Comparing Places on Types of Internet Use


Comparing Places on Types of Internet Use


1Rebecca S. Powers, PhD*, 2Monica Calderon Pinedo, MA

1Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, East Carolina University, Greenville NC USA 27858.
2Graduate Student, Department of Sociology, East Carolina University, Greenville NC USA 27858


International Journal of social research

The analysis in this paper compares types of Internet use as reported in two places, North Carolina, U.S., North America, and Tolima, Colombia, South America. The Internet has changed the world and some basic functions of social life have become intricately linked to having access to and the ability to use the Internet. Yet, access to this important resource is not universal. Both of the places examined in this study have documented disparities in Internet access that produces a digital divide. With globalization, it is increasingly important to understand the advantages, and by default the disadvantages, that accompany the proliferation of the Internet. Using survey data collected from a random sample of citizens in each place, we compare types of Internet use and activities. Given the known differences of the digital divide, we select those with Internet access and focus on their types of use to understand the ways this resource is used by those who have it. This study contributes to the broader literature by focusing on Internet activities that transcend place and describes the most common ways people engage with the Internet.


Keywords:  Internet access, Internet use, Internet activities, Digital divide

Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
Rebecca S. Powers and Monica Calderon Pinedo. Comparing Places on Types of Internet Use. International Journal of Social Research, 2018; 2:19. DOI: 10.28933/ijsr-2018-06-2001


References:

1. Bimber, Bruce. 2000. Measuring the Gender Gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly 81(3): 868-876.
2. Boase, Jeffrey. 2010. The Consequences of Personal Networks for Internet Use in Rural Areas. American Behavioral Scientist 53(9):1257-1267.
3. Cotton, Shelia R. and Jelenewicz Shameeka. 2006. A Disappearing Digital Divide Among College Students? Peeling Away the Layers of the Digital Divide. Social Science Computer Review, 24(4): 497-506.
4. Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Colombia. 2010. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2010- 2014: Prosperidad para todos. Available from https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/PND/PND2010-2014%20Tomo%20I%20CD.pdf.
5. Martin, Steven P. and John P. Robinson. 2007. The Income Digital Divide: Trends and Predictions for Levels of Internet Use. Social Problems 54(1): 1-22.
6. Ministerio de las TIC, Colombia. 2011. Estadísticas de penetración de internet Departamento del Tolima. Available from http://colombiatic.mintic.gov.co/estadisticas/stats.php?&pres=content&jer=2&cod=73&i d=51#TTC.
7. Ministerio de las TIC, Colombia. 2011. Vive Digital Colombia. Documento Vivo del Plan. Available: www.mintic.gov.co/images/MS_VIVE_DIGITAL/archivos/Vivo_Vive_Digital.pdf.
8. Mossberger, Karen, David Kaplan and Michele A. Gilbert. 2008. Going Online without Easy Access: A Tale of Three Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs 30 (5):469-488.
9. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce.1993. National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action. Available from www.ibiblio.org/nii/toc.html.
10. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce.2000. Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Available: www.ntia.doc.gov/data.
11. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce.2011a. Digital Nation: Expanding Internet Usage, ​a NTIA Research Preview. Available fromwww.ntia.doc.gov/data.
12. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce.2011b. Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home. Co-authored by the Economics and Statistics Administration. Available from www.ntia.doc.gov/data.
13. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2018. About. Available www.ntia.doc.gov/about
14. Pew Research Center, Internet and Technology. 2018. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/
15. Powers, Rebecca S., Ken Wilson, Megan Keels and Magdalen Walton. 2013. Shifts in Home Internet Access from 2001 to 2011: Examining the Digital Divide Sociation Today Volume 11 (1): 1-16.
16. Rosenfield, Michael and Reuben J. Thomas. 2012. Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary. American Sociological Review 77 (4): 523-547.
17. Rural Prosperity Task Force. 2000. Rural Prosperity Task Force Final Report. Available from http://ruraltaskforce.state.nc.us/finalreport/report.html.
18. Vision 2030. 2000. Vision 2030: Mapping the Future. Available from http://www.governor.state. nc.us/govoffice/science/projects/nc2030.html
19. Whitacre, Brian E. 2010. The Diffusion of Internet Technologies to Rural Communities: A Portrait of Broadband Supply and Demand. American Behavioral Scientist 53(9):1283- 1303.
20. Wilson, Kenneth R., Wallin, Jennifer S., and Reiser, Christa. 2003. Social Stratification and the Digital Divide. Social Science Computer Review 21:133.