Socio-Economic and Regional Factors of Digital Literacy Related to Prosperity
Abstract
Purpose: to study social, economic, demographic, regional factors of digital literacy as a basis of digital prosperity.
Methodology/Approach: Three research questions are studied, using regression models for cross-sectional data - Pooling model, Random effects model and Fixed-effects model and the Item Cluster Analysis method.
Findings: Age, education, income and household type are the most significant factors of digital literacy, giving rise to the societal digital divide in Slovakia. Less important factors are the city size and the sector of the economy, but only weak is the influence of region, gender and nationality.
Research Limitation/implication: Only the contingency tables of the longitudinal surveys were available, so the microanalysis was not possible.References
Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E. and Van Alstyne, M., 2006. Information, Technology and Information Worker Productivity: Task Level Evidence. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference on Information Systems. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 9-10 December 2006.
Bawden, D., 2001. Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, [e-journal] 57(2), pp.218-259. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000 007083.
Baily, M.N., 1986. What has happened to productivity growth?. Science,
[e-journal] 234(4775), pp.443 - 451. http:/dx.doi.org//10.112/science.234. 4775.443.
Behrens, S., 1994. A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. College and Research Libraries, [e-journal] 55(4), pp.309 - 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl_55_04_309.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Brown, P., 2005. VII Pillars of IT Productivity. Optimize, 4(5), pp.26-35.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Saunders, A., 2010. Wired for innovation: how information technology is reshaping the economy. London: The MIT Press.
David, P.A., 1990. The Dynamo and the Computer: A Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox. The American Economic Review, [e-journal] 80(2), pp.355 - 361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401011006086.
Dewan, S. and Kraemer, K.L., 1998. International dimensions of the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM, [e-journal] 41(8). pp. 56 - 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/280324.280333.
Gilster, P., 1997. Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hoffman, R., 2008. Socioeconomic differences in old age mortality. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kerby, D.S., 2014. The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, [e-journal] 3(1), pp.1 - 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1.
Levine, T.R. and Hullett, C.R., 2002. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, [e-journal] 28, pp.612 - 625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x.
Martin, A., 2006. Literacies for the digital age. In: A. Martin and D. Madigan, eds. 2006. Digital literacies for learning.London: Facet Publishing. pp.3-25.
Oliner, S.D. and Sichel, D.E., 1994. Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big Is the Puzzle?. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, pp.273-334.
Rei, C.M., 2004. Causal evidence on the “productivity paradox” and implications for managers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, [e-journal] 53(2), pp.129 - 142. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410515034.
Revelle, W., 1979. Hierarchical cluster-analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(1), pp.57-74.
Solow, R., 1987. We'd better watch out. New York Times Book Review, 12 p. 36.
Velšic, M., 2011. Digital literacy in Slovakia 2011. In: 9th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA). Stara Lesna, Slovakia, 27-28 Oct. 2011. http://dx.doi.org//10.1109/ICETA.2011.6112568.
Warschauer, M and Matuchniak T., 2010. New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, [e-journal] 34, pp.179 - 225. http://dx.doi.org//10.3102/0091732X 09349791.
Authors
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
