Schwerpunkt
Birgit Jæger
Digital Citizenship –
A Review of the Academic Literature
Abstract
When digital technologies become a part of every-
day life in most parts of society, it changes the way
we work, organize, communicate, and make rela-
tions. It also changes the relationship between the
state and its citizens – a relationship usually con-
ceptualized as citizenship. To capture this trans-
formation, a new concept of digital citizenship has
emerged. The overall purpose of this paper is to
overcome the fragmentation of knowledge about
how citizenship is transformed into digital citizen-
ship through a systematic review of the academic
literature on the concept of digital citizenship. The
literature review identifies four streams of litera-
ture in the academic landscape of digital citizen-
ship, and by a content analysis, it outlines the many
dimensions and facets of digital citizenship. In this
way, the literature review offers a comprehensive
picture of both the impacts of the digital transfor-
mation on citizenship and the concept within the
academic debate.
Key Words: Digital Citizenship; Impacts of Digital
Transformation; Academic Landscape; Streams of
Literature
dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 14. Jg., Heft 1/2021, S. 1-19; I-XXI
Zusammenfassung
Digital Citizenship:
eine systematische Literaturanalyse
Wenn digitale Technologien in den meisten Teilen
der Gesellschaft das tägliche Leben durchdringen,
verändert das die Art und Weise, wie wir arbeiten,
uns organisieren, kommunizieren und Beziehungen
eingehen. Es verändert auch die Beziehung zwi-
schen Staat und Bürgerinnen und Bürgern – eine
Beziehung, die normalerweise als Staatsbürger-
schaft konzeptualisiert wird. Um diesen Wandel zu
erfassen, hat sich ein neues Konzept der digitalen
Bürgerschaft herausgebildet. Das übergeordnete
Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die Fragmentierung des
Wissens darüber, wie Staatsbürgerschaft in digitale
Staatsbürgerschaft umgewandelt wird, durch eine
systematische Überprüfung der akademischen Lite-
ratur zum Konzept von Digital Citizenship zu
überwinden. Der Beitrag identifiziert vier wissen-
schaftliche Literaturstränge zu Digital Citizenship
und skizziert mittels einer Inhaltsanalyse die vielen
Dimensionen und Facetten von Digital Citizenship.
Auf diese Weise bietet die Literaturübersicht ein
umfassendes Bild sowohl der Auswirkungen der
digitalen Transformation auf die Bürgerschaft als
auch des Konzepts innerhalb der akademischen
Debatte.
Schlagworte: Digital Citizenship; Wirkungen der
digitalen Transformation, Wissenschaft, Literatur-
stränge
online first ‒ https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.09
2 Birgit Jæger

1 Introduction

For at least three decades, digital technologies have become a part of almost all parts of
society. In the early days of this development, the technology was ‘just’ used to store
and organize huge amounts of data. However, the technological development of com-
puters, as well as communication technologies, opened for new possibilities of usage in
a way that was hard to imagine at the beginning. This digitalization of society also
changes the relationship and interaction between the state and its citizens – a relation-
ship usually conceptualized as citizenship. To capture this transformation of citizen-
ship, a new concept of digital citizenship has emerged (Mossberger, 2008).
The new concept has started to pop up in research to describe the impacts of the
digitalization on citizens and their relationship with public authorities, their political
engagement, and social activities. However, the current knowledge of the digital trans-
formation of citizenship is fragmented in different fields and a full picture of the im-
pacts is lacking. A comprehensive picture of the research in digital citizenship will
contribute to our understanding of how citizenship is transformed into digital citizen-
ship. Thus, the overall purpose of this paper is to overcome the fragmentation of
knowledge of the impacts of the digital transformation on citizenship by asking how
the academic literature describe the impacts of the digital transformation into a digital
citizenship. Going through the previous discussion of the concept of digital citizenship
(see next section) adds two more questions to the investigation of the literature on digi-
tal citizens. The added questions are how the literature describes the process of inclu-
sion and exclusion by asking: Is the transformation into a digital citizenship possible
for everybody or does the digital divide still exist? Finally, we ask how the digital
technologies change the way citizens act in the interaction with the political communi-
ty.
These questions will be answered through a systematic literature review (Grant &
Booth, 2009) of the academic literature of digital citizenship. While other literature re-
views on digital citizenship focus on a single perspective, e.g. citizenship education
(Choi, 2016) or theoretical approaches to digital citizenship (Jørring, Valentim & Por-
ten-Cheé, 2019), this review aims to present a comprehensive picture of how the aca-
demic literature presents the digital citizen and the impacts of the digital transformation
of citizenship.
Within the public sector, the digitalization is often described through different
stages of e-government (Lee, 2010), in which the usage of digital technologies moves
from a simple information dissemination to a digital transformation where the impact is
a throughout transformation of both the work processes, the public service itself, and
the political engagement of citizens. However, this approach is criticized for being too
deterministic regarding the development as taking place in a certain sequence and in-
cluding an evolutionary perspective, which makes it look like the development takes
place without any kind of political struggles and is just a matter of time (Jæger, 2020).
Furthermore, a recent literature review of the concept of digital transformation shows
that we are dealing with an ongoing and never-ending process (Vial, 2019). In continu-
ation of this understanding, the transformation of citizenship into digital citizenship is
here understood as a non-linear and ongoing process, and as it appears from the annual
e-government survey of the UN (United Nations, 2020), different states are going
through the development in very different pace. In this way, the literature presented in
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 3

this review, represents different points of impact in the complex transformation into a
digital citizenship.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, a presentation is given of the emer-
gence of the concept of digital citizenship. Second, the methodology for the review is
presented. Third, the findings of the review are presented in the form of an overall map
of the academic landscape of the concept of digital citizenship, organized around four
main streams of literature, followed by an analysis of the content of the literature with-
in the four streams. Finally, the findings of the review, showing the comprehensive im-
pacts of the transformation, are discussed.

2 The concept of digital citizenship

The concept of digital citizenship takes its point of departure in the general concept of
citizenship. Although the concept of citizenship has been around for many years, no
simple and unambiguous definition exists. Within political philosophy, citizenship is
“normally defined as a bundle of rights and duties relating to an individual as a mem-
ber of a political community” (Turner, 1993, p. x). In a historical analysis of the devel-
opment of citizenship in Britain, Thomas Humphrey Marshall (1992/1950) identifies
three elements of citizenship, which he calls civil, political, and social. The civil ele-
ment consists of the rights necessary for individual freedom – liberty of the person,
freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property, and the right to justice.
The institutions associated with civil rights are the courts of justice. The political ele-
ment consists of the right to participate in the exercise of political power. The institu-
tions connected to this right are parliament and councils of local government. The so-
cial element consists of the right to economic welfare and security and the right to “live
the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society” (Mar-
shall, 1992/1950, p. 8). The institutions connected with this right are the educational
system and the social services. The concept of citizenship is further elaborated and
more elements (for instance identity, cultural, and global elements) are added, and, to-
day, it is often described as a contested concept (Schou, 2018). The latest addition to
the concept is the impact of digital transformation in the form of the digital citizenship.
The academic discussion of digital citizenship emerged from debates about the di-
gital divide and the question of who was included in, or excluded from, the so-called
information society. In line with the general understanding of innovation as something
positive, inclusion in digitalized society was assumed to offer many benefits. Hence,
exclusion from the information society was regarded as disadvantages and a source of
inequality. Thus, the focus of the initial research in this area was on access to technolo-
gy, and a growing body of literature investigated the causes and consequences of the
digital divide (Norris, 2001). However, this literature was criticized for being too nar-
row, focusing solely on access to technology (Warschauer, 2003). One study pointed
out that access to technology was not the only important factor ‒ technical skills and
the educational competencies to assess digital information were also considered im-
portant factors in understanding the digital divide (Dijk, 2005). A study of elderly peo-
ple’s use of ICT revealed that motivation was also an important factor (Jæger, 2005).
This early discussion raises a basic question of inclusion or exclusion in the digital
world. In continuation of this, this review will investigate how the literature describes
4 Birgit Jæger

the process of inclusion and exclusion by asking the following question: Is the trans-
formation into a digital citizen possible for everybody or does the digital divide still ex-
ist?
In the further discussion, some scholars rejected the concept of a digital divide and
started to use the term digital citizenship to describe the process of being included in a
digitalized society as a digital citizen. Karen Mossberger (2008) is a good example of
this development. She defines digital citizenship as follows:
“Digital citizens can be defined as those who use the internet every day, because frequent use re-
quires some regular means of access (usually at home), some technical skill, and the educational
competencies to perform tasks such as finding and using information on the web, and communi-
cating with others on the internet […] digital citizenship is an enabling factor for political citi-
zenship…” (Mossberger, 2008, p. 173-174).
A recent literature review on digital citizenship (Jørring, Valentim & Porten-Cheé,
2019), categorizes Mossberger’s (and familiar) definition as a conditional approach,
which understands access to the internet as a right and can be used to understand how
participation in the online world is shaped by socioeconomic conditions. Another con-
ditional aspect is that participation in the online world is a condition, or enabling fac-
tor, for political engagement. Hence, this review will investigate the conditions for po-
litical engagement in the digital world by asking how the digital technologies change
the way digital citizens interact with the political community.
Another literature review on the concept of digital citizenship, conducted in 2016
with the purpose of contributing to better citizenship education, defines digital citizen-
ship more broadly. Based on the results of a concept analysis, Moonsun Choi (2016)
develops four elements of digital citizenship: Media and Information Literacy, Partici-
pation/Engagement, Critical Resistance, and Ethics. Given these elements, she defines
digital citizenship as “abilities, thinking, and action regarding Internet use, which al-
lows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform self, community, socie-
ty, and the world” (Choi, 2016, p. 584). This definition adds the notion of active use of
technology to transform oneself, and ultimately to change the world. The author further
argues that “digital citizenship needs to be understood as a multidimensional and com-
plex concept in connection with an interrelated but non-linear relationship with offline
(place-based) civic lives” (Choi, 2016, p. 565). Choi’s (and familiar) definition is de-
scribed as a normative approach (Jørring, Valentim & Porten-Cheé 2019), in which
digital citizenship is understood as the ideal way to act online and can be used to dis-
cuss ethical and moral considerations in relation to online participation.
Recent research also finds that digital citizenship must be understood as a multi-
dimensional and fluid concept (Isin & Ruppert, 2015; Vivienne, McCosker & Johns,
2016; Schou, 2018). These contributions to the discussion represent a more critical
theoretical approach to the concept of digital citizens and they avoid making an a pri-
ori definition of digital citizenship. For instance, Jannick Schou (2018) remarks that
“citizenship neither can nor should be reduced to reified categories that can then be ap-
plied to measure populations.” He further explains, that “citizenship must not only be
understood as a historically situated, politically variegated and contingent category, but
that multiple and overlapping modalities of citizenship may co-exist at any given time”
(Schou, 2018, p. 31).
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 5

