Term Paper: Internet

Pages: 7 (2757 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 1+  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Education - Computers  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] Yet Putnam (2000) accounts that, subsequent to demographic controls, Internet consumers are no diverse than non-users on procedures of civic engagement. He remarks, on the other hand, that it is too early to develop this outcome onto future consumer cohorts, and further, he has doubts about the Internet's involvement to community capital at the society level. Putnam invites concentration to the need to recognize qualitative dissimilarities amid interceded, as well as, head-to-head dealings and to discover a tension amid the technology's prospect and the hazards of uneven access and cyber-balkanization. (Putnam 2000:177; Van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson 1997).

Additional studies point out that, under some conditions at least; Internet utilization might improve community capital. In a longitudinal research of Pittsburgh inhabitants, Kraut et al. (2001) established Internet utilization linked with better involvement in society actions and more conviction (although lesser assurance to stay put in their society), with the optimistic effects better for more overenthusiastic participants. A study of online survey respondents from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, as well as, Australia established that augmented Internet utilization tended to have a direct positive influence on community capital (operationalized as contribution in society networks, as well as, behaviors) and a positive roundabout influence (in the course of community capital) on political involvement (Gibson et al. 2000).

There is much subjective proof that the Internet gives noteworthy paybacks to people with unusual identities or apprehensions (e.g., unusual medical conditions). Nevertheless there is some confirmation that community-capital shaped by less centered networks is somewhat thin. For instance, a survey of consumers of Amsterdam's Digital-City, a multi-use space formed to support Internet access and public-spirited dealings, established that, in spite of soaring membership statistics, most users involve themselves comparatively occasionally and for leisure reasons (Van den Besselaar & Beckers 1998).

Analysis of the Studies

We sketch five principles from the research to date. First, the Internet has no inherent influence on community dealings and civic involvement. This nonfinding ought to confront scholars to appreciate the state of affairs under which diverse effects are formed, which will no doubt show them the way to differentiate diverse outlines of Web use, as well as, diverse orientations of consumers. Second, Internet utilization tends to strengthen previously existing inclinations in the direction of sociability or society participation, instead of creating them from the scratch. Third, we need to identify more than we do in relation to the qualitative nature of online relationships. Fourth, we know that virtual communities subsist in large figures; however, we know comparatively little in relation to their performance. Research on how virtual communities tackle troubles of commitment, as well as, conviction (Kollock's, 1999) is essential to recognize the restrictions and promises of society online. Fifth, we need more orderly studies of how civic associations, as well as, community activities utilize the Internet, so that we can move further than single cases to understanding the institutional circumstances that hearten or dishearten successful exploitation of this technology.


If sociology requires the Internet as a laboratory, policy manufacturers require sociology to light up the group choices that will outline the Internet's prospect. As Philip Agre (1998b: 19) has written, debates of the Internet are frequently informed less by optimistic information than by the educational system of mythology and thoughts that our society throws onto the technology. Community science remains the most excellent hope for changing knowledge for myth, as well as, notifying public dialogue on the subject of present conditions and policy options.


Abbate J. 1999. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Agre P. 1998b. Presentation in Proceeding of a Congressional Breakfast Seminar on Information Technology and Community Change, pp. 14-19. Washington, DC: Consortium of Soc. Sci. Assoc.

Bogart L. 1956. The Age of Television: A Study of Viewing Habits and the Impact of Television on American Life. New York: Ungar

Castells M. 2001. Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Coffin T. 1955. Television's impact on society. Am. Psychol. 10:630-41

Cole J. 2000. Surveying the Digital Future. Los Angeles: UCLA Ctr. Telecommun. Policy (www.ccp.ucla.edu)

Gibson RIK, Howard PEN, Ward S. 2000. Community capital, Internet connectedness and political participation: A four-country study. Pap. pres. 2000 Int. Polit. Sci. Assoc. Meet., Quebece, Canada

Hauben M, Hauben R. 1997. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Soc. Press

Howard PEN, Rainie L, Jones S. 2001. Days and nights on the Internet: the impact of a diffusing technology. Special issue of Am. Behay. Sci. ed. B Wellman, C Haythornthwaite.

