PL EN RU
Behavior on the Internet of Poles and Russians: results of the comparative cluster analysis
 
Подробнее
Скрыть детали
1
Scientific Head of the Institute for the High-Hume technology in social computing of Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities
2
Head of the Laboratory “Sociology of the Internet,” of the Institute for the High-Hume technology in social computing of Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities
Дата публикации: 2019-12-22
 
Studia Politologiczne 2016;40
 
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА:
СТАТЬЯ:
The article presents the results of the comparative cluster analysis of of formation of Internet use profiles in Poland and in Russia by results of mass poll in 2012. The authors defined five types of Internet use profile: «Human digital», characterized by consideration of a global electronic network as vital environment and tool of social activity; «Human pragmatic» for which exclusively functional use of the Internet is peculiar; «Human entertain» as strategy of use of the Worldwide electronic network as means of leisure activity and informal communication; «Human traditional», differing in consideration of the Internet as minor source of information and «Human non digital» connected with refusal of use of a global electronic network. The paper described representation of various clusters realizing different types of Internet use profiles in the Polish society comparing to the Russian society in 2012.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Article has been screened for originality
 
ЛИТЕРАТУРА (13)
1.
G. Allen, Come the Revolution, Wired 1995.
 
2.
B. Barber, The uncertainty of digital politics: Democracy’s uneasy relationship with information Technology, “Harvard International Review” 2001, № 23.
 
3.
В. Bimber, The Internet and Political Transformation: Populism, Community, and Accelerated Pluralism, “Polity” 1998, Vol. 31, № 1.
 
4.
F. Cairncross, The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives, Boston: MA: Harvard Business School Press 1997.
 
5.
S.J. Clark, A populist critique of direct democracy, “Harvard Law Review” 1998, Vol. 112, № 2.
 
6.
M. Castells, Communication power, Oxford University Press 2009.
 
7.
S. Coleman, New mediation and direct representation: reconceptualizing representation in the digital age, “New Media Society” 2005, Vol. 7, № 2.
 
8.
A. Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian agenda, New York 1993.
 
9.
P. Norris, Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press 2001.
 
10.
M. Poster, Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere – Internet Culture, New York: Routledge 1997.
 
11.
H. Rheingold, The Great Equalizer –Whole Earth Review 1991.
 
12.
S. Ward, R. Gibson, W. Lusoli, Online participation and mobilization in Britain: Hype, hope and reality, “Parliamentary Affairs” 2003, № 56.
 
13.
L.M. Weber, A. Loumakis, J. Bergman, Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public, “Social Science Computer Review” 2003, № 21.
 
ISSN:1640-8888