Instead of defining digital citizenship in fixed categories, Engin Isin and Evelyn
Rupperts (2015) draw on speech act theory in arguing that digital performance must be
understood in terms of digital acts in which the digital citizen is constituted as a politi-
cal subject. Similarly avoiding fixed categories, other scholars argue that:
“digital citizenship is always already under negotiation, embedded in a multi-dimensional web of
power, discourse and emergent meanings. If anything, it is this fluidity and multiplicity that de-
fines digital citizenship – the fact that it is indeed many things to many people and is unlikely ev-
er to settle into a stable status quo” (Vivienne, McCosker & Johns, 2016, pp. 14-15).
These contributions to the discussion of digital citizenship are described as a contextual
approach, which understands digital citizenship as a context-dependent and fluid con-
cept. In this approach, digital citizenship “encompasses very diverse experiences of
what it is like to live as a citizen in the digital age” (Jørring, Valentim & Porten-Cheé,
2019, p. 21).
The present review takes its point of departure in the contextual approach. In this
way, each of the reviewed publications presents a picture of how digital citizenship is
understood and enacted in the context in question, and, taken together, the publications
present digital citizenship in all its multiple forms across different contexts.

3 Methodology

When conducting a literature review, the most crucial part of the process is to find the
relevant literature. The literature search for this review took place over a period of sev-
eral years. In 2015, a broad search for literature was conducted using SUMMON,
which is a discovery service developed for libraries. The service provides access to au-
thoritative content from libraries of every kind. In 2018, a systematic search for litera-
ture (Grant & Booth, 2009) was conducted with the aim of gaining insight into the aca-
demic literature on digital citizenship. This search, conducted by a librarian, took place
in three databases: Proquest, Web of Science, and EBSCO-host. In all three databases,
the search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in scholarly journals in Eng-
lish.
The search, both in SUMMON and the three databases, was on the term ‘digital
citizen*’. A consequence of this is that publications, which present studies of the digi-
tal transformation of the relationship between states and citizens without using the term
‘digital citizenship’, are not included. For instance, a huge body of literature on e-
government, which deals with this relationship, is not included because it does not re-
late to the concept of digital citizenship. Just like, we do not find one single publication
describing the digital transformation of the relationship between the healthcare system
and its users because they do not conceptualize the relationship as a part of citizenship.
On the other hand, the search includes all publications mentioning digital citizenship
even if it is not the main issue of the publication.
The results of the systematic search in the three databases were controlled for du-
plications. Some of the publications were found in two, or even all three databases, so
eliminating duplications reduced the number of results. In the end, the systematic liter-
ature search resulted in a list of 497 publications. The search included a range of publi-
cations that were also part of the initial search in SUMMON in 2015. However, not all
6 Birgit Jæger

publications from the SUMMON list were included in the new search, which was limi-
ted to articles. Hence, 50 publications identified in the first search were added to the
list. A screening of the abstracts revealed that not all of these publications were suited
for the review. Some were skipped due to the content and others because the publica-
tions were not academic. Altogether, 182 publications were excluded from the sample.
A reading of the articles revealed that several central publications were not includ-
ed in the sample because they were published as books, which were not included in the
2018 search. Hence, up to May 2020, eight further publications were added to the list.
Altogether, the list numbered 373 publications, which form the basis for the following
analysis of the literature on digital citizenship (see Table 1 and the appendix containing
a complete list of publications included in the review).

Table 1: Publications included in the review

Systematic search in three databases, 2018 497 publications

Search in SUMMON, 2015 50 publications

Supplements to the list, 2020 8 publications

Total 555 publications

Skipped 182 publications

Reviewed 373 publications

Source: Own illustration.

This is a high number of included publications compared to other literature reviews.

For instance, the above-mentioned review consists of 139 sources (Jørring, Valentim &
Porten-Cheé, 2019, p. 14). The review of Choi (2016) consists of 254 sources, how-
ever, this is not solely academic literature; it also includes official websites, blogs, and
news articles (Choi, 2016, p. 572). The high number of publications in the present re-
view indicates a more comprehensive picture of the academic discussion of digital citi-
zenship.
The analysis of the literature consists of two elements: first an analysis, which
identifies the academic landscape of the concept of digital citizenship, second, a con-
tent analysis of the single publication identified in the landscape. Mapping the acade-
mic landscape was, from the outset, an inductive process informed by the content of
the single publication. During the analysis, it turned out that a clustering around the
constitutive elements of the general concept of citizenship described above was usable
for the construction of four streams of the literature. All 373 publications were as-
signed to only one stream.
The content analysis consisted of a coding of all 373 publications with the follow-
ing categories: 1) Position in the academic landscape (stream); 2) Discipline; 3) Defini-
tion of digital citizenship; 4) Theoretical approach; 5) Methodology; 6) Research ques-
tion; 7) Findings. Given this coding, the publications were clustered around different
themes, which they had in common due to the research questions and findings. Table 2
presents the overall findings of the analysis according to the streams in the academic
landscape and the number of publications within each steam. It also presents the domi-
nating disciplines and last, but not least, it presents the findings of the content analysis
of the publications clustered around themes.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 7

Table 2: The Academic Landscape of Digital Citizenship

Position in the Digital Rights Political Digital Public Training and
landscape – and Privacy Engagement Service Learning
Streams

Link to the Civil Rights Political Rights Social Rights Social Rights ‒
general concept – social services education
Number of 36 94 25 218
publications
Dominating 1) Law 1) Political Science 1) Public 1) Education / Pedagogy
disciplines 2) Media and 2) Media and Administration 2) Information Studies
Communication Studies Communication 2) Information
Studies Systems
3) Sociology
Content 1) Right to use the web 1) Inclusion and identity 1) Citizens’ usage of 1) Pedagogical ways to
analysis – and protection of privacy vs. exclusion and digital digital public services teach with digital technol-
Themes (15 publications – no. 1- divide (14 publications – no. ogies
15 in the appendix) (25 publications – no. 131-144 in the (133 publications – no.
37-61 in the appendix) appendix) 156-288 in the appendix)
2) Surveillance and
security 2) The mobilization vs. 2) Relationship between 2) Teachers
(11 Publications – no. 16- the reinforcement citizens and competences
26) theses bureaucrats (23 publications – no.
(16 publications – no. (11 publications – no. 289-311)
3) Law to control the web 62-77) 145-155)
and the usage of data 3) Role of libraries
(10 publications – no. 27- 3) Communication of (28 publications – no.
36) political issues 312-339)
(11 publications – no.
78-88) 4) Online learning
(12 publications – no.
4) Democracy and 340-351)
participation
(42 publications – no. 5) Technology leadership
89-130) of schools
(12 publications – no.
352-363)

6) Cyber-bullying
(10 publications – no.
364-373)
Source: Own illustration.

4 The Academic Landscape of Digital Citizenship

The result of the first part of the analysis is a map of the academic landscape consisting
of four streams of literature (see Table 2):
1) Digital Rights and Privacy, which refers to the civil rights necessary for individu-
al freedom, based on law and justice.
2) Political Engagement, which refers to political rights associated with parliaments
and local government councils.
8 Birgit Jæger

3) Digital Public Service, which refers to social rights pertaining to social services.
4) Training and Learning, which refers to social rights pertaining to education.
The streams in the map are quite different in terms of their relative weight. The stream
concerning Training and Learning is the heaviest stream, while the stream concerning
Digital Public Service is the lightest. In the following sections, I will present the con-
tent analysis of the different streams, describe how they define digital citizenship, and
analyze how they present the impacts of the digital transformation of citizenship.

4.1 Digital Rights and Privacy

The stream of literature dealing with digital rights and privacy consists of 36 publica-
tions dealing with issues that correlate with the civil rights described as a part of the
general concept of citizenship. Just as courts are the main institutions linked to civil
rights, the law perspective dominates this stream; however, we also find a cluster of
publications dealing with the media and communication studies. Very few publications
in this stream define the concept of digital citizens. Most publications take for granted
that citizens have to be digital when living in the digital age.
From the analysis of the content, it is possible to cluster the publications within this
stream in three themes (see Table 2). The first theme consists of 15 publications and
concerns the right to use the web (and its digital content) and to use it without a viola-
tion of privacy. Under this theme, we find publications asking whether access to digital
content on the web is a human right (Oyedemi, 2015). With the right to use digital con-
tent follows a fear of violation of privacy. Several publications are concerned about
children’s right to privacy when they use the web and some are worried about the so-
called stranger-danger threat (Harris, 2010). One publication specifically warns about
iPredators, defined as “… all online users engaged in nefarious and/or abusive online
behaviors. Whether the offender is a cyberbully, cyberstalker, cybercriminal, online
sexual predator, internet troll or cyber terrorist, they fall within the scope of iPredator”
(Nuccitelli, 2011, p. 44). These publications show that digital citizens are vulnerable to
intruders when they engage in digital activities, and illustrate how the digitalization of
society has had a clear impact on the citizenry.
The second theme is concerned with surveillance and security. Several authors re-
fer to Edward Snowden’s revelations about how internet companies monitor the activi-
ties of digital citizens, making it possible for intelligence agencies to conduct large-
scale digital surveillance, and many authors discuss how citizens can avoid surveil-
lance by the state. One of these studies explored public attitudes toward surveillance
and found that a public response to surveillance is lacking. “We argue that the lack of
transparency, knowledge, and control over what happens to personal data online has
led to feelings of widespread resignation, not consent, to the status quo that speaks to a
condition we identify as ‘surveillance realism’ ” (Dencik & Cable, 2017, p. 763). Ac-
cording to these authors, digital citizens quietly accept the state’s surveillance as a
condition for being part of the digital world. However, it is not only states that conduct
surveillance of citizens. Other authors are concerned with the surveillance of private
companies that use their knowledge about the behavior of digital citizens for commer-
cial purposes (Banaszak & Rodziewicz, 2004).
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 9

