Digital Naïves Go Online

Rozália Klára Bakó 1
  • 1 Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, , Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Abstract

We live in a networked world with a fast pace of digitalization, and yet about half of the humanity is still offline (). Information and communication technologies are playing a key role in our public and private lives, both during work- and playtime. No wonder that social inequalities are increasingly reflected as digital inequalities in terms of infrastructural access, skills, and cultural practices online: those left behind can hardly keep up. The present research note brings together theoretical and practical resources related to digital inclusion issues globally, with local examples from Romania, where digital naïves – the poor, the rural, the elderly, the disabled, and the less educated – are more at risk.1

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities. London–New York: Verso.

  • ANCOM (Autoritatea Naţională pentru Administrare şi Reglementare în Comunicaţii). (2019). Piaţa serviciilor de comunicaţii electronice din România. Raport de date statistice – semestrul II 2018. ---lt---www.ancom.org.ro---gt--- (accessed on: 3 November 2019).

  • Bakó, R. K. (2016). Romania: Participatory Culture and the Internet. Global Information Society Watch 2016. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Internet, 189–193.

  • Bauerlein, M. (ed.), 2011. The Digital Divide. London–New York: Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven–London: Yale University Press.

  • Bock, A.–Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Mobile Media Practices of Young People in «Safely Digital», «Enthusiastically Digital», and «Postdigital» Schools. MedienPädagogik 35: 136–156 ---lt---https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/35/2019.10.23.X.---gt--- (accessed on: 3 November 2019).

  • boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven–London: Yale University Press.

  • Cardoso, G. (2006). The Media in the Network Society: Browsing, News, Filters and Citizenship. Lisbon: Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology.

  • Castells, M. (1999). Toward a Sociology of the Network Society. Contemporary Sociology 29(5): 693–699. (ed.). (2004). The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK–Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar.

  • European Commission. (2019a). Digital Economy and Society Index, 2019 ---lt---https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi---gt--- (accessed on: 3 November 2019). (2019b). Digital Economy and Society Index, 2019. Finland ---lt---https://ec.europaeu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/finland. ---gt--- (accessed on: 3 November 2019).

  • (2019c). Digital Economy and Society Index, 2019. Romania ---lt---https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/romania---gt--- (accessed on: 3 November 2019).

  • Helsper, E. (2008). Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society. London: London School of Economics.

  • Herian, R. (2019). Tokens of Technical Progress: Blockchains, Data Dysphoria ---amp--- Fantasies of Control. The World Financial Review September–October: 66–69.

  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.

  • Meneses, J.–Mominó, J. M. (2010). Putting Digital Literacy in Practice: How Schools Contribute to Digital Inclusion in the Network Society. The Information Society 26: 197–208.

  • Rainie, L.–Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. London–New York–Toronto: Penguin.

  • Thomas, J.–Barraket, J.–Wilson, C. K.–Rennie, E.–Ewing, S.–MacDonald, T. (2019). Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2019. Melbourne: RMIT University and Swinburne University of Technology, for Telstra.

  • Tőkés, G.–Velicu, A. (2015). “I Learned All by Myself”: Romanian Young People’s Self-Perception of Their Digital Competence. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Communicatio 2: 67–91.

  • United Nations, 2018. United Nations e-Government Survey 2018. Gearing e-Government to Support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

  • Van Deursen, A.–Helsper, E. (2015). The Third Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? Communication and Information Technologies Annual: Digital Distinctions and Inequalities. Studies in Media and Communications 10: 29–53.

  • Van Deursen, A.–Van Dijk, J. (2010). Internet Skills and the Digital Divide. New Media and Society XX(X): 1–19.

  • Van Dijk, J. (2006). The Network Society. London–Thousand Oaks–New Delhi: Sage Publications.

  • Wellman, B. (2001). Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism. Kyoto Workshop on Digital Cities 2001. Digital Cities II: Computational and Sociological Approaches, 10–25. (ed.). 2018. Networks in the Global Village. Life in Contemporary Communities. New York–London: Routledge.

  • Wellman, B.–Quan-Haase, A.–Boase, J.–Chen, W.–Hampton, K.–Díaz, I.– Miyata, K. (2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 8(3) ---lt---https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x---gt---.

  • Westera, W. (2013). The Digital Turn: How the Internet Transforms Our Existence. Bloomington: Author House (accessed on: 3 November 2019).

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search