Content uploaded by Sabina Lissitsa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabina Lissitsa on Jun 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rajc20
Download by: [79.178.28.142] Date: 26 September 2015, At: 23:30
Asian Journal of Communication
ISSN: 0129-2986 (Print) 1742-0911 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajc20
Patterns of digital uses among Israeli Arabs
– between citizenship in modern society and
traditional cultural roots
Sabina Lissitsa
To cite this article: Sabina Lissitsa (2015) Patterns of digital uses among Israeli Arabs
– between citizenship in modern society and traditional cultural roots, Asian Journal of
Communication, 25:5, 447-464, DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2014.981555
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.981555
Published online: 11 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Patterns of digital uses among Israeli Arabs –between citizenship
in modern society and traditional cultural roots
Sabina Lissitsa*
School of Communication, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
(Received 13 July 2013; accepted 24 October 2014)
This study examines the digital divide between the Jewish majority and Arab minority in
Israeli society as manifested by Internet access and patterns of use. The goals of this paper
were to examine the digital divide between these two groups and to identify the factors
that influence these gaps. The study is based on data from the Israel Central Bureau of
Statistics Annual Social Survey, collected in 2011 through face-to-face interviews of
5872 interviewees aged 20–65 years. Jews were found to have an advantage over Arabs
in terms of Internet access and in terms of the two types of uses: capital-enhancing and
recreational. Our important conclusion is that, theoretically, with background variables
being the same, the first-level digital divide between Jews and Arabs can be considered
closed; in contrast, the second-level digital divide remains even if human resources in
both groups are the same. This gives reason to assume that beyond the impact of human
resources, the second-level digital divide between Jews and Arabs originated from their
cultural background. Israeli Arabs are a unique minority indigenous group with two
affinities –to Israeli modern society (because of citizenship) and to the Arab traditional
world (because of their religious and cultural roots). Closing digital gaps requires
changes in basic social, economic, and cultural aspects of the Arab sector on the
individual level, i.e., personal motivation, as well as on the community level, including
collective sociocultural preferences.
Keywords: digital divide; capital-enhancing uses; recreational uses; national minorities
1. Introduction
The emergence of the Internet as a worldwide web in the late 1990s made access to
information and knowledge significantly easier. In this period, in which the number of
computers connected to the Internet rose dramatically (Carey, 1996; Hargittai, 2010; Taipale,
2012; Tocatly, 2000), the modern digital revolution began. Internet penetration is on the
increase in many countries. Soon after the Internet started reaching the masses, concerns about
its unequal distribution appeared along with the issue of a digital gap (see, e.g.,Compaine,
2001; Hoffman & Novak, 1998). The ability to use such technologies determines the
difference between marginality and social inclusion. Those who are excluded from
communication and information structures are also effectively excluded from political and
cultural citizenship (Lash, 1994). Research in recent years has produced a number of
arguments in favor of a progressive marginalization of access, and the one-dimensional
concept of digital divide has been replaced by multidimensional concepts of digital inclusion
*Email: sabinal@bezeqint.net
© 2014 AMIC/SCI-NTU
Asian Journal of Communication, 2015
Vol. 25, No. 5, 447–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2014.981555
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
and digital inequalities which focus on how individuals interact with the Internet (Guerrieri &
Bentivegna, 2011; Hargittai, 2004; Warschauer, 2003).
This study investigates digital access and digital uses in a unique Israeli context. The
digital divide between Jews and Arabs in Israeli society is an interesting case in that it
examines how the majority and the minority groups, which differ in economic, cultural,
religious, and demographic terms and live in a cleft society, adopt, and use information
and communication technologies. A study of digital uses among Israeli Arabs is also
unique in that it presents the adoption of these technologies by a social group torn by two
conflicting bonds: one to technological progress as citizens of a modern state and the
other to the traditional world of their families with longstanding customs pertaining to
religion, language, and culture.
The aim of the present study is to examine the gaps in Internet access and digital uses
among and between Jews and Arabs in Israeli society and to identify the factors affecting
these gaps.
1.1. Jews and Arabs in Israel
Israel is a multicultural society in which the Jewish population forms about 75% and the
Arab population forms about 20% of the total population.
The Jewish majority is composed mostly of immigrants and sons and daughters of
immigrants, and Israel is committed to the successful absorption of Jewish immigrants. By
the Law of Return (1950) and the Law of Nationality (1952) every Jew has the right to settle
in Israel, consequently, Jewish immigrants can be awarded Israeli citizenship on arrival.
The Arab minority was granted Israeli citizenship in 1948 (statehood), but until 1966
their rights were suspended in practice as they were under the rule of a military
administration and were confined to specific geographic areas, a step that was justified as
a security measure against a potentially hostile population. Thus their ability to travel in
pursuit of educational and training opportunities and to compete for better jobs in the labor
market was severely hampered. Although these formal restrictions on their mobility were
relaxed after 1967, the fact that Arabs were denied the right of free movement for almost
two decades may have had long-term effects on Jewish–Arab inequality (Okun &
Friedlander, 2005). Since the abolition of the military administration (1966), Arab citizens
have formally enjoyed civil and political rights on an individual, liberal basis, as long as
these rights do not conflict with the national goals of the Jewish majority (Shafir & Peled,
2002). Arab citizens are not conscripted to the Israeli military because of the potential
conflict they would face in any military operations against Arabs. This places their loyalty
to the state in question and constitutes one reason for the ambiguous attitude toward the
Arab population in Israeli society, in which military service is a supreme value.
Perhaps the greatest gaps between Jews and Arabs in Israel are economic and
educational. In the Jewish sector, 54% of high school graduates are entitled to
matriculation certificates each year, as compared to 44% of graduates in the Arab sector.
In 2008, less than a fifth of all undergraduate students in Israeli universities and colleges
were Arabs. In terms of socioeconomic status, about 80% of the Arab communities are
ranked in the four lowest socioeconomic deciles of the Central Bureau of Statistics, and
no Arab communities appear in the four upper deciles (Central Bureau of Statistics
[CBS], 2011).