The third theme consists of a cluster of publications dealing with the law to control
communication on the web and the use of data. In the UK, Snowden’s revelations led
to the implementation of a new legislative framework. However, a study of the policy
process constructing this framework found that the “… policy reform has led to a con-
firmation, rather than restriction, of data collection” (Hintz & Brown, 2017, p. 782).
Most publications within this theme agree that existing laws do not solve the problem,
leading some to suggest that the law should be supplemented with other initiatives, for
instance, a “so-called ‘3-E’ solution that combines consumer education, user empow-
erment, and selective enforcement of existing targeted laws and other legal standards”
(Thierer, 2013, p. 412).
This content analysis shows that the digital transformation adds some new dimen-
sions to the citizenship. Digital citizens are described as vulnerable because digital
technologies create new ways to violate privacy, both in the form of iPredators, abuse
of data for commercial objectives, and state surveillance of citizens in the name of na-
tional security, which demand new forms of privacy protection. The analysis also re-
veals that a legal solution to this problem is still lacking, and that digital citizens seem
to have quietly accepted that they must live with surveillance to some extent.

4.2 Political Engagement

The stream of literature concerned with the issue of political engagement consists of 94
publications, which is in line with the political dimension of the general concept of citi-
zenship, since it covers similar issues like citizens’ right to express their beliefs, to take
part in elections, and to have access to information about political processes. The au-
thors in this stream of literature are mainly based in the field of political science, but
researchers from the fields of communication studies and sociology are also represent-
ed here. These different backgrounds are reflected in the way digital citizenship is de-
fined. Some definitions are very close to Mossberger’s above-mentioned definition like
this: “Digital citizenship represents the capacity to participate in society online through
frequent Internet use leading to economic, civic, and political outcomes” (Buente,
2015, p. 145). Others define digital citizenship as a certain kind of political participa-
tion; and yet another group of publications defines digital citizenship from the point of
view of communication: “Citizenship is increasingly mediated by digital communica-
tion (…). These and other communication functions are all aspects of the emerging
digital citizenship (…)” (Shelly et al., 2004, p. 257).
The publications in this stream cover a range of different issues, which can be clus-
tered within four themes: 1) Inclusion and identity vs. exclusion and the digital divide,
2) The mobilization vs. the reinforcement thesis, 3) Communication of political issues,
4) Democracy and participation (see Table 2).
The first theme deals with inclusion in the digital world and the formation of an
identity of the digital citizen, which is often discussed in opposition to exclusion and
the digital divide. These publications have in common that they regard inclusion in the
digital world as a precondition for political activities and they discuss the impacts of
being either included or excluded, both at the individual level (D’Haenens, Koeman &
Saeys, 2007) and at the national level (Sharma, Fantin, Prabhu, Guan & Dattakumar,
2016).
10 Birgit Jæger

The second theme is ‘the mobilization vs. the reinforcement theses’. One source
describes these theses as follows:
“The mobilization thesis argues that because of the availability of new information and commu-
nication technologies, previously disengaged groups of the population are being drawn into poli-
tics. The reinforcement thesis assumes that in the best case scenario, the Internet will not change
existing patterns of political participation and, in the worst case scenario, may actually widen
participatory gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged populations” (Oser, Hooghe & Mari-
en, 2013, p. 91).
This academic controversy gives rise to a range of quantitative studies of off- and
online political participation combined with standard measures of socio-economic sta-
tus (Boulianne, 2009). However, it is difficult to find studies with a clear conclusion.
Many studies find that some groups of the population become mobilized – especially
the young generation – while other groups experience a reinforcement of their existing
socio-economic status (Oser, Hooghe & Marien, 2013, p. 99). The following statement
is an example of such a conclusion: “At present, political engagement on blogs and so-
cial networking sites clearly overcomes the historical underrepresentation of younger
citizens with respect to political activity, but its impact on the socioeconomic stratifica-
tion of participation is less certain” (Schlozman, Verba & Brady, 2011, p. 136).
Another focus within this group of publications is a reflection on the connection
between social capital and political participation (Kittilson & Dalton, 2011; Vreese,
2007). The basic argument here is that interpersonal interaction in civic life is a funda-
mental condition for building social capital, which is a prerequisite for political partici-
pation. Hence, use of ICT will lead to a decrease in social capital. However, the studies
in this review do not confirm this argument. A meta-analysis of 38 studies, conducted
in 2009, concludes: “The meta-data provide strong evidence against the Internet having
a negative effect on engagement. However, the meta-data do not establish that Internet
use will have a substantial impact on engagement” (Boulianne, 2009, p. 193). This
finding is further confirmed by another study, which concludes that: “… those who are
culturally active offline are also active online. The same is true for political activity –
the Internet reinforces rather than changes existing behavior patterns, and the relation-
ship between the online and offline realms is one of supplementation rather than substi-
tution” (Jensen, 2011, p. 15).
Summing up, the theme of mobilization vs. reinforcement is still controversial.
Based on the studies represented in this review, it is not possible to draw clear conclu-
sions about the impact of technology use on political engagement. However, there
seems to be a consensus that technology use does not have a negative effect on political
engagement. The question of whether or not technology use will lead to the mobiliza-
tion of formerly inactive citizens, or merely provide already active citizens with a new
tool for political engagement, still needs further investigation.
The third theme is dealing with the use of digital technologies in political commu-
nication. Under this theme, we find publications concerned with the increased use of
social media resulting in a changing role of TV and hereby a possible lack of a com-
mon public opinion (Gurevitch, Coleman & Blumler, 2009). Other publications inves-
tigate how the internet and social media work as a source of information in connection
with elections (Goh, 2015). They conclude that these technologies are a reliable and
valuable tool for political information seeking.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 11

The last theme is on democracy and citizen participation. A handful of publications

deal with different kinds of activism. Two of these publications describe activism in
China, but from very different perspectives. Jun Liu (2013) analyzes how the use of
mobile communication in two cases made it possible for citizens to share information
about activism, not only locally but also internationally. He concludes that, in these
two cases, mobile communication functioned as a counter-public sphere in which in-
formation about civic activism was spread. Enju Chi (2012) also analyzes cases where
dissidents used the internet to carry out activism. Instead of analyzing how citizens
used the technology, she analyzes censorship responses by the Chinese government.
She identifies three different response strategies that reflect how the government inter-
preted the issue. She concludes:
“In sum, ICT development has led to diverse online participation, but it has also equipped the
government with an effective means to control that participation… The Chinese case analyzed in
this article suggests that the relationship between the Internet and democracy depends on the
government’s strategies and responses” (Chi, 2012, p. 407).
The publications dealing with citizen participation are concerned with how to use ICT
to include citizens in public hearings and rulemaking. One study reports an early hear-
ing among organic farmers in the US, in which they were asked to comment on a rule
proposed by the National Organic Program relating to genetic engineering and other is-
sues (Shulman, 2003). The farmers succeeded in having the proposed rule changed,
and a newspaper reported the episode as a success for citizen participation. However,
the author raises some dilemmas that should be considered before using this form of
deliberative (or discursive) democracy on a larger scale. He concludes:
“Civic dialogue and social capital did not flourish. In terms of discursive democracy, it would be
a mistake to conclude that the Internet allowed a more reflective understanding to emerge on all
sides. Instead, a massive public protest resulted in an unusual accommodation of stakeholder
demands” (Shulman, 2003, p. 262).
This analysis shows that the digital transformation has had a significant impact on the
way citizens engage in political activities. Communication of political issues is trans-
formed from mass-distributed one-way communication via TV to two-way communi-
cation between digital citizens and political parties or candidates by means of social
media and everyday technology. Due to the digital transformation, it is much easier to
find information about political parties and issues and much easier to express an atti-
tude. In expressing their attitudes, digital citizens have a much bigger audience because
their voice is heard not only within their own nation state, but also in principle all over
the world. Using digital technologies for political activism is a double-edged sword,
however. On the one hand, technology creates new possibilities for digital citizens to
mobilize around political activities and disseminate their activism, but on the other
hand, it also creates opportunities for governments to monitor, control, and oppress
digital citizens. The digital transformation also affects the possibilities for citizen par-
ticipation in decision-making. Using digital technologies to promote deliberative de-
mocracy in which digital citizens are directly involved in rule making seems promising
at first glance. However, early experiences in this field created democratic problems by
giving stakeholders a strong influence on lawmaking instead of fostering discursive
democracy.
12 Birgit Jæger

