This article presents the Internet Connectedness Index (ICI), a measure for monitoring long-term inequalities in the quality of Internet connections among users, especially in terms of whether Internet connections will enhance the chances of people's upward mobility. This index is preferable to more established digital divide measures (e.g., gadgetry ownership or time online) for research on how the Internet is being incorporated into a world of structural inequalities. The ICI utilizes conventional time, history, and context measures, but goes beyond them to capture the scope and centrality of Internet incorporation into the everyday lives of diverse social groups. The validity and robustness of ICI vis-á-vis conventional ownership and time online measures are demonstrated in this article. In addition, the authors discuss theoretical, methodological, and policy implications based on the results. The analytical data are drawn from the Communication Technology and Community Program's Metamorphosis Project, an inquiry into the communication infrastructures of seven ethnically marked residential areas in Los Angeles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, J. P.
, & Turner, E. (1997). The ethnic quilt: Population diversity in Southern California. Northridge: The Center for Geographical Studies, California State University.
2.
Anderson, R. H.
, Bikson, T. K., Law, S. A., & Mitchell, B. M. (1995). Universal access to e-mail feasibility and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
(1985). The origins of individual media system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication Research, 12, 485-510.
4.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
(1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Different stories, questions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication and Society, 1(½), 5-40.
5.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
, Gibbs, J., Gutierrez Hoyt, E., Jung, J.-Y., Kim, Y.-C., Matei, S., Wilson, M., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2000). The challenge of belonging in the 21st century: The case of Los Angeles (White Paper 1). Los Angeles: Communication Technology and Community Program, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California.
6.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
, Gibbs, J., Jung, J., Kim, Y., & Qiu, L. J. (2000). The globalization of everyday life: Visions and reality (White Paper 2). Los Angeles, CA: Communication Technology and Community Program, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California.
7.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
, Kim, Y.-C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28(4), 392-428.
8.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J.
, Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. W. (1984). The great American values test: Influencing behavior and belief through television. New York: Free Press.
9.
Beniger, J.
(1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Bikson, T. K.
, & Panis, C.W.A. (1999). Citizens, computers, and connectivity: A review of trends. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
11.
Birdsell, D.
, Muzzio, D., Krane, D., & Cottreau, A. (1998). Web users are looking more like America. In The public perspective [Online]. Available: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/pubper/pp93.htm
12.
Bourdieu, P.
(1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
13.
Bourdieu, P.
(1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Castells, M.
(2000). The rise of network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
15.
Douglas, S.
(1987). Inventing American broadcasting: 1899-1922. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Dutton, W. H.
(Ed.). (1996). Information and communication technologies—Visions and realities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
Fischer, C. S.
(1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
Flanagin, A. J.
, & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.
19.
Frankel, L. R.
(1982). On the definition of response rates (Special report). Port Jefferson, NY: The Council of American Survey Research Organizations.
20.
Gibbs, J.
, Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Jung, J., Kim, Y., & Qiu, J. L. (in press). The globalization of everyday life: visions and reality. In M. Sturken, D. Thomas, & S. J. Ball-Rokeach (Eds.), Reinventing technology: Cultural narratives of technological change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Goslee, S. M.
(1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
22.
Grant, A. E.
, Guthrie, K. K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1991). Television shopping: A media system dependency perspective. Communication Research, 18, 773-798.
23.
Hawkins, R. P.
, & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform messages and habitual viewing: Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7, 291-301.
24.
Hoffman, D. L.
, & Novak, T. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the Internet. Science, 280, 390-391.
25.
Hoffman, D. L.
, Novak, T. P., & Schlosser, A. E. (2000). The evolution of the digital divide: How gaps in Internet access may impact electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(3) [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/hoffman.html
26.
Keeter, S., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey [Online]. Available: http://mason.gmu.edu/∼skeeter/nonresponse.zip
27.
Kraut, R. E.
, Scherlis, W., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (1998). Social impact of the Internet. What does it mean?Communications of the ACM, 41(12), 12-22.
28.
Lazarus, W., & Mora, F. (2000). Online content for low-income and underserved Americans: The digital divide's new frontier [Online]. Available: http://www.childrenspartnership.org
29.
Lenhart, A. (2000). Who's not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on [Online]. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=21
30.
Loges, W. E.
(1994). Canaries in the coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media system dependency relations. Communication Research, 21(1), 5-23.
31.
McLeod, J. M.
, Daily, K., Guo, Z., Eveland, W. P., Jr., Bayer, J., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (1996). Community integration, local media use and democratic processes. Communication Research, 23, 179-209.
32.
Marvin, C.
(1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communications in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Matei, S.
, Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Wilson, M., Gibbs, J., & Gutierrez Hoyt, E. (in press). Metamorphosis: Field research methodology for studying communication technology and community. Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication.
34.
Morley, D.
(1992). Television, audiences, and cultural studies. New York: Routledge.
35.
Morrisett, L.
(1997, December 19). Applying “Universal Services” to the Net: A U.S. Imperative. Christian Science Monitor [Online]. Available: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/12/19/opin/opin.4.html
36.
Moy, P.
, Scheufele, D. A., & Holbert, R. L. (1999). Television use and social capital: Testing Putnam's time displacement hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 2(½), 27-45.
37.
National Telecommunication and Information Administration. (1999). Falling through the Net III: Defining the digital divide [Online]. Available: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm
38.
National Telecommunication and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion [Online]. Available: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.htm
39.
Neu, C. R. Anderson, R. H., & Bikson, T. K. (1998). E-mail communication between government and citizens: Security, policy issues, and next steps [Online]. Available: http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP178
40.
Nie, N.
, & Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society.
41.
Norris, P.
(1996). Does television erode social capital? A reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29, 474-480.
42.
Norris, P.
(1998). Virtual democracy. Harvard International Journal of Press / Politics, 3, 1-4.
43.
Norris, P.
(2001). Digital divide?: Civic engagement, information poverty, & the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Papadakis, M. C. (2000). Complex picture of computer use in the home emerges [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/ib00314.htm
45.
Powell, M. K. (2001, February 6). Press briefing [Online]. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/
46.
Robinson, J. P.
, Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-501.
47.
Rogers, E. M.
(1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
48.
Rogers, E. M.
, & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
49.
Shah, D. V.
, McLeod, J. M., & Yoon, S.-H. (2001). Communication, context, and community: An exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences. Communication Research, 28(4), 464-508.
50.
Silverstone, R.
(1999). Why study the media?Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Skumanich, S. A.
, & Kintsfather, D. P. (1998). Individual media dependency relations within television shopping programming: A causal model reviewed and revised. Communication Research, 25(2), 200-219.
52.
Thierer, A. D. (2000). How free computers are filling the digital divide [Online]. Available: http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1361es.html
53.
UCLA Internet Report. (2000). Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Communication Policy.
54.
Wilhelm, A. G.
(2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
