynamics of the digital divides. In M. Ragnedda & G. W. Muschert (Eds.), The digital divide: The internet and social inequality in international perspective (pp. 17-28). Routledge.
  31. Williams, P. (2006). Exploring the challenges of developing digital literacy in the context of special educational needs communities. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05010006 · DOI
  32. Yates, S., Kirby, J., & Lockley, E. (2015a). Digital media use: Differences and inequalities in relation to class and age. Sociological research online, 20(4), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3751 · DOI
  33. Yates, S. J., Kirby, J., & Lockley, E. (2015b). 'Digital-by-default': Reinforcing exclusion through technology. In L. Foster, A. Brunton, C. Deeming, T. Haux (Eds.), Defence of Welfare 2 (pp. 158-161). Policy Press.
  34. Yates, S., & Lockley, E. (2018). Social media and social class. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1291-1316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773821 · DOI

Cited by

See all 51

Metadata

Authors
Carmi, E., & Yates, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Internet Policy Review
Publisher
Internet Policy Review, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Published
2020-05-27
Volume
9
Issue
2
ISSN
2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.14763/2020.2.1474
OpenAlex
W3028744283
Cited by
51
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
69.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Nuffield Foundation
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J020869/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Information Society and Technology Trends
Keywords
digital inclusion, data literacy, datafication, data policy, literacy, data politics, datafied society

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

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.