4.3 Digital Public Service

At first glance, the stream of literature on digital public service overlaps with the
stream on political engagement. There is, however, a difference in perspective within
the two streams. Whereas the focus in the stream on political engagement is on the po-
litical rights of citizens, the focus in the stream on digital public service is on the social
rights of citizens to receive public service. Hence, the publications in the stream on
digital public service deal mainly with two themes: 1) how citizens use and assess digi-
tal public services; and 2) the impact of the digital transformation on the relationship
between citizens and public authorities in general, and street level bureaucrats, in par-
ticular (see Table 2).
Under the first theme, we find studies of how to assess digital public services. A
couple of these studies take a point of departure in the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM), and investigate how to overcome the digital divide (Sipior, Ward & Connolly,
2011) or how to test the explanatory power of citizen satisfaction (Cegarra-Navarro,
Eldridge, Martinez-Caro & Polo, 2014). We also find studies of citizens’ digital behav-
iour when using such services (Borchorst, McPhail, Smith, Ferenbok & Clement,
2012), and of how designers can use this knowledge when they design information sys-
tems for digital public service to avoid the exclusion of a particular group of citizens
(Cushman & McLean, 2008). These publications illustrate that there is considerable
emphasis both on how to induce citizens to use digital public services, and on how to
avoid a digital divide.
Under the second theme, we find a couple of publications investigating the impact
of digitalization on encounters between citizens and bureaucrats. For instance, Anja S.
Pors (2015) studies how street-level bureaucrats change their professional competences
when they guide citizens in the use of digital public services instead of solving their
problems directly. In that connection, another study finds that the digitalization of pub-
lic services has resulted in greater exclusion of vulnerable citizens (Schou & Pors,
2018). Yet another study (Lips, 2013) focuses on how citizens’ identity is reconstruct-
ed in their interaction with government agencies. That reconstruction may influence
decisions concerning whether or not a citizen will receive social benefits. Finally, one
study investigates how social work practitioners experience the impact of digital tech-
nology on their traditional face-to-face social work practice (Mishna, Bogo, Root,
Sawyer & Khoury-Kassabri, 2012). The findings show how digital communication has
dramatically changed the nature of professionals’ relationship with citizens.
Taken together, the publications in this stream illustrate that the impact of the digi-
tal transformation is huge when it comes to the interaction between citizens and public
authorities, in general, and is particularly acute in everyday interaction between citi-
zens and street level bureaucrats. The analysis also reveals a concern about how to in-
troduce citizens to digital public services. The underlying assumption in these publica-
tions is a desire to push citizens to use these services and thus they struggle to identify
and remove every obstacle for this use. In this way, there is a push from the public au-
thorities to transform the citizens into digital citizens.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 13

4.4 Training and Learning

The literature in this stream shares an understanding of digital citizenship as entailing

the right to be included in the digital world, and the duty to acquire the competences to
behave correctly on digital platforms and to develop digital literacy. Hence, the content
in this stream is very much in line with Marshall’s description of the social right “to
live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society”
(Marshall, 1992/1950, p. 8). In accordance with this, central institutions are the educa-
tional system, including schools (from preschool to university) and libraries – especial-
ly school libraries. Most of the authors are teachers, librarians, or researchers in the
field of education / pedagogy and information studies.
Very few publications in this stream define the concept of digital citizenship. Most
simply use the term as a label for a certain level of technological competence and an
appropriate digital behavior. These publications take their point of departure in the fact
that, because we now live in a digital age, children need the skills to operate these tech-
nologies and the competences to use the information they find on the web (Acosta,
2014). However, the following definition of digital citizenship is quoted by several other
publications in this stream: “Digital citizenship describes the norms of appropriate, re-
sponsible behavior with regard to technology use” (Ribble, 2009, p. 15). This is a very
broad definition, but it is further divided into nine categories: (1) Etiquette, (2) Commu-
nication, (3) Education, (4) Access, (5) Commerce, (6) Responsibility, (7) Rights, (8)
Safety, (9) Security (self-protection) (Ribble, Bailey & Ross, 2004, p. 7).
The publications can be clustered in six themes (see Table 2). The dominant theme
taken up by most publications deals with practical and pedagogical ways to teach chil-
dren (and citizens in general – some publications are about adult learning) to make smart
and safe use of the different kinds of digital technology. Several publications describe
experiments and practices introducing different technologies in the classroom (Gallagher
& Stewart, 2011). Most of these publications are empirically grounded, such as when
teachers evaluate experiments with technology at their own school (McNeill & Fry,
2012). However, there are also quantitative studies measuring the academic effect of the
use of technology in teaching (Union, Union & Green, 2015). These publications report
on a wide range of different technologies: social media like Facebook and Twitter, cloud
computing, mobile devices (including telephones), and Web 2.0 technologies including
Wiki and blogs. In addition, different concepts like Blended Learning, Flipped Class-
rooms, and Cable in the Classroom are mentioned. Overall, a cluster of very diverse pub-
lications addresses the issue of how to deal with practical and pedagogical challenges, in-
cluding ethical and moral dilemmas (Elsley, Gallagher & Tisdall, 2014), when technolo-
gy becomes part of teaching in schools and higher education institutions.
A second theme deals with teachers’ competences. Some of these publications ad-
dress training programs for teachers and evaluate the standards for these programs
(Ayad & Ajrami, 2017). Others study the development of competences for in-service
teachers (Blackwell & Yost, 2013) or the personal barriers experienced by teachers in
using a given technology (O’Reilly, 2016). A couple of publications study the conse-
quences of the difference between students as ‘native’ users of digital technologies, and
teachers as ‘digital migrants’ (Wang, Hsu, Campbell, Coster & Longhurst, 2014).
The third theme is the role of libraries, notably how librarians and teachers can col-
laborate to teach information competences (Wine, 2016). Some publications study how
14 Birgit Jæger

school libraries have converted into iCenters for educational technology (Hay, 2015),
while others address the transformation of librarians into meta-data specialists (Simsek
& Simsek, 2013). The fourth theme is concerned with online, or distance, learning.
Several publications explore how to overcome the distance between teachers and stu-
dents, and discuss how to create social networks in online learning (Barbour & Plough,
2009) or how to design personal learning environments using Web 2.0 technologies
(Tu, Sujo-montes, Yen, Chan & Blocher, 2012).
The fifth theme contains a cluster of publications on the impact of school leader-
ship on the use of technology in the classroom. Some of these, report on the correlation
between leadership and the use of technology by teachers (Gürfidan & Koç, 2016). In
different ways, these studies conclude that school leadership creates a particular culture
and thereby sets the frame for how teachers use technology in the classroom. A litera-
ture review concludes that there is a huge lack of research on technological leadership
of schools (Richardson, Bathon, Flora & Lewis, 2012). The last theme identified within
this stream is cyber-bullying. The publications within this theme follow Mike S. Rib-
ble’s definition of digital citizenship. They map children’s experience with cyber-
bullying (Peker, 2015), and discuss the connection between ordinary bullying and
cyber-bullying (Modecki, Barber & Vernon, 2013).
The analysis of the literature in the stream on training and learning shows that the
digital transformation of the educational system has a tremendous impact on all in-
volved parties. Teachers have to teach in new ways, including use of different types of
digital technology. Pupils have to learn to behave properly in the digitalized environ-
ment and to avoid cyber-bullying and iPredators. Parents have to engage in the digital
life of their children. School leaders have to take the lead and set up frameworks for the
digitalization of their schools; and librarians have to transform their role from lending
out books to becoming specialists in educational IT systems. Hence, the digital trans-
formation has changed everyday life in public (as well as private) schools in significant
ways.

5 Conclusion

As described in the introduction, the overall purpose of this review is to overcome the
fragmentation of knowledge of the impacts of digital transformation on citizenship by
asking how the academic literature describe the impacts of the transformation into a
digital citizenship. Going through the academic literature on digital citizenship reveals
that the digitalization of society has had a significant impact on the relationship and in-
teraction between the state and its citizens. In all four streams of literature, we found
publications reporting huge impacts.
Given these findings, it is possible to conclude that the systematic literature review
unfolds the different ways citizens experience the impacts of the digital transformation
and, in this way, the review gives a comprehensive picture of the many meanings and
interpretations of digital citizenship. Citizens experience impacts in the way they
communicate with public authorities as well as political institutions. They experience
impacts in the form of surveillance of their private life not only from the national state
but also from companies with a commercial purpose. They also experience impacts in
the educational system where children and young people have to learn to behave in the
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 15

digital environment and teachers have to teach by means of digital technologies. Last,
but not least, citizens experience huge impacts in the way they communicate about po-
litical issues. In this way, the comprehensive picture presented by this review confirms
the earlier mentioned reviews concluding that digital citizenship is a multi-dimensional
and context-dependent concept.
This multi-dimensional and context-dependent aspect of digital citizenship results
in a dilemma in the use of the concept. A finding of this review is that different disci-
plines and institutions drive the different streams of academic literature. Although there
are overlaps here and there, the common picture is that each discipline discusses and
refers to digital citizenship within its own scientific circle. This should not really sur-
prise us. However, the consequence of this is that the different streams define the con-
cept of digital citizenship in different ways, which makes it difficult to discuss digital
citizenship across the different streams and disciplines.
By investigating digital citizenship by means of a systematic and comprehensive
literature review, this review contributes to the academic debate by showing the multi-
plicity of meanings of the concept of digital citizenship. This is important to bear in
mind in future discussions of digital citizenship, not in the sense that every author
should relate to all of the concept’s different meanings; rather, authors in this field
should clearly explain from which perspective, and with which purpose, they address
the topic of digital citizenship. The multi-dimensional and context-dependent character
of digital citizenship obliges us to position ourselves clearly when we take part in aca-
demic discussions on the topic.
The introductory presentation of the concept of digital citizenship raised two fur-
ther questions. The first of these was how the literature described the process of inclu-
sion and exclusion: Is the transformation into a digital citizenship possible for every-
body or does the digital divide still exist? The literature review clearly shows that digi-
tal citizenship has not reached a global expansion. The digital divide still exists for at
least two reasons. The literature reports about parts of the world where the digital infra-
structure is lacking, or not sufficient, and we saw that this situation raises the question
whether or not access to the internet and social media is a human right. In other parts of
the world, the literature reports about governmental control and censorship, which pro-
hibit citizens from using the digital platforms for political purposes. However, the ex-
clusion is not always stemming from external factors, sometimes it is internal factors,
like motivation, that makes citizens reject the usage of digital technologies. This be-
comes visible in the literature on highly digitalized countries such as Denmark. Here,
citizens are obliged to communicate with the public authorities by means of digital
forms and platforms, but the literature reports about citizens who reject using the digi-
tal technologies and instead show up at the town hall to get help to apply for social
benefits. This reveals a dilemma about the transformation into a digital citizenship.
Where most of the reviewed literature takes it for granted that the digital transfor-
mation is an advantage, these studies show that a part of the population is not motivat-
ed to transform into a digital citizenship. Hence, the dilemma is whether the transfor-
mation into a digital citizenship is a human right or if it is a human right to avoid this
transformation.
The second question, raised by the introductory presentation of the concept, con-
tains a concern about how the digital citizen can use digital technologies for political
purposes. This is investigated by asking how the digital technologies change the way
16 Birgit Jæger

