Gatekeeping theories have been a popular heuristic for describing information control for years, but none have attained a full theoretical status in the context of networks. This article aims to propose a theory of network gatekeeping comprised of two components: identification and salience. Network gatekeeping identification lays out vocabulary and naming foundations through the identification of gatekeepers, gatekeeping, and gatekeeping mechanisms. Network gatekeeping salience, which is built on the bases of the network identification theory, utilizes this infrastructure to understand relationships among gatekeepers and between gatekeepers and gated, the entity subjected to a gatekeeping process. Network gatekeeping salience 1 proposes identifying gated and their salience to gatekeepers by four attributes: Introducing Gatekeeping and the Need for a New TheoryThe concept of gatekeeper was first coined by social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947Lewin ( , 1951. His theory of channels and gatekeepers was developed to explain the focal points of social changes in communities. Since Lewin's use of the gatekeeper concept, it has become embedded in various fields of scholarship, including political science, sociology, information science, management, and law (Clayman & Reisner, 1998;Klobas & McGill, 1995;Putterman, 2005;Suchman & Cahill, 1996;Tushman & Katz, 1980). Additionally, it has been applied to practical domains such as journalism (e.g., understanding newspaper editors as gatekeepers), health science, operations research, and technology development (e.g., understanding consultants who provide a Received May 21, 2007; revised February 7, 2008; accepted February 8, 2008 1 Salience refers to the degree to which gatekeepers give priority to competing gated claims. second opinion or function as intermediaries between clients and services) (Beckman & Mays, 1985;Metoyer-Duran, 1993;Shoemaker, 1991; Shumsky & Pinker, 2003).However, as popular as the term has become and as richly descriptive as it is, there is little agreement among the different fields on its meaning and a lack of full theoretical status. Moreover, attention to gatekeeping in the context of information and networks is even rarer (Birnhack & Elkin-Koren, 2003;Deuze, 2001;Dimitrova, Connolly-Ahern, Williams, Kaid, & Reid, 2003;Hargittai, 2000b; Singer & GonzalezValez, 2003;Zittrain, 2006). That is, there is a lack of agreement on who network gatekeepers are and what gatekeeping is; and why should it matter? The first question, depicting who are network gatekeepers and what constitutes network gatekeeping and its mechanisms, calls for a descriptive theory of network gatekeeping identification to explain disputed or undefined constructs and vocabulary. The second question, understanding why these issues should matter, calls for a normative theory of network gatekeeping salience to explain relations among gatekeepers and between gatekeepers and gated 2 to better understand network gatekeeping as it occurs. These two complementary theories constitute a full ...

Three arguments are raised in this article with regard to the indices used to measure the digital divide. First, I criticize policymakers who rely on simplistic measures of the digital divide, at the expense of a thoughtful analysis of (1) the purpose of the tool, (2) the level of observation, and (3) the method of approaching the data. Second, I argue that networks and associated technologies are not neutral artifacts but are political and social spaces in their structure as well as in their content levels. Accordingly, we need to factor in the context as an important actor in conceptualizing and measuring the digital divide. Third, two general types of indices are used for the measurement of the digital divide(s): focused monotopical indices and comprehensive indices. Monotopical indices are more widely available, while comprehensive ones are rare. I argue that policymakers need to promote comprehensive indices over monotopical indices. Finally, I present a conceptual definition of the digital divide and a framework for developing a comprehensive index to measure it.

Abstract:This paper presents a theoretical framework to understand the relationship between religious fundamentalist communities and the Internet, through addressing four dimensions of tensions and challenges: hierarchy, patriarchy, discipline, and seclusion. We develop the concept of cultured technology, and analyze the ways communities reshape technology and make it as part of the ir culture, while on the other hand allowing this technology to make certain changes in their customary way of life and in their unwritten laws. Later, we exemplify our theoretical framework through an empirical examination of ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel. Our empirical study is based on original dataset of 686,192 users and 60,346 virtual communities, while also relying on extensive literature review and secondary data. The results show the complexity of interactions between religious fundamentalism and Internet, and invite further discussions of cultured technology as a means to adapt Internet and to be adapted into it in various communities that incline to challenge technological innovations.

No abstract

Abstract