S. Lissitsa
448
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Arabs suffer discrimination in the labor market. Although no law or regulation
specifically precludes Arabs from being employed in specific areas, in practice, they are
strikingly underrepresented in many sectors, including government service and defense-
related industries (Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1993). Furthermore, while Israel has two
official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, more prestigious positions usually require mother-
tongue mastery of Hebrew, which at times serves as a barrier to the Arab minority for which
Hebrew is a second language.
Thus the employment opportunities of Arabs are often limited to the public sector in local
Arab areas, in fields such as education, health, and welfare (Al-Haj, 1995). The over-
representation of Jews in higher-status occupations and in professional, scientific, and
managerial positions is paralleled by the disproportionate number of Arabs, especially men, in
skilled and unskilled manual occupations (Kraus & Yonay, 2000). Few Arabs work in the hi-
tech industry, the key economic growth engine in Israel; between 2000 and 2005, the share of
Arabs in the high-tech employment market was approximately 4% (Abraham Fund, 2013).
Although the rate of participation in the labor force among Jewish and Arab men is
almost the same, Arab women account for only one-third as many female workers as
Jewish women. The average household income in the Jewish sector stands at NIS 12,842,
compared to NIS 7744 within the Arab sector (CBS, 2011).
In other words, the Arabs are disadvantaged compared with Jews in every aspect of
social stratification, including education, occupational status, earnings, and standard of
living (Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1993). These disadvantages can be attributed largely
to socioeconomic discrimination and should be understood within the context of the
Jewish–Arab conflict (e.g., Lewin-Epstein & Semyonov, 1993).
However, the two sectors are also divided by cultural differences. In Jewish society,
secular and traditional elements are perceived as much more modern and supportive of
individual enterprise than the more conservative Arab society. This may change in the
future as traditional Arab society, especially in urban areas, undergoes a process of flux
and transformation into a modern society (Ganayem, Rafaeli, & Azaiza, 2009).
The status of women in Arab society is still inferior to that of men, but part of the
modernization process includes the development of a more educated stratum of Arabs –
men and women –that is dissatisfied with the prevailing situation and perceives traditions
and customs as an important root of the gender gap in Arab society (Ali, 2006).
Israeli Jews and Arabs very rarely meet socially, and the two populations live in
nearly complete geographic isolation, with an almost fully self-segregated school
system. Indeed, 65% of Arab youth report having no Jewish friends on online social
networks (Ganaem, Asaad, & Tibi, 2011). When they do learn about one another
through the mass media, the framing is often one of conflict and of violence (Aburaiya,
Avraham, & Wolfsfeld, 1998; Ashuri, 2010; Wolfsfeld, 1997). Recent opinion polls
demonstrate hostility, which is expressed, for example, in large percentages of Arab
respondents claiming that they would not have a Jewish friend (29% in 2009) or a
Jewish neighbor (43% in 2009), or Jewish respondents claiming that they would not
have an Arab neighbor (51% in 2009) or an Arab supervisor at work (58% in 2009), and
avoid entering into Arab residential areas (66%) (Hermann, Atmor, Heller, & Lebel,
2012; see also Abraham Fund, 2013). The socioeconomic, cultural, and religious
differences between the two groups are likely to have an effect on patterns of
Internet use.
Asian Journal of Communication 449
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
1.2. The digital inequality
A digital divide is created between those who have access to information and commun-
ication technologies and know how to utilize them, and those who do not (Compaine,
2001). Today, it is customary to separate the digital divide into two levels of inequality: the
first distinguishes between those who are connected and those who are not. The second
characterizes the surfing patterns of those connected to the Internet, including measure-
ments of different types of Internet uses (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai, 2003).
As investment in the Internet infrastructure increases, so does the issue of digital access.
Van Dijk (2005) has demonstrated that in terms of physical access to computers and the
Internet, the digital divide is closing in developed countries. Researchers of digital divide
suggest that we should be looking more at inequality in terms of different types of usage
than at inequality in access to the Internet or, in other words, we should focus on the
‘second-level digital divide’(Jin & Cheng, 2008; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014).
Some Internet usage activities are more beneficial or advantageous for users –offering
them greater opportunities and resources for advancing their careers, work, education, and
social status –than others intended for momentary consumption or entertainment (e.g.,
DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004;Hargittai&Hinnant,2008; Kim & Kim, 2001;
Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003; van Dijk, 2005; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009).
Accordingly, the research literature differentiates between digital uses that assist individual
mobility and contribute to closing economic and social strata gaps and uses that are less
connected to these gaps (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008). The first
group includes capital-enhancing uses, which refer to Internet surfing for beneficial purposes,
including seeking health information, researching products, purchasing products, and banking
online (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Hassani, 2006). Such usage would also enhance political
participation and career advancement (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011; Rahim, Pawanteh, &
Salman, 2011). In terms of the capital and resources theory, inspired by Bourdieu (1984), one
could also say that such users build economic, social, and cultural capital and resources.
The second type is recreational activities, i.e., browsing for fun, playing games,
messaging, downloading music, or gambling online ( Hargittai, 2010; Howard, Rainie, &
Jones, 2001; Jones & Fox, 2009). Most researchers agree that capital-enhancing uses are
more likely to promote beneficial consequences, i.e., they are more likely to increase the
user’s political knowledge, participation, life chances, and social inclusion (Clark, 2003;
Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Rahim et al., 2011; Warschauer, 2003). Nevertheless, some
researchers have argued that recreational use of the Internet may have beneficial
consequences (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Sandvig, 2001). For example, the social
media, which in this research are associated with recreational uses (see Methodology
section), create a platform for communications among a dynamic consortium of people
utilizing social network sites, forums, discussion groups, and blogs in a manner that enables
individuals with a common interest to interact continually and to promote different types of
benefits (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Bradley, 2006; HaenleIn & Kaplan, 2010).