citizens interact with the political community. The literature review reveals that the
digital transformation has a huge impact on the way citizens communicate about politi-
cal issues. By means of digital technologies, it is now possible to find political infor-
mation in an easy way just as it is possible to communicate directly with political par-
ties and other political actors. In this way, the review confirms the assumption from the
early literature that the transformation into a digital citizenship is a condition for politi-
cal engagement in a digital world. However, the literature also points at some severe
dilemmas in this transformation. One dilemma is that using digital technologies for po-
litical activism can work like a double-edged sword if the authorities turn it into gov-
ernmental control and surveillance of the single citizen. The other dilemma in this
field, mentioned by the literature, is that the explosion of digital platforms for political
debate can lead to a fragmentation of the public opinion. In the days of national broad-
casting TV, the political debate was informed by arguments from many different posi-
tions whereas the political debate on social media and other digital platforms may be
restricted to only a single political position. In this way, the political debate is taking
place in so-called ecco-chambres where the participants confirm their common opin-
ion, and nobody is confronted with other political opinions. This is probably a dilem-
ma, which will be further investigated in the following years.
Altogether, this systematic and comprehensive literature review clearly shows both
the variety of impacts of the digital transformation on citizenship and the variety of the
concept within academic disciplines.

References

Acosta, Danielle M. (2014). Tweet Up? Examining Twitter’s Impact on Social Capital and Digital
Citizenship in Higher Education. About Campus, (Jan.-Feb.), 10-17.
Ayad, Fuad I. & Ajrami, Sameh J. (2017). The Degree of Implementing ISTE Standards in Technical
Education Colleges of Palestine. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2),
107-118.
Banaszak, Buguslaw & Rodziewicz, Katarzyna (2004). Trust and security. Digital citizen cards in Po-
land. In Traunmuller, R (Ed.), Electronic Government Proceedings, Vol. 3183, 342-346.
Barbour, Michael & Plough, Cory (2009). Social Networking in Cyberschooling: Helping to Make
Online Learning Less Isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 56-60.
Blackwell, Jacqueline & Yost, Nancy (2013). Teacher Education Programs and Technology: Prepar-
ing Teacher Candidates for Working With P-8 Students. Childhood Education, 89(5), 325-327.
Borchorst, Nikolaj G., McPhail, Brenda, Smith, Karen L., Ferenbok, Josef, & Clement, Andrew
(2012). Bridging Identity Gaps-Supporting Identity Performance in Citizen Service Encounters.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work – The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 21(6), 555-
590.
Boulianne, Shelley (2009). Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research. Po-
litical Communication, 26(2), 193-211.
Buente, Wayne (2015). Digital Citizenship or Inequality? Linking Internet Use and Education to
Electoral Engagement in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 35(5/6), 145-157.
Cegarra-Navarro, Juan-Gabriel, Eldridge, Stephen, Martinez-Caro, Eva & Polo, Maria T. S. (2014).
The Value of Extended Framework of TAM in the Electronic Government Services. Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 15-25.
Chi, Enju (2012). The Chinese Government’s Responses to Use of the Internet. Asian Perspective,
36(3), 387-409.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 17

Choi, Moonsun (2016). A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship for Democratic Citizenship Educa-
tion in the Internet Age. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565-607.
Cushman, Mike & McLean, Rachel (2008). Exclusion, inclusion and changing the face of information
systems research. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 213-221.
Dencik, Lina & Cable, Jonathan (2017). The Advent of Surveillance Realism: Public Opinion and
Activist Responses to the Snowden Leaks. International Journal of Communication, 11, 763-
781.
D’Haenens, Leen, Koeman, Joyce & Saeys, Frida (2007). Digital citizenship among ethnic minority
youths in the Netherlands and Flanders. New Media & Society, 9(2), 278-299.
Dijk, Jan van (2005). The Deepening the Divide. Inequality in the Information Society. London:
SAGE Publications.
Elsley, Susan, Gallagher, Michael & Tisdall, Kay M. (2014). The Dilemmas of Digital Methodolo-
gies: Learning From Work on “Young Digital.” International Journal of Child, Youth & Family
Studies, 5(4.1), 702-717.
Gallagher, Frank & Stewart, Kat (2011). Cable in the Classroom. College & Undergraduate Librar-
ies, 18(1), 111-118.
Goh, Debbie (2015). Narrowing the Knowledge Gap: The Role of Alternative Online Media in an
Authoritarian Press System. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 877-897.
Grant, Maria J. & Booth, Andrew (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108.
Gurevitch, Michael, Coleman, Stephen & Blumler, Jay G. (2009). Political Communication – Old and
New Media Relationships. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
625(1), 164-181.
Gürfidan, Hasan & Koç, Mustafa (2016). The Impact of School Culture, Technology Leadership, and
Support Services on Teachers’ Technology Integration: A Structural Equation Modeling. Egitim
ve Bilim, 41(188).
Harris, Francis J. (2010). Teens and Privacy: Myths and Realities. Knowledge Quest, 39(1), 74-79.
Hay, Lyn (2015). The Evolution of the iCentre Model. Teacher Librarian, 42(4), 15-19.
Hintz, Arne & Brown, Ian (2017). Enabling Digital Citizenship? The Reshaping of Surveillance Poli-
cy after Snowden. International Journal of Communication, 11, 782-801.
Isin, Engin F. & Ruppert, Evelyn (2015). Being Digital Citizens. London: Rowman and Littlefeld.
Jensen, Jacob L. (2011). Citizenship in the Digital Age: The Case of Denmark. Policy & Internet,
3(3), Article 4.
Jæger, Birgit (2005). Ældre tæmmer teknologien – og bliver borgere i informationssamfundet. [Old
People Domesticate the Technology – and become Citizens in the Information Society].
Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.
Jæger, Birgit (2020). Digitalisering af den offentlige sektor i et historisk perspektiv. [Digitalization of the
Public Sector in a Historical Perspective]. In Jesper Hundebøl, Anja S. Pors & Lars H. Sørensen
(Eds.). Digitalisering i offentlig forvaltning (pp. 51-74). København: Samfundslitteratur.
Jørring, Louise, Valentim, António & Porten-Cheé, Pablo (2019). Mapping a Changing Field. A Lit-
erature Review on Digital Citizenship. Digital Culture and Society, 4(2), 11-37.
Kittilson, Miki C. & Dalton, Russel J. (2011). Virtual Civil Society: The New Frontier of Social Capi-
tal? Political Behavior, 33(4), 625-644.
Lee, Jungwoo (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-
synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 220-230.
Lips, Miriam B. (2013). Reconstructing, attributing and fixating citizen identities in digital-era gov-
ernment. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 61-70.
Liu, Jun (2013). Mobile Communication, Popular Protests and Citizenship in China. Modern Asian
Studies, 47(3), 995-1018.
Marshall, Thomas Humphrey (1992/1950). Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press.
McNeill, Michael C. & Fry, Joan M. (2012). The Value of ICT from a Learning Game-playing Per-
spective. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport
& Dance, 7(2), 45-51.
18 Birgit Jæger

Mishna, Faye, Bogo, Marion, Root, Jennifer, Sawyer, Jamileigh & Khoury-kassabri, Mona (2012). “It
just crept in”: The Digital Age and Implications for Social Work Practice. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 40(3), 277-286.
Modecki, Kathryn L., Barber, Bonnie L. & Vernon, Lynnette (2013). Mapping Developmental Pre-
cursors of Cyber-Aggression: Trajectories of Risk Predict Perpetration and Victimization. Jour-
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 651-661.
Mossberger, Karen (2008). Toward digital citizenship. Addressing inequality in the information age.
In Chadwick, Andrew & Howard, Philip N.: Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 173-
185). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Norris, Pipa (2001). Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet in Demo-
cratic Societies. Harvard University Press.
Nuccitelli, Michael (2011). iPREDATOR. Forensic Examiner, 20(3), 44-53.
O’Reilly, Erin N. (2016). Developing technology needs assessments for educational programs: An
analysis of eight key indicators. International Journal of Education and Development Using In-
formation and Communication Technology, 12(1), 129-143.
Oser, Jennifer, Hooghe, Marc & Marien, Sofie (2013). Is Online Participation Distinct from Offline
participation? A Latent Class Analysis of Participation Types and Their Stratification. Political
Research Quarterly, 66(1), 91-101.
Oyedemi, Toks (2015). Internet access as citizen’s right? Citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship
Studies, 19(3-4), 450-464.
Peker, Adem (2015). Analyzing the Risk Factors Predicting The Cyberbullying Status of Secondary
School Students. Egitim ve Bilim, 40(181), 57-75.
Pors, Anja S. (2015). Becoming digital ‒ passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy. Journal of
Organizational Ethnography, 4(2), 177-192.
Ribble, Mike S. (2009). Passport to Digital Citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology. De-
cember 2008/January 2009, 14-17.
Ribble, Mike S., Bailey, Gerald D. & Ross, Tweed W. (2004). Digital Citizenship. Addressing Ap-
propriate Technology Behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-13.
Richardson, Jayson W., Bathon, Justin, Flora, Kevin L. & Lewis, Wayne D. (2012). NETS.A Schol-
arship: A Review of Published Literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
45(2), 131-151.
Schlozman, Kay L., Verba, Sidney & Brady, Henry E. (2011). Who Speaks? Citizen Political Voice
on the Internet Commons. Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,
140(4), 121-139.
Schou, Jannick (2018). Remaking Citizenship. Welfare Reform and Public Sector Digitalization.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Business IT. Copenhagen: IT University of Copenhagen.
Schou, Jannick & Pors, Anja S. (2018). Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digital-
ised welfare. Social Policy & Administration, 53(3), 464-477.
Sharma, Ravi, Fantin, Aryul-Raj, Prabhu, Navin, Guan, Chong & Dattakumar, Ambica (2016). Digi-
tal literacy and knowledge societies: A grounded theory investigation of sustainable develop-
ment. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7, SI), 628-643.
Shelley, Mack C., Thrane, Lisa E., Shulman, Stuart W., Lang, Evette, Beisser, Sally, Larson, Teresa
& Mutiti, James (2004). Digital Citizenship: Parameters of the Digital Divide. Social Science
Computer Review, 22(2), 256-269.
Shulman, Stuart W. (2003). An experiment in digital government at the United States National Or-
ganic Program. Agriculture and Human Values, 20(3), 253-265.
Simsek, Eylem & Simsek, Ali (2013). New Literacies for Digital Citizenship. Contemporary Educa-
tional Technology, 4(2), 126-137.
Sipior, Janice C., Ward, Burke T. & Connolly, Regina (2011). The digital divide and t-government in
the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European Jour-
nal of Information Systems, 20(3), 308-328.
Thierer, Adam (2013). The Pursuit of Privacy in a World where Information Control is failing. Har-
vard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36(2), 409-455.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature 19