Intelli-Quest. 1999. Intelliquest study shows 83 million U.S. Internet users and 56 million online shoppers. Press release, April 19. http://www.intelliquest.com/press/release78.Asp

Katz JE, Rice R, Aspden p. 2001. The Internet, 1995-2000: Access, civic involvement and community interaction. Special issue of Am. Behav. Sci. ed. B Weliman, C HaythornWaite.

Kolko BE, Nakamura L, Rodman GB. 2000. Race in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge

Kollock p. 1999. The production of trust in online markets. Adv. Group Processes 16:99-123

Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V. Kiesler S, Mukophadhyay T, Scherlis W. 1998. Internet paradox: A community technology that reduces community involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol. 53:1011-31

Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V.2001. Internet paradox revisited. I. Soc. Issues.

Lake D. 2000. The Web: growing by 2 million pages a day. Indust. Standard Feb 28

Lin N. 2001. Community Capital: A Theory of Community Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Netcraft. 2000. The Netcraft Web Server Survey. Online document available at http://www.netcraft.com/survey/(last Accessed Aug. 25, 2000)

Nie NH, Ebring L. 2000. Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford, CA; Inst. For Quant. Stud. Soc.

Paccagnella L. 1997. Getting the seats of your pants dirty: strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. J. Computer-Mediated Commun. http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issuel/paccagnella.html

Pew Center for the People and the Press. 1995. Technology in the American household. Washington DC http://www.people-press.org/tech.htm

Pew Center for the People and the Press. 1998. Internet news takes off. http://www.people-press.org/med98rpt.htm.

Preece J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability. New York: Wiley

Prettejohn M. 1996. The first year: August 1995-August 1996. Netcraft. http:llwww.net-craft.com/survey/yearl.html

Putnam RD. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Society. New York: Simon & Schuster

Robinson JP, Barth K, Kohut A. 1997. Personal computers, mass media, and use of time. Soc. Sci. Computer Rev. 15:65-82

Robinson JP, Kestnbaum M. 1999. The personal computer, culture and other uses of free time. Soc. Sci. Computer Rev. Summer: 209-216

Robinson JP Godbey G. 1999. Time for Life. State College, PA: Penn State Univ. Press. 2nd ed.

Robinson JP, Kestnbaum M, Neustadtl A, Alvarez A. 2000. IT, the Internet, and time displacement. Pap. pres. Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc. Pub. Opin. Res, Portland, OR, May 2000

Smith M, Kollock P, eds. 1999. Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge

Turkle S. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster

Van Alstyne M, Brynjolfsson E. 1997. Global village or cyberbalkans. http://web.mit.edu/marshalI/www/papers/CyberBa1kans.pdf.

Van den Besselaar P, Beckers D. 1998. Demographics and sociographics of the "Digital City." In Society Computing and Support Systems Community Interaction in Networked Communities, ed. T Ishida. Heidelberg: Springer. http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/beckers/publications/kyoto.html

Weiss R. 1970. Effects of mass media of communication. In Handbook of Community Psychology, ed. G Lindzey, E Aronson, 5:77-195. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wellman B. 2001. Physical place and cyberplace: Changing… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?

1.  Buy the full, 7-page paper:  $28.88


2.  Buy + remove from all search engines
(Google, Yahoo, Bing) for 30 days:  $38.88


3.  Access all 175,000+ papers:  $41.97/mo

(Already a member?  Click to download the paper!)


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Internet the First Decade Term Paper

Internet Marketing Project Book Report

Internet Addiction Thesis

Internet Marketing in Saudi Arabia Term Paper

Life Without Internet Term Paper

View 840 other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

Internet.  (2004, March 3).  Retrieved June 16, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/internet-significantly-essential/3383919

MLA Format

"Internet."  3 March 2004.  Web.  16 June 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/internet-significantly-essential/3383919>.

Chicago Format

"Internet."  Essaytown.com.  March 3, 2004.  Accessed June 16, 2019.