The narrowing of the access divide and the emergence of a ‘second-level digital
divide’have made SES a weaker predictor of material access and a stronger antecedent to
use patterns (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Those groups with higher income and education
tend more toward capital-enhancing uses, while those with lower education and income
levels tend more toward recreational uses (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Howard et al.,
2001; Madden, 2003). Moreover, Helsper and Galacz (2009) found that those with a
lower level of education are less likely to use the Internet for capital-enhancing purposes,
S. Lissitsa
450
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
even when their levels of Internet access and skills are similar to those with more
education. In the Netherlands, a country in which access gaps have been virtually
eradicated, van Deursen and van Dijk (2014) found that although low-educated spend
more time online, those with higher social status use the Internet in more beneficial ways.
1.3. Digital divide between different population groups
According to the research literature ethnicity is one of the main predictors of ICT adoption.
Studies of the digital divide have shown that ethnic and national minority groups are less
likely to use the Internet and that their access depends on income and educational levels.
Hence, the digital divide apparently replicates existing inequalities (Dupagne & Salwen,
2005; Fairlie, 2007). In the USA, rates of Internet access and variety of uses among Afro-
Americans and Hispanics are lower than among Whites and those from Asiatic countries
(Losh, 2010). Lower rates of Internet access among Afro-Americans and Hispanics are
connected to their lower socioeconomic status (Greenstein & Prince, 2006). However,
when controlling for education, ethnic differences disappear –college graduates in all these
groups had similar Internet access rates (Fox & Livingston, 2007). Israeli studies have
indicated higher access rates in the Jewish sector as compared to the minority Arab sector
(Avidar, 2009; Lev-On & Lissitsa, 2010; Lissitsa & Lev-On, 2014).
Studies indicate that the same variables that are responsible for creating gaps in
Internet access also explain differences in digital uses (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; van
Deursen & van Dijk, 2011). These include demographic variables: gender (Losh, 2010;
Taipale, 2012; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009), age (Darnton, 2006;
Hargittai, 2002; Losh 2010), level of religiosity (Campbell, 2005a,2005b;Ess,
Kawabata, & Kurosaki, 2007; Lev-On & Neriya-Ben Shahar, 2012), area of domicile
(LaRose, Gregg, Strover, Straubhaar, Carpenter, 2007) and socioeconomic and human
capital variables: education ( DiMaggio & Bonikowski, 2008; DiMaggio et al., 2004),
income (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Losh, 2010; Mesch & Talmud, 2011), and language
proficiency (Fairlie, 2007; Lissitsa & Chachashvili-Bolotin, 2014; Qian & Lichter, 2007).
Studies conducted in Israel indicate a digital divide between Jews and Arabs, which is
evident in both Internet access and Internet uses (Ganayem et al., 2009; Lev-On & Lissitsa,
2010; Lissitsa & Lev-On, 2014; Mesch & Talmud, 2011). This digital divide reflects cultural
differences between the modern Jewish sector and the traditional and conservative Arab society
as well as stratification gaps between these populations, which disappear when controlling for
education, income, and occupational status (Mesch & Talmud, 2011).
Research Questions:
The present study examined the following questions:
(1) How large is the digital divide in Israeli society between Jews and Arabs?
(2) Which variables predict the digital divide between these groups?
2. Method
2.1. Source of data
Study data relied on the Annual Social Survey conducted by Israel’s Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS) in 2011. The CBS conducts a social survey annually using different
respondents each year. CBS interviewers carried out face-to-face interviews in Hebrew,
Russian, and Arabic.
Asian Journal of Communication 451
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
2.2. Population and sample
The survey population comprises the permanent noninstitutionalized population of Israel
aged 20 and older. The CBS sample consisted of 7500 individuals aged 20 and older,
representing about 4.5 million people in that age bracket. The response rate was
around 80%.
From this sample only Jews and Arabs of working age were filtered (20–65 years old).
The filtered sample included 5972 respondents aged 20–65: 4858 Jews and 1014 Arabs.
2.3. Variables
2.3.1. Independent variables
Background variables: nationality, gender, age, religiosity, and area of residence.
Socio-economic and human capital variables: years of schooling, income, Hebrew,
and English proficiency.
2.3.2. Dependent variables
Access to Internet was measured by the following item: During the last three months,
have you made use of the Internet, including email?
Internet uses were measured by the following items: Did you use a computer during the
last three months for: searching for information; email; discussion groups and communica-
tions; games; paying bills; downloading files; and buying products.
In each item, users were coded as 1 and nonusers as 0.
3. Data analysis
First, the basic findings regarding Internet access and uses among Jews and Arabs will be
presented. Afterward, the gaps in access and in uses will be explained, based on
background and SES variables.
3.1. Description of the digital divide in terms of Internet access and digital uses
Table 1 presents Internet access and digital uses among Jews and Arabs.
As can be seen in Table 1, rates of Internet access were higher among Jews, compared to
Arabs. The most widespread Internet uses among the population as a whole were seeking
information and using electronic mail. The least common uses were online purchases and
paying bills. Jews had an advantage in all digital uses, compared to Arabs. The highest
differences between the two groups were found in searching for information (79% of the
Jews used the Internet for seeking information, compared to 46% of the Arabs) and social
media (52% and 23%, respectively) –the uses that have the potential for increasing users’
economic, cultural, and social capital in Bourdieu’s(1984) terms. The narrowest digital gap
was found in gaming (32% among Jews compared to 24% among Arabs).
3.2. Building measures for online uses
In order to examine whether general categories can be identified within the seven Internet
uses presented earlier, a principal component factor analysis was performed with varimax
rotation. The factors obtained in the analysis with factor loadings for the items and
reliability coefficients are presented in Table 2.
S. Lissitsa
452
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
From Table 2 it can be seen that the analysis yielded two factors. The first factor,
which included paying bills, online shopping, sending and receiving email, and searching
for information, explained 29% of the variance. This factor represented capital-enhancing
Internet uses. The second factor, which included games, participating in discussion
groups, and downloading content, explained 16% of the variance. This factor represented
recreational Internet uses. It should be noted that these content worlds correlate to the
classification of digital uses in the research literature (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Hassani,
2006; Howard et al., 2001; Hargittai, 2010).