Tu, Chih-hsiung, Sujo-montes, Laura, Yen, Cherngjyh, Chan, Junn-yih & Blocher, Michael (2012).
The Integration of Personal Learning Environments & Open Network Learning Environments.
TechTrends, 56(3), 13-19.
Turner, Bryan S. (1993). Citizenship and Social Theory. London: SAGE Publications.
Union, Crieg D., Union, Lori W. & Green, Tim D. (2015). The Use of eReaders in the Classroom and
at Home to Help Third-grade Students Improve their Reading and English/ Language Arts
Standardized Test Scores. TechTrends, 59(5), 71-84.
United Nations (2020). E-Government Survey 2020. New York: United Nations.
Vial, Gregory (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal
of Strategic Information Systems Review, 28(2), 118-144.
Vivienne, Sonja, McCosker, Anthony & Johns, Amelia (2016). Digital Citizenship as Fluid Interface:
Between Control, Contest and Culture. In Anthony McCosker, Sonja Vivienne & Amelia Johns
(Eds.). Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture (pp. 1-18). London: Row-
man & Littlefield.
Vreese, Claes H. de (2007). Digital Renaissance: Young Consumer and Citizen? Annals of the Ameri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 207-216.
Wang, Shing-kwei, Hsu, Hui-yin, Campbell, Todd, Coster, Daniel C. & Longhurst, Max (2014). An
investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside
of classrooms: considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 62(6), 637-662.
Warschauer, Marc (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Wine, Lois D. (2016). School Librarians as Technology Leaders: An Evolution in Practice. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 207-220.

Contact the author:

Prof. (em.) Birgit Jæger, PhD, Roskilde University, Department of Social Sciences and
Business, Universitetsvej 1, 26.2, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark, email: birgit@ruc.dk.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature I

Appendix: List of Reviewed Publications

Digital Rights and Privacy – theme 1: Right to use the web and
protection of privacy

1. Abilock, Rigele & Abilock, Debbi (2016). I agree, but do I know? Privacy and Student Data.
Knowledge Quest, 44(4), 10-21.
2. Adams, Helen R. (2016). 65 Yers & Counting: AASL and School Librarians – Still Champi-
ons of Intellectual Freedom. Knowledge Quest, 45(1), 34-41.
3. Bulger, Monica, Burton, Patrick, O’Neill, Brian & Staksrud, Elisabeth (2017). Where policy
and practice collide: Comparing United States, South African and European Union approaches
to protecting children online. New Media & Society, 19(5, SI), 750-764.
DOI: 10.1177/1461444816686325.
4. Farmer, Lesley S. J. (2015). Information as a Human Right. International Journal of Adult Vo-
cational Education and Technology, 6(1), 18-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijavet.2015010102
5. Harris, Francis J. (2010). Teens and Privacy: Myths and Realities. Knowledge Quest, 39(1),
74-79.
6. Hart, Laurel, Lamb, Pamela & Cader, Joshua (2017). Networked Technologies as Sites and
Means of Nonviolence Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Girlhood Studies – An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 10(2), 62-79. https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2017.100206.
7. Kurubacak, Gulsun (2008). Online Identity: Guidelines for Discerning Covert Racism in
Blogs. International Journal on ELearning, 7(3), 403-426.
8. McLean, Rachel & Wainwright, David W. (2009). Social networks, football fans, fantasy and
reality. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 7(1), 54-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14779960910938098.
9. Muir, Adrienne, Spacey, Rachel, Cooke, Louise & Creaser, Clair (2016). Regulating internet
access in UK public libraries: legal compliance and ethical dilemmas. Journal of Information,
Communication & Ethics in Society, 14(1), 87-104.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2015-0005.
10. Neiburger, Eli (2010). User-Generated Content. Library Technology Reports, 46(8), 13-24.
11. Nuccitelli, Michael (2011). iPREDATOR. Forensic Examiner, 20(3), 44-53.
12. Oyedemi, Toks (2015). Internet access as citizen’s right? Citizenship in the digital age. Citi-
zenship Studies, 19(3-4), 450-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2014.970441.
13. Postigo, Hector (2008). Capturing Fair Use for the YouTube Generation: The Digital Rights
Movement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the user-centered framing of fair use. In-
formation, Communication & Society, 11(7), 1008-1027. DOI: 10.1080/13691180802109071.
14. Silva, Alberto J. Cerda (2013). Internet Freedom in not Enough: Towards an Internet based on
Human Rights. SUR – International Journal on Human Rights, 17-31.
15. Sullivan, C. (2016). Digital citizenship and the right to digital identity under international law.
Computer Law & Security Review, 32(3), 474-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.02.001.

Digital Rights and Privacy – theme 2: Surveillance and security

16. Banaszak, Buguslaw & Rodziewicz, Katarzyna (2004). Trust and security. Digital citizen
cards in Poland. In Traunmuller, R (Ed.), Electronic Government Proceedings, Vol. 3183,
342-346.
17. Bargh, Mortaza S., Choenni, Sunil & Meijer, Ronald (2017). On addressing privacy in dissem-
inating judicial data: towards a methodology. Transforming Government: People, Process and
Policy, 11(1), 9-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2015-0051.
18. Dencik, Lina & Cable, Jonathan (2017). The Advent of Surveillance Realism: Public Opinion and
Activist Responses to the Snowden Leaks. International Journal of Communication, 11, 763-781.
II Birgit Jæger

19. Elmaghraby, Adel S. & Losavio, Michael M. (2014). Cyber security challenges in Smart Cit-
ies: Safety, security and privacy. Journal of Advanced Research, 5(4), 491-497.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.02.006.
20. Herrera, Linda (2015). Citizenship under Surveillance: Dealing with the digital Age. Interna-
tional Journal Middle East Studies, 47, 354-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020743815000100.
21. Hintz, Arne, Dencik, Lina, & Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2017). Digital Citizenship and Surveil-
lance Society Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 11, 731-739.
DOI: 1932–8036/20170005.
22. Lyon, David (2017). Surveillance Culture: Engagement, Exposure, and Ethics in Digital Mo-
dernity. International Journal of Communication, 11, 824-842. DOI: 1932–8036/20170005.
23. Pawlowski, Suzanne D. & Jung, Yoonhyuk (2015). Social Representations of Cybersecurity
by University Students and Implications for Instructional Design. Journal of Information Sys-
tems Education, 26(4), 281-294.
24. Rogers, Michael & Eden, Grace (2017). The Snowden Disclosures, Technical Standards, and the
Making of Surveillance Infrastructures. International Journal of Communication, 11, 802-823.
25. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin, Bennett, Lucy & Taylor, Gregory (2017). The Normalization of Sur-
veillance and the Invisibility of Digital Citizenship: Media Debates after the Snowden Revela-
tions. International Journal of Communication, 11, 740-763. DOI: 1932–8036/20170005.
26. Wihlborg, Elin (2013). Secure electronic identification (eID) in the intersection of politics and
technology. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(2), 143-151.
DOI: 10.1504/IJEG.2013.058371.

Digital Rights and Privacy – theme 3:

Law to control the web and the usage of data

27. Alakali, Terfa T., Faga, Hemen P. & Mbursa, Jinatu (2017). Audience Perception of Hate
Speech and Foul Language in the Social Media in Nigeria: Implications for Morality and Law.
Academicus, (15), 166-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2017.15.11.
28. Dunn, Suzanne, Lalonde, Julie S. & Bailey, Jane (2017). Terms of Silence: Weaknesses in
Corporate and Law Enforcement Responses to Cyberviolence against Girls. Girlhood Studies,
10(2), 80-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2017.100207.
29. Hartley, John, Green, Laila & Lumby, Catharine (2010). Refused Classification and the pro-
posed Australian Internet filter: An assault on the Open Society. Australian Journal of Com-
munication, 37(3), 1-14.
30. Henry, Nicola & Powell, Anastacia (2016). Sexual Violence in the Digital Age: The Scope and
Limits of Criminal Law. Social & Legal Studies, 25(4), 397-418.
DOI: 10.1177/0964663915624273.
31. Hintz, Arne & Brown, Ian (2017). Enabling Digital Citizenship? The Reshaping of Surveil-
lance Policy after Snowden. International Journal of Communication, 11, 782-801.
DOI: 1932–8036/20170005.
32. O’Hara, Kieron (2017). Smart Contracts Dumb Idea. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(2), 97-101.
DOI: 10.1109/MIC.2017.48.
33. Rowbottom, Jacob (2012). To Rant, Vent and Converse: Protecting Low Level Digital Speech.
The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(2), 355-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197312000529.
34. Tanel, Kerikmäe & Sandra, Särav (2015). Legal Impediments in the EU to New Technologies
in the Example of E-Residency. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 8(2), 71-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2015-0019.
35. Thierer, Adam (2013). The Pursuit of Privacy in a World where Information Control is failing.
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36(2), 409-455.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature III

36. Tsoukalas, Ioannis A. & Siozos, Panagiotis D. (2011). Privacy and Anonymity in the Infor-
mation Society ‒ Challenges for the European Union. The Scientific World Journal, 11, 458-
462. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2011.46.