All the loadings were above 0.40. The reliability coefficients for capital-enhancing
uses (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78) and recreational uses (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.63) made it
possible to build measures for each of these two content worlds. The scale for measuring
capital-enhancing uses ranged from 0 (does not employ any of the uses) to 4 (employs all
four types of activities in Factor 1). The scale for recreational uses ranged from 0 (does
not employ any of the uses) to 3 (employs all three types of activities in Factor 2). The
respondents tended to a mean of two capital-enhancing uses (of the four examined) and
one recreational use (of three). Findings from the independent samples t-test indicated a
significant advantage for Jews, compared to Arabs, in capital-enhancing (t (1; 5870) =
24.9) and recreational uses (t(1; 5870) = 14.7).
Table 1. Percentage of Internet access and Internet uses by nationality, χ
2
results.
Total sample Jews Arabs χ2
Internet access 77.5% 83% 53% 427.7
Internet uses (descending order by total sample)
To search for information 73.4% 79.1% 46.3% 463.4
For e-mails 68.3% 74.6% 37.9% 523
For downloads 50.4% 53.4% 36.1% 100.7
For discussion groups 47.2% 52.3% 23.0% 289.1
For shopping 31.3% 35.4% 11.6% 221
For games 30.4% 31.8% 23.6% 26.9
To pay bills 28.6% 32.3% 10.7% 193.2
Table 2. Factor analysis findings.
Factor loadings Cronbach alpha
1. Capital-enhancing uses .78
Used computer to pay bills 0.77
Used computer for shopping 0.72
Used computer for e-mails 0.55
Used computer to search for information 0.42
2. Recreational uses .63
Used computer for games .77
Used computer for discussion groups .67
Used computer for downloads .60
Asian Journal of Communication 453
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
3.3. Predicting Internet access
In order to predict Internet access, a logistic regression was performed in three stages
according to the research model (see Table 4). In the first stage, the background variables
gender, age, place of residence, and level of religiosity were tested. In the second stage,
years of schooling, proficiency in Hebrew and English, and income were added. In the
third stage, in order to evaluate intergroup differences controlling for background and
SES variables, nationality was entered. In the fourth stage, the interactional effect
between gender and nationality was added in order to identify whether patterns of gender
effect on digital uses differ between Jews and Arabs.
As can be seen from Table 3, Model 1, the probability of surfing vs. not surfing
the Internet in the preceding three months, was higher among females, compared to
males (exp(b) = 0.74). The probability of access was found to be higher among the young
(exp(b) = 0.95) and the secular (exp(b) = 2.22). No differences in the probability of surfing
vs. not surfing the Internet were found between central and periphery residents (exp(b) =
1.15). The higher the years of schooling (exp(b) = 2.04), proficiency in Hebrew (exp(b) =
1.55), proficiency in English (exp(b) = 2.18), and income (exp(b) = 1.08), the higher was
the probability of Internet usage (see Model 2). After controlling for background and SES
variables (see model 3), probability of using the Internet among Arabs is about half that of
Jews [(exp(b) = 0.46) for the nationality variable]. In this model, the advantage of females
over males disappeared (exp(b) = 0.83). The effects of other sociodemographic variables in
Model 3 were similar to those described in Model 2. In the fourth model, after entering the
interactional effect between gender and nationality, the access gap between Jews and Arabs
became insignificant (exp(b) = 0.73). In this model, the main effect of gender on Internet
access was insignificant, i.e., no gender differences were evident in the Jewish sector
(exp(b) = 0.95). However, the interactional effect was negative and significant (exp(b) =
0.49), i.e., Arab females have a significant advantage over Arab males in Internet access,
after controlling for sociodemographic variables.
In studying quality measures of the model, it can be seen that the sociodemographic
variables explained about 46% of the variance for the Internet access variable.
According to the findings, it can be concluded that a first-level digital divide between
Jews and Arabs still exists, but after controlling for sociodemographic variables, this gap
disappeared, in other words, the first-level digital divide between Jews and Arabs is a
result of differences in human resources between these two sectors. The gender divide in
Internet access has already been closed in the Jewish sector but still exists among Arabs.
In addition, in keeping with the research literature (Bell, Reddy, & Rainie, 2004;
Hargittai, 2010; Lev-On & Lissitsa, 2010; Mizrahi, Bar, Hezronov, & Oron, 2005), the
digital divide based on age, religiosity, SES, and human capital variables still exists.
3.4. Predicting digital uses with sociodemographic variables
In order to predict the two types of digital use (capital-enhancing and recreational) among
Internet users, two linear regressions were conducted in stages (see Tables 4 and 5). The
independent variables were introduced to these models as in the logistic regression
described above.
3.4.1. Capital-enhancing uses
Model 1 indicates that males are more likely to employ capital-enhancing uses, compared
to females ( β= 0.08). The tendency to capital-enhancing uses was found to be higher
S. Lissitsa
454
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Table 3. Logistic regression results for predicting Internet access.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B Exp(b) B Exp(b) B Exp(b) B Exp(b)
Gender (male = 1) –0.30** 0.74 –0.29** 0.75 –0.19 0.83 –0.05 0.95
Age –0.06** 0.95 –0.05** 0.95 –0.06** 0.94 –0.06** 0.94
Area of residence (center = 1) 0.14 1.15 –0.16 0.85 –0.24* 0.79 –0.23* 0.80
Religiosity 0.80** 2.22 0.86** 2.37 0.83** 2.29 0.83** 2.29
Years of schooling 0.71** 2.04 0.67** 1.95 0.66** 1.93
Proficiency in Hebrew 0.44** 1.55 0.39** 1.48 0.40** 1.50
Proficiency in English 0.78** 2.18 0.76** 2.14 0.76** 2.13
Income 0.08** 1.08 0.08** 1.08 0.08** 1.08
Nationality (Arabs = 1) –0.78** 0.46 –0.32 0.73
Interaction (Gender * Nationality) –0.71** 0.49
Constant 1.71 5.53 –4.44 0.01 –3.54 0.03 –3.55 0.03
Cox and Snell R
2
0.12 0.27 0.28 0.28 .
Nagelkerke R
2
0.20 0.44 0.45 0.46
**p< .01.
Asian Journal of Communication 455
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Table 4. Predicting capital-enhancing uses by sociodemographic variables, findings of linear regression analysis.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
BβBβBβBβ
(Constant) 2.20 0.29 0.50 0.50
Gender (male = 1) 0.17** 0.08 0.13** 0.06 0.15** 0.08 0.15** 0.08
Age –0.01** –0.08 –0.01** –0.11 –0.01** –0.13 –0.01** –0.13
Area of residence (center = 1) 0.20** 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Religiosity 0.16** 0.15 0.12** 0.11 0.10** 0.10 0.10** 0.10
Years of schooling 0.25** 0.23 0.25** 0.23 0.25** 0.23
Proficiency in Hebrew 0.12** 0.08 0.12** 0.08 0.12** 0.08
Proficiency in English 0.35** 0.15 0.30** 0.13 0.30** 0.13
Income 0.02** 0.17 0.02** 0.17 0.02** 0.17
Nationality (Arabs =1) –0.44** –0.14 –0.44** –0.14
Interaction (Gender * Nationality) 0.00 0.00
R
2
0.05 0.22 .024 0.24
**p< .01.
S. Lissitsa
456
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Table 5. Predicting recreational uses by sociodemographic variables, findings of linear regression analysis.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
BβBβBβBβ
(Constant) 2.05 2.72 2.82 2.82
Gender (male = 1) 0.14** 0.07 0.13** 0.06 0.14** 0.07 0.15** 0.08
Age –0.03** –0.30 –0.03** –0.31 –0.03** –0.32 –0.03** –0.32
Area of residence (center = 1) –0.07* –0.03 –0.07* –0.04 –0.10** –0.05 –0.10** –0.05
Religiosity 0.18** 0.17 0.16** 0.15 0.16** 0.15 0.16** 0.15
Years of schooling –0.01 –0.01 –0.01 –0.01 –0.01 –0.01
Proficiency in Hebrew –0.14** –0.10 –0.14** –0.10 –0.14** –0.09
Proficiency in English 0.17** 0.08 0.14** 0.06 0.14** 0.06
Income 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Nationality (Arabs = 1) –0.23** –0.07 –0.18** –0.06
Interaction (Gender*Nationality) –0.08 –0.02
R
2
0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13
**p< .01.
Asian Journal of Communication 457
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
among young ( β=–0.08) and secular ( β= 0.15). Residents of the center tend to capital-
enhancing uses more than periphery residents ( β= 0.10).
After controlling for Hebrew and English language proficiency, education, and
income (see Model 2), the effects of age slightly increased ( β=–0.11), the effects of
gender ( β= 0.06), and religiosity ( β= 0.11) diminished slightly and the effect of locality
became insignificant ( β= 0.03). The higher the years of schooling ( β= 0.23), proficiency
in Hebrew ( β= 0.08), proficiency in English ( β= 0.15), and income ( β= 0.17), the
higher were the capital-enhancing uses.
As can be seen in Model 3, Jews had the advantage over Arabs in capital-enhancing
uses ( β=–0.14), after controlling for sociodemographic variables. The effects of the
sociodemographic variables remained the same. According to our findings, the effect of
education on capital-enhancing uses ( β= 0.23) was higher than the effects of other
sociodemographic variables.
After entering the interactional effect between gender and nationality (see Model 4)
the gap in capital-enhancing uses between Jews and Arabs remained ( β=–0.14). The
interactional effect between gender and nationality (see Model 4) was insignificant, i.e.,
among Internet users patterns of gender differences in capital-enhancing uses are similar
between Jews and Arabs. Model fit was about 24%. It should be noted that model fit rose
dramatically (from 0.05 to 0.22) in Model 2 after entering human capital and SES
variables. It is important to note that the R
2
in the sample of Internet users was only about
24% (compared to 46% for predicting Internet use). This may be a result of a self-
selection process among Internet adopters compared to the general population. In other
words, the main selection on the basis of sociodemographic characteristics occurs in the
first-level digital divide, whereas among Internet users, the distinguishing ability of these
characteristics is much lower.
3.4.2. Recreational uses
Model 1 indicates that males are more likely to engage in recreational uses, compared to
females ( β= 0.07). The tendency to recreational uses was found to be higher among
young ( β=–0.30) and secular ( β= 0.17). Periphery residents tend more to surf Internet
for recreat ional purposes, compared to center residents ( β=–0.03).
After controlling for human capital and SES variables (see Model 2), the effects of
background variables remain the same. The effects of years of schooling and income on
recreational uses were insignificant, whereas these variables had significant and relatively
strong effects on capital-enhancing uses. This finding correlates with the research
literature (Howard et al., 2001; Madden, 2003).
As for the impact of language proficiency, the higher the English proficiency ( β=
0.08) and the lower the Hebrew proficiency ( β=–0.10), the higher were recreational
uses. English and mother tongue are often sufficient for recreational uses: English is
useful for downloading and online games, mother tongue is usually employed for
correspondence in forums, social networks, and discussion groups with members of the
same sector; therefore, Hebrew proficiency is not necessary for these uses. The fact that
Hebrew proficiency does not have a positive impact on recreational uses can indicate a
lack of interactions between Jews and Arabs in the social media framework. In addition, a
negative effect can indicate that better proficiency in Hebrew allows individuals to spend
their leisure time in more beneficial ways.
S. Lissitsa
458
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
As can be seen in Model 3, Jews had the advantage over Arabs in recreational uses
(β=–0.07), when controlling for sociodemographic variables. The interactional effect
between gender and nationality (see Model 4) was insignificant, i.e., among Internet
users patterns of gender differences are similar between Jews and Arabs. The effects of
other sociodemographic variables on recreational uses after entering the interactional
effect remained the same. According to our findings, the effect of age on recreational
uses ( β=–0.32) was higher than the effects of other sociodemographic variables. This
finding correlates with the research literature (Brandtzæg, Heim & Karahasano-
vić,2011).