Political Engagement – theme 1:

Inclusion and identity vs. exclusion and digital divide
37. Alexander, Cynthia J., Adamson, Agar, Daborn, Graham, Houston, John & Tootoo, Victor
(2009). Inuit Cyberspace: The Struggle for Access for Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Journal of Ca-
nadian Studies, 43(2), 220-249. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.43.2.220.
38. Crnic, Tanja O. (2013). Slovenians Offline: Class and Cultural Aspects of Digital Exclusion.
Sociologicky Casopis, 49(6), 927-949.
39. D’Haenens, Leen, Koeman, Joyce & Saeys, Frida (2007). Digital citizenship among ethnic
minority youths in the Netherlands and Flanders. New Media & Society, 9(2), 278-299.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075013.
40. De Moraes, Joao & de Andrade, Eloisa (2015). Who are the citizens of the digital citizenship?
International Review of Information Ethics, 23, 4-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-014-9252-9.
41. Drakopoulou, Sophia, Grossman, Wendy & Moore, Phoebe (2016). The campaign for digital
citizenship. Soundings, (62), 107-120.
42. Goode, Luke (2010). Cultural Citizenship Online: the Internet and digital culture. Citizenship
Studies, 14(5), 527-542. DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2010.506707.
43. Howard, Phillip N., Busch, Laura & Sheets, Penelope (2010). Comparing Digital Divides: In-
ternet Access and Social Inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of
Communication, 35(1), 109-128. DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2010v35n1a2192.
44. Jørring, Louise, Valentim, António & Porten-Cheé, Pablo (2019). Mapping a Changing Field.
A Literature Review on Digital Citizenship. Digital Culture and Society, 4(2), 11-37.
DOI: 10.14361/dcs-2018-0203.
45. Kamila, Kanchan (2011). Digital Divide: Causes and Initiatives to Bridge. International Jour-
nal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 1(1), 1.
46. Marichal, Jose (2013). Political Facebook groups: Micro-activism and the digital front stage.
First Monday, 18(12). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i12.4653.
47. McCosker, Anthony (2015). Untangling Digital Citizenship. Isin, Engin & Ruppert, Evelyn.
Being Digital Citizens. (Book review). http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/csr.v21i2.4646.
48. McLean, Rachel (2008). Pixel Chix and Digi Guys: Exploring the Experiences of the “Digital
Citizen” in Two Contexts. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 4(2),
1-21. DOI: 10.4018/jthi.2008040101.
49. Mossberger, Karen, Tolbert, Caroline J. & Anderson, Christopher (2017). The mobile Internet
and digital citizenship in African-American and Latino communities. Information Communica-
tion & Society, 20(10), 1587-1606. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1243142.
50. Nita, Viorel (2011). An Extended Approach to E-inclusion and its Implications for Romania.
Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 11(1), 63-80.
51. Ong, Aihwa (2005). (Re)Articulations of Citizenship. Political Science & Politics, Oct. 2005,
697-699.
52. Oyedemi, Toks (2015). Participation, citizenship and internet use among South African youth.
Telematics and Informatics, 32, 11-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2014.08.002.
53. Pentzaropoulos, Georgios C. & Tsiougou, Despoina (2014). E-Inclusion Policies for Contem-
porary Knowledge Economies and Societies: An Examination of the Main Issues. Journal of
Social Research & Policy, 5(1), 77-89.
54. Poster, Mark (2002). Digital Networks and Citizenship. PMLA, 117(1), 98-103.
IV Birgit Jæger

55. Schou Jannick (2018). Remaking Citizenship. Welfare Reform and Public Sector Digitaliza-
tion. Ph.D. dissertation from IT University of Copenhagen.
56. Shade, Leslie R. (2003). Here comes the DOT force! Gazette, 65(2), 107-120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549203065002001.
57. Sharma, Ravi, Fantin, Aryul-Raj, Prabhu, Navin, Guan, Chong & Dattakumar, Ambica (2016).
Digital literacy and knowledge societies: A grounded theory investigation of sustainable de-
velopment. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7, SI), 628-643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.05.003.
58. Shelley, Mack C., Thrane, Lisa E. & Shulman, Stuart W. (2006). Lost in cyberspace: barriers
to bridging the digital divide in e-politics. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise
Management, 4(3), 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIEM.2006.010916.
59. Shelley, Mack C., Thrane, Lisa E., Shulman, Stuart W., Lang, Evette, Beisser, Sally, Larson,
Teresa & Mutiti, James (2004). Digital Citizenship: Parameters of the Digital Divide. Social
Science Computer Review, 22(2), 256-269. DOI: 10.1177/0894439303262580.
60. Spiranec, Sonja, Banek Zorica, Mihaela & Kos, Denis. (2016). Information Literacy in partici-
patory environments. Journal of Documentation, 72(2), 247-264.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2015-0072.
61. Vivienne, Sonja, McCosker, Anthony & Johns, Amelia (2016). Digital Citizenship as Fluid In-
terface: Between Control, Contest and Culture. In Anthony McCosker, Sonja Vivienne &
Amelia Johns (Eds.). Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture, 1-18.
London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Political Engagement – theme 2:

The mobilization vs. the reinforcement theses

62. Anduiza, Eva, Gallego, Aina & Cantijoch, Marta (2010). Online Political participation in
Spain: The Impact of Traditional and Internet Resources. Journal of Information Technology
& Politics, 7(4), 356-368. DOI: 10.1080/19331681003791891.
63. Boulianne, Shelley (2009). Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Re-
search. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211. DOI: 10.1080/10584600902854363.
64. Buente, Wayne (2015a). Digital Citizenship or Inequality? Linking Internet Use and Education
to Electoral Engagement in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 35(5/6), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467615624756.
65. Buente, Wayne (2015b). Relating digital citizenship to informed citizenship online in the 2008
U.S. presidential election. Information Polity, 20(4), 269. DOI: 10.3233/IP-150375.
66. De Marco, Stefano, Robles, Jose M. & Antino, Mirko (2014). Digital skills as a conditioning
factor for digital political participation. The European Journal of Communication Research,
39(1), 43-65. DOI: 10.1515/commun-2014-0004.
67. Fink, Mitja H. & Crnic, Tanja O. (2014). Digital Citizenship as Multiple Political Participation?
Predictors of Digital Political Participation in Slovenia. Teorija in Praksa, 51(6), 1284-1303.
68. Gainous, Jason, Marlowe, Adam D. & Wagner, Kevin M. (2013). Traditional Cleavages or a
New World: Does Online Social Networking Bridge the Political Participation Divide? Inter-
national Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 26(2), 145-158.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9130-2.
69. Jensen, Jacob L. (2011). Citizenship in the Digital Age: The Case of Denmark. Policy & Inter-
net, 3(3), Article 4. DOI: 10.2202/1944-2866.1106.
70. Kittilson, Miki C. & Dalton, Russel J. (2011). Virtual Civil Society: The New Frontier of So-
cial Capital? Political Behavior, 33(4), 625-644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9143-8.
71. Macintosh, Ann (2008). The emergence of digital governance. Significance, 5(4), 176-178.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2008.00325.x.
72. Nam, Taewoo (2012). Dual effects of the internet on political activism: Reinforcing and mobi-
lizing. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 90-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.08.010.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature V

73. Ognyanova, Katehrine, Nien-Tsu, Nancy C., Ball-Rokeach, Sandra, Zheng, An, Son, Minhee,
Parks, Michael & Gerson, Daniela (2013). Online Participation in a Community Context: Civ-
ic Engagement and Connections to Local Communication Resources. International Journal of
Communication, 7, 2433-2456. DOI: 1932-8036/20130005.
74. Oser, Jennifer, Hooghe, Marc & Marien, Sofie (2013). Is Online Participation Distinct from
Offline participation? A Latent Class Analysis of Participation Types and Their Stratification.
Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912436695.
75. Schlozman, Kay L., Verba, Sidney & Brady, Henry E. (2011). Who Speaks? Citizen Political
Voice on the Internet Commons. Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts &
Sciences, 140(4, 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00119.
76. Shelley, Marc C., Thrane, Lisa E. & Shulman, Stuart W. (2006). Generational differences in
information technology use and political involvement. International Journal of Electronic
Government Research, 2(1), 35-53.
77. Vreese, Claes H. de (2007). Digital Renaissance: Young Consumer and Citizen? Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 207-216.
DOI: 10.1177/0002716206298521.