In addition, sociodemographic variables explained recreational uses (Model fit = 0.13)
less than capital-enhancing uses (Model fit = 0.24).
4. Discussion
This study focused on two national groups within Israeli society: Jews and Arabs. As can
be seen in the literature review, over the years Jews have maintained a prominent
advantage over Arabs in terms of education and socioeconomic status. Effective use of
the Internet represents an important human capital resource for citizens of a modern state,
one that can serve minority groups as a channel for social mobility if the required skills
are acquired. However, if a digital divide between members of the dominant culture and
the minority culture persists, the Internet may function to reinforce inequalities of power
and knowledge, creating more profound gaps between the groups (Castells, 2002; Norris,
2001; Witte & Mannon, 2010).
The current study examined two levels of the digital divide: access to the Internet and
the so-called ‘second-level’digital divide, i.e., differences in digital uses. In keeping with
the research literature (Avidar, 2009; Lev-On & Lissitsa, 2010), our findings indicate that
Jews in Israel have an advantage in digital access, compared to Arabs. However, this
advantage disappeared after controlling for sociodemographic variables. Thus, the first-
level digital divide between Jews and Arabs originated from differences in human
resources between these two groups.
However, entering cyberspace is only the first step of digital inclusion. Which content
to use and how to utilize the power of the Internet are more important questions. As was
the case in studies from elsewhere in the world (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001; Hargittai,
2010; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Hassani, 2006; Howard et al., 2001), two main types of
digital uses were found in Israeli society: capital-enhancing (email, seeking information,
purchasing, and paying) and recreational (games, social media, and downloading
content). Salient differences between groups were found in both types of uses, with
Jews tending to use the Internet for these purposes more than Arabs.
According to our findings among Internet users, after controlling for sociodemo-
graphic variables, Jews still have a significant advantage over Arabs in capital-enhancing
and recreational uses. Therefore, the second-level digital divide between Jews and Arabs
does not derive only from differences between the resources of the groups but also
apparently can be explained by the sociocultural context as well. These usage gaps
between Jews and Arabs reflect cultural differences between the mostly modern and
secular Jewish sector and the more traditional and conservative Arab society (Mesch &
Talmud, 2011). The late introduction and ineffective use of the Internet in the Arab sector
may be attributable to cultural factors that link Israeli Arabs with the traditional Muslim
Asian Journal of Communication 459
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
world. In the Arab world, the Internet is perceived as a disruptive influence to tradition,
extreme religious instruction, and the prevailing patriarchal orientation (Bunt, 2007;
Dahlberg, 2007; Loch, Straub, & Kamel, 2003) by making more modern views of
liberalism, secularism, and feminism, among other issues, accessible. From an early age,
young people in Arab society are aware of their real-life social networks and of their own
position within them. They learn traditional networking and respect those who are adept
at it (Weir & Hutchings, 2005). Moreover, participation in family and religious networks
is not optional; it is mandatory, and it is unquestioned. This explains why the emergence
of ‘virtual communities’has generated consternation among conservative circles (Warf &
Vincent, 2007), on the one hand, and incredulity, on the other hand, among those who
perceive Arab culture as offering easily accessible, useful, and successful alternatives as
the prevailing default mode.
Finally, it is important to mention the limitations of this study, which derive from the
limitations of the CBS social survey database. Based on how the CBS formulated some of
the dependent variables in its social surveys, it is not possible to discern whether uses
were dedicated exclusively to serving capital-enhancing or recreational needs. For
example, emails could be used for both types of needs. Similarly, the question about
downloading content from the Internet included details that could serve both uses: it is
possible to download programs for capital-enhancing needs or music and pictures for
entertainment and pleasure. The use of social media can also serve both needs. In our
study, the social media factor was assigned to recreational uses in the factor analysis,
although in the literature such uses also constitute part of social capital that can promote
social mobility (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). In future studies, formulations
should be used that make it possible to unequivocally attribute digital uses to one of these
two worlds of content.
An additional limitation of our cross-sectional study is the fact that we used income
only as an independent variable. In future studies, it would be better to use a longitudinal
study similar to the research model employed by DiMaggio and Bonikowski (2008): in
the first stage, examining the effect of income on Internet access and uses and after a
given period of time, investigating the effect of digital uses on income. However, to date
no large-scale longitudinal studies of this type have been conducted in Israel.
5. Conclusions
Our important conclusion is that, theoretically, with background variables being the same,
the first-level digital divide between Jews and Arabs can be considered closed; in
contrast, the second-level digital divide remains even if the human resources of both
groups are the same. The results of the current investigation suggest that overcoming
digital divides is a complex challenge that goes beyond improving access or Internet
skills. Closing digital gaps requires changes in basic social, economic, and cultural
aspects of the Arab sector on the individual level, i.e., personal motivation, as well as on
the community level, including collective sociocultural preferences. The cultural change
should be reflected in the disposition of individuals to ICT –appropriateness and
perceived usefulness of the technology, willingness to engage in computer training,
aspirations for leveraging skills. We also believe that the acceptance of Internet use by
Arab religious and community authorities can facilitate its penetration among the more
traditional and older segments of the Arab sector and promote change at the community
S. Lissitsa
460
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
level. The key to this transformation may lie in emphasizing to the leaders how Internet
use can enhance religious and traditional indoctrination. Similar phenomena occurred
among ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel (Lev-On & Neriya-Ben Shahar, 2012).
According to our findings, English and Hebrew proficiency have a positive impact on
capital-enhancing digital uses. Mastery of these languages facilitates mobility in Israel’s
labor market and promotes access to more prestigious and better-paying jobs (Ben-David,
2014). We believe that better professional adjustment among minorities can be facilitated
by combining intensive professional Hebrew and English learning with the acquisition of
computer and digital literacy. Specifically, we recommend the development of learning
programs that promote the acquisition of language abilities and of the relevant digital
information, strategic, and communication skills required by the modern labor market. At
the same time, it is important to continue efforts to increase the scope and quality of
content materials that are published on Israeli public sites in Arabic.
We believe that these recommendations can contribute to a narrowing of the digital
divide and that digital technology can serve as a mobility channel and catalyst that enable
minority groups to attain greater social and economic equality and progress to a more
equitable, just and prosperous society.
Notes on contributor
Dr. Sabina Lissitsa is a senior lecturer in the Communication School at Ariel University.
She earned her Ph.D. from Tel-Aviv University in 2006, specializing in integration of
FSU immigrants in Israeli society. Her research interests are: digital divide, immigrants’
integration, intercultural relations and leisure-time activities.
References
Aburaiya, I., Avraham, E., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1998). The Arabs in Israel in the eyes of the Hebrew
press: Media and delegitimization. Givat Haviva: The Institute for Israeli Arab Studies and the
Institute for Peace Research. (Hebrew).
Abraham Fund. (2013). Information booklet on Arab society in Israel. Retrieved from www.
abrahamfund.org/5544
Al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. New
York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ali, N. (2006, January). The unpredictable status of Palestinian women in Israel: Actual versus
desirable. Paper presented at Religion, Gender and Politics: An International Dialogue, The Van
Leer Institute, Jerusalem.
Ashuri, T. (2010). The Arab Israeli conflict in the media: Producing shared memory and national
identity in a global television era. London: I.B. Tauris.
Avidar, M. (2009). Digital and national divides in Israel. Haifa: University of Haifa.
Bakker, T. P., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, internet use, and
political participation. Communication Research,38, 451–470.
Bell, P., Reddy, P., & Rainie, L. (2004). Rural areas and the internet. Pew internet and American life
project, 38. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2004/PIP_Rural_
Report.pdf.pdf
Ben-David, D. (2014). A picture of the nation. Israel’s society and economy in figures. Taub center
for policy studies in Israel. Jerusalem. Retrieved from http://taubcenter.org.il/tauborgilwp/wp-
content/uploads/A-Picture-of-the-Nation-2014-Hebrew.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.
Asian Journal of Communication 461
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication,13,210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
Bradley, K. (2006). Internet lives: Social context and moral domain in adolescent development.
Retrieved from http://faculty.headroyce.org/~kbradley/bradley_internet_lives.pdf
Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide –A
typology of internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69,
123–138.
Campbell, H. (2005a). Considering spiritual dimensions within computer-mediated communication
studies. New Media & Society,7(1), 110–134. doi:10.1177/1461444805049147
Campbell, H. (2005b). Making space for religion in internet studies. The Information Society,21,
309–315. doi:10.1080/01972240591007625
Carey, G. (1996). The growth of the internet. In D. Shinar (Ed.), Internet: Communications, society
and culture (pp. 65–83). Tel Aviv: Open University.
Castells, M. (2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business and society. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). (2011). Statistical abstract of Israel 2011 No. 62. Retrieved from
http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/shnatone_new.htm?CYear=2011&Vol=62&CSubject=30
Clark, L.S. (2003). Challenges of social good in the world of Grand Theft Auto and Barbie: A case
study of a community computer center for youth. New Media & Society,5(1), 95–116.
doi:10.1177/146144480300500106
Compaine, B. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dahlberg, L., (2007). The internet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere.
International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics,3(1), 47–64. doi:10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1
Darnton, A. (2006). Communicating with the over 75s. London: Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
DiMaggio, P., & Bonikowski, B. (2008). Make money surfing the web? The impact of internet use
on the earnings of U.S. workers. American Sociological Review,73, 227–250. doi:10.1177/
000312240807300203
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the digital divide to digital inequality: Studying internet
use as penetration increase (Working Paper No.15). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Center
for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal
access to differentiated use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dupagne, M., & Salwen, M. B. (2005). Communication technology adoption and ethnicity. Howard
Journal of Communications,16(1), 21–32. doi:10.1080/10646170590915826
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield C., & Lampe, C. (2007).The benefits of facebook “friends:”Social capital
and college students’use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication,12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Ess, C., Kawabata, A., & Kurosaki, H. (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on religion and computer-
mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,12,939–955. doi:10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2007.00357.x
Fairlie, R. W. (2007). Explaining differences in access to home computers and the internet: A
comparison of Latino groups to other ethnic and racial groups. Electronic Commerce Research,7,
265–291. doi:10.1007/s10660-007-9006-5
Fox, S., & Livingston, G. (2007). Latinos online. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center and Pew
Internet Project.
Ganaem, A., Asaad, H., & Tibi. M. (2011). Social network use among Arab adolescents. Jamaa, 15,
191–210. Retrieved from http://www.qsm.ac.il/mrakez/asdarat/jamiea/15/1==heb–asmaa+khaled+
moanes.pdf
Ganayem, A. N., Rafaeli, S., & Azaiza, F. (2009). Digital gap: Internet use in Arab society in Israel.
Megamot,46, 164–196. (Hebrew).
Greenstein, S., & Prince, J. (2006). The diffusion of the internet and the geography of the digital
divide in the United States (NBER Working Paper No.12182). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau
of Economic Research.
S. Lissitsa
462
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Guerrieri, P., & Bentivegna, S. (2011). The economic impact of digital technologies. Measuring
inclusion and diffusion in Europe. Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar.
HaenleIn, M., & Kaplan, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media. Business Horizons,53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Hargittai, E. (2002). Differences in people's online skills. First Monday,7(4). Retrieved from http://
firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864
Hargittai, E. (2003). Informed web surfing: The social context of user sophistication. In P. Howard
& S. Jones (Eds.), Society online: The Internet in context (pp. 254–272). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context. New Media & Society,6(1), 137–143.
doi:10.1177/1461444804042310
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the
‘net generation’.Sociological Inquiry,80(1), 92–113. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’use of the internet.