Political Engagement – theme 3: Communication of political issues

78. Carter, Matt (1999). Speaking up in the Internet age: Use and value of constituent e-mail and
congressional Web-sites. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 464-479.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/52.3.464.
79. Dominici, Piero (2017). Of Security and Liberty, of Control and Cooperation. Terrorism and
the New Ecosystem of Communication. Italian Sociological Review, 7(2), 201-220.
80. Goh, Debbie (2015). Narrowing the Knowledge Gap: The Role of Alternative Online Media in
an Authoritarian Press System. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 877-
897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596336.
81. Gurevitch, Michael, Coleman, Stephen & Blumler, Jay G. (2009). Political Communication –
Old and New Media Relationships. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 625(1), 164-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716209339345.
82. Hermes, Joke (2006). Citizenship in the Age of the Internet. European Journal of Communica-
tion, 21(3), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323106066634.
83. Johnson, Thomas J., Braima, Mahmoud A. M. & Sothirajah, Jayanthi (1999). Doing the tradi-
tional media sidestep: Comparing the effects of the Internet and other nontraditional media
with traditional media in the 1996 Presidential campaign. Journalism and Mass Communica-
tion Quarterly, 76(1), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600108.
84. Johnson, Thomas J., & Kaye, Barbara K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining
how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 79(3), 619-642. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900207900306.
85. Kaye, Barbara K., & Johnson, Thomas J. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifica-
tions of the Web for political information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(1),
54-71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4.
86. Mancini, Paolo (1999). New Frontiers in Political Professionalism. Political Communication,
16(3), 231-245. DOI: 10.1080/105846099198604.
87. O’Hara, Kieron (2013). Welcome to (and from) the Digital Citizen. IEEE Internet Computing,
January/February, 92-95. DOI: 10.1109/MIC.2013.17.
88. Sinclair, Betsy & Wray, Michael (2015). Googling the Top Two: Information Search in Cali-
fornia’s Top Two Primary. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 7(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/P2cjpp7125443.
VI Birgit Jæger

Political Engagement – theme 4: Democracy and participation

89. Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E. & Trechsel, Alexander H. (2009). Internet Voting in Com-
parative Perspective: The Case of Estonia. Political Science & Politics, 42(3), 497-505.
DOI: 10.1017/S1049096509090787.
90. Barassi, Veronica (2017). Digital citizens? Data traces and family life. Contemporary Social
Science, 12(1-2, SI), 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1338353.
91. Chi, Enju (2012). The Chinese Government’s Responses to Use of the Internet. Asian Perspec-
tive, 36(3), 387-409.
92. Couldry, Nick, Stephansen, Hilde, Fotopoulou, Aristea, MacDonald, Richard, Clark, Wilma &
Dickens, Luke (2014). Digital citizenship? Narrative exchange and the changing terms of civic
culture. Citizenship Studies, 18: 6-7, 615-629. DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2013.865903.
93. Crnic, Tanja O. (2017). Neglected or Just Misunderstood? The Perception of Youth and Digi-
tal Citizenship Among Slovenian Political Parties. Teorija in Praksa, 54(SI), 96-111.
94. Dahlberg, Lincoln (2010). Cyber-libertarianism 2.0: a discourse theory/critical political econ-
omy examination. Cultural Politics, 6(3), 331-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174310X12750685679753.
95. Elovaara, Pirjo & Mörtberg, Christina (2007). Design of Digital Democracies: Performances
of Citizenship, gender and IT. Information, Communication & Society, 10(3), 404-423.
DOI: 10.1080/13691180701410091.
96. Fauzanafi, Muhammad Z. (2016). Searching for Digital Citizenship: Fighting Corruption in
Banten, Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 9(2), 289-294.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14764/10.ASEAS-2016.2-7.
97. Gainous, Jason, Wagner, Kevin M. & Gray, Tricia (2016). Internet freedom and social media
effects: democracy and citizen attitudes in Latin America. Online Information Review, 40(5),
712-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10767-013-9130-2.
98. García-Galera, Maria-Carmen, del-Hoyo-Hurtado, Mercedes & Fernández-Muñoz, Cristóbal
(2014). Engaged Youth in the Internet. The Role of Social Networks in Social Active Partici-
pation. Comunicar, 22(43), 35-43.
99. García-Galera, Maria-Carmen, Muñoz, Cristóbal F. & Leticia Porto, Pedrosa (2017). Youth
empowerment through social networks. Creating participative digital citizenship. Communica-
tion & Society, 30(3), 129-140. DOI: 10.15581/003.30.3.129-140.
100. Gavilan, Diana, Martinez-Navarro, Gema & Fernández-Lores, Susana (2017). University Stu-
dents and Informational Social Networks: Total Sceptics, Dual Moderates or Pro-Digitals TT.
Comunicar, 25(53), 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C53-2017-06.
101. Gertrudis-Casado, Maria-Carmen, Gértrudix-Barrio, Manuel & Álvarez-García, Sergio (2016).
Professional Information Skills and Open Data. Challenges for Citizen Empowerment and So-
cial Change. Comunicar, 24(47), 39-47. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C47-2016-04.
102. Gilman, Hollie R. (2017). Civic Tech For Urban Collaborative Governance. Political Science
& Politics, 50(3), 744-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000531.
103. Hjelholt, Morten & Schou, Jannick (2017). Digital Lifestyles Between Solidarity, Discipline
and Neoliberalism: On the Historical Transformations of the Danish IT Political Field from
1994 to 2016. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, Journal for a Global Sustain-
able Information Society, 15(1), 370-389. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i1.844.
104. Iliadis, Andrew (2015). The Right to Nonparticipation for Global Digital Citizenship. Interna-
tional Review of Information Ethics, 23, 20-34.
105. Isikli, Sevki (2015). Digital Citizenship: An Actual Contribution to Theory of Participatory
Democracy. Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 6(18), 21-37.
DOI: 10.5824/1309-1581.2015.1.002.x.
106. Jin, Dal Y. (2016). Understanding Civic Engagement in the Smartphone Era: Corporate Sphere
vs. Public Sphere. Development and Society, 45(2), 353-378.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21588/dns/2016.45.2.008.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature VII

107. Johns, Amelia (2014). Muslim Young People Online: “Acts of Citizenship” in Socially Net-
worked Spaces. Social Inclusion, 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/si.v2i2.168.
108. Kim, Jongtae J., Kim, Jongtae J. & Kim, Andrew H. (2014). The communication adaptiveness
and power dynamics of the state, the market, and civil society in the information age: the case
of Korea. Information Communication & Society, 17(8), 956-973.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.869241.
109. Liu, Jun (2013). Mobile Communication, Popular Protests and Citizenship in China. Modern
Asian Studies, 47(3), 995-1018. DOI: 10.1017/S0026749X12000340.
110. Loader, Brian D., Vromen, Ariadne & Xenos, Michael A. (2014). The networked young citi-
zen: social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication
& Society, 17(2), 143-150. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571.
111. Macintosh, Ann, Gordon, Thomas F. & Renton, Alastair (2009). Providing Argument Support
for E-Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(1), 43-59.
DOI: 10.1080/19331680802662113.
112. Marchi, Regina (2017). News Translators: Latino Immigrant Youth, Social Media, and Citi-
zenship Training. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 189-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077699016637119.
113. McCosker, Anthony (2014). Trolling as provocation: YouTube’s agonistic publics. Conver-
gence – The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(2), 201-217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856513501413.
114. McCosker, Anthony & Johns, Amelia (2014). Contested Publics: Racist Rants, Bystander Ac-
tion and Social Media Acts of Citizenship. Media International Australia, (151), 66-72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1415100109.
115. Meng, Qingguo, Zhang, Nan, Zhao, Xuejiao, Li, Fangling & Guan, Xin (2016). The govern-
ance strategies for public emergencies on social media and their effects: a case study based on
the microblog data. Electronic Markets, 26(1), 15-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0202-1.
116. Nielsen, Rasmus K. (2010). Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduc-
tion of citizenship in political campaigns. New Media & Society, 13(5), 755-771.
DOI: 10.1177/1461444810380863.
117. O’Neill, Brian (2013). Who cares? Practical ethics and the problem of underage users on social
networking sites. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(4), 253-262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9331-4.
118. O’Neill, Brian (2015). Ecological perspectives and children’s use of the Internet: exploring
micro to macro level analysis. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 3(2), 32-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/eha.2015.3.2.02b.
119. Ramasubramanian, Srividya (2016). Racial/ethnic identity, community-oriented media initia-
tives, and transmedia storytelling. Information Society, 32(5), 333-342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1212618.
120. Schou, Jannick & Hjelholt, Morten (2018). Digital Citizenship and Neoliberalization: Govern-
ing Digital Citizens in Denmark. Citizenship Studies, 22(5), 507-522.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1477920.
121. Schou, Jannick & Hjelholt, Morten (2017). Digitalizing the Welfare State: Citizenship Dis-
courses in Danish Digitalization Strategies from 2002 to 2015. Critical Policy Studies, 1-20.
Online First: https//doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1333441.
122. Sendag, Serkan & Toker, Sacip (2016). Factors Affecting Participation of Preservice Teachers
in E-Democracy. Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 30-46.
123. Shirazi, Farid (2010). The emancipatory role of information and communication technology.
Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 8(1), 57-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14779961011024819.
124. Shulman, Stuart W. (2003). An experiment in digital government at the United States National
Organic Program. Agriculture and Human Values, 20(3), 253-265.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026104815057.
VIII Birgit Jæger

125. Shulman, Stuart W., Schlosberg, David, Zavestoski, Steve & Courard-Hauri, David (2003).
Electronic Rulemaking: A Public Participation Research Agenda for the Social Sciences. So-
cial Science Computer Review, 21(2), 162-178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303021002003.
126. Shulman, Stuart W. (2009). The Case Agains Mass E-mails: Perverse Incentives and Low
Quality Public Participation in U.S. Federal Rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1), 23-53.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1010.
127. Tartoussied, Karim (2011). Virtual Citizenship: Islam, culture, and politics in the digital age.
International Journal of Culture Policy, 17(2), 198-208.
DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2010.550683.
128. Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2016). The internet and desire to move: The role of virtual prac-
tices in the inspiration phase of migration. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geo-
grafie, 107(3), 257-269. DOI: 10.1111/tesg.12144.
129. Van Zoonen, Liesbet, Vis, Farida & Mihelj, Sabina (2010). Performing citizenship on
YouTube: activism, satire and online debate around the anti-Islam video Fitna. Critical Dis-
course Studies, 7(4), 249-26210. DOI: 1080/17405904.2010.511831.
130. Zavestoski, Stephen & Shulman, Stuart W. (2002). The Internet and environmental decision
making: An introduction. Organization & Environment, 15(3), 323-327.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026602153009.

Digital Public Service – theme 1: Citizens’ usage of digital public services

131. Aladalah, Mohammed, Cheung, Yen & Lee, Vincent (2015). Enabling Citizen Participation in
Gov 2.0: An Empowerment Perspective. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 13(2), 77-93.
132. Altinay, Zehra, Saner, Tulen, Bahcelerli, Nesrin M. & Altinay, Fahriye (2016). The Role of
Social Media Tools: Accessible Tourism for Disabled Citizens. Educational Technology & So-
ciety, 19(1), 89-99.