Communication Research,35, 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782
Hassani, S. N. (2006). Locating digital divides at home, work, and everywhere else. Poetics,34,
250–272. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.007
Helsper, E. J., & Galacz, A. (2009). Understanding the links between social and digital inclusion in
Europe. In G. Cardoso, A. Cheong, & J. Cole (Eds.), The worldwide Internet: changing societies,
economies and cultures (pp. 146–178). Taipa: University of Macau Press.
Hermann, T., Atmor, N., Heller, E., & Lebel, Y. (2012). The Israeli democracy index 2012. Jerusalem:
The Israel Democracy Institute.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the internet. Science, 280, 390–
391. doi:10.1126/science.280.5362.390
Howard, P. E. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and nights on the internet: The impact of a
diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist,45,383–404. doi:10.1177/00027640121957259
Jin, J., & Cheng, P. (2008). Measuring digital divide: The exploration in Macao. Obervatorio Journal,
14(1), 23–39.
Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Data memo. Washington, DC: Pew Internet &
American Life Project.
Kim, M., & Kim, J. (2001). Digital divide: Conceptual discussions and prospect. In W. Kim, T. W.
Ling, Y. J. Lee, & S. S. Park (Eds.), The human society and the internet (pp. 136–146). Berlin
and New York, NY: Springer.
Kraus, V., & Yonay, Y. (2000). The power and limits of ethnonationalism: Palestinians and Eastern
Jews in Israel, 1974–1991. The British Journal of Sociology,51, 525–551. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
4446.2000.00525.x
LaRose, R., Gregg J. L., Strover, S., Straubhaar, J., & Carpenter, S. (2007). Closing the rural broadband
gap: Promoting adoption of the Internet in rural America. Telecommunications Policy, 31,359–373.
Lash, S. (1994). Reflexity and its doubles: Structures, aesthetics, community. In U. Beck, A.
Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernisation (pp. 110–173). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lev-On, A., & Lissitsa, S. (2010). Digital divide, Israel 2008. MCIS 2010 Proceedings. (Paper No.
54). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2010/54/
Lev-On, A., & Neriya-Ben Shahar, R. (2012). To browse or not to browse: Perceptions of the
danger of the Internet by ultra-orthodox Jewish women. In P. Hope Cheong, J. N. Martin, & L.
Macfadyen (Eds.), New media and intercultural communication (pp. 223–236). New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Lewin-Epstein, N., & Semyonov, M. (1993). Arabs in Israel’s economy: Patterns of ethnic inequality.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Lissitsa, S., & Chachashvili-Bolotin, S. (2014). Using the internet in capital enhancing ways –
ethnic differences in Israel and the role of language proficiency. International Journal of Internet
Science,9(1), 9–30.
Lissitsa, S., & Lev-On, A. (2014). Gaps close, gaps open: A repeated cross-sectional study of the
scope and determinants of the ethnic digital divide. International Journal of Electronic
Governance,7(1), 56–71. doi:10.1504/IJEG.2014.065080
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and
the digital divide. New Media & Society,9, 671–696. doi:10.1177/1461444807080335
Asian Journal of Communication 463
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015
Loch, K., Straub, D., & Kamel, S. (2003). Diffusing the internet in the Arab world: The role of
social norms and technological culturation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
50(1), 45–63. doi:10.1109/TEM.2002.808257
Losh, S. I. (2010). Generation, education, gender, and ethnicity in American digital divides. In Y. D. E.
Ferro, J. Ramon, & M. D. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of research on overcoming digital divides:
Constructing an equitable and competitive information society (pp. 196–202). New York, NY:
Hershey.
Madden, M. (2003). America’s online pursuits. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2011). Ethnic differences in internet access: The role of occupation and
exposure. Information, Communication & Society,14,445–471. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.562218
Mizrahi, Y., Bar, N., Hezronov, I., & Oron, N. (2005). Digital readiness survey and digital divides
in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Finance.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital
divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet
worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Okun, B. S., & Friedlander, D. (2005). Educational stratification among Arabs and Jews in Israel:
Historical disadvantage, discrimination and opportunity, Population Studies,59, 163-180.
doi:10.1080/00324720500099405
Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. T. (2007). Sacial boundaries and marital assimilation: Interpreting trends in racial
and ethnic intermarriage. American Sociological Review,72(1), 68–94. doi:10.1177/000312240
707200104
Rahim, S. A., Pawanteh, L., & Salman, A. (2011). Digital inclusion: The way forward for equality
in a multiethnic society. The Public Sector Innovation Journal,16(3), 1–12.
Sandvig, C. (2001). Unexpected outcomes in digital divide policy: What children really do in the
public library. In B. M. Compaine & S. Greenstein (Eds.), Communications policy in transition:
The internet and beyond (pp. 265–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shafir, G., & Peled, Y. (2002). Being Israeli. The dynamics of multiple citizenship. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Taipale, S. (2012). The use of e-government services and the Internet: The role of socio-
demographic, economic and geographical predictors. Telecommunications Policy. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.05.005
Tocatly, A. (2000). Communication policy in Israel. Tel Aviv: Open University Press.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’and adolescents’online communication and their
closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology,43,267–277. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267
Van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media & Society,
13, 893–911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774
Van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New
Media & Society,16, 507–526. doi:10.1177/1461444813487959
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide. London: Sage.
Warf, B., & Vincent, P. (2007). Multiple geographies of the Arab internet, Area,39(1), 83–96.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wei, L., & Hindman, D. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of
new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and
Society,14, 216–235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707
Weir, D., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Cultural embeddedness and contextual constraints: Knowledge
sharing in Chinese and Arab cultures. Knowledge and Process Management,12(2), 89–98.
Witte, J. C., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The internet and social inequalities. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wolfsfeld, G. (1997). Media and political conflict: News from the Middle East. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social
Science Quarterly,90, 274–291.
S. Lissitsa
464
Downloaded by [79.178.28.142] at 23:30 26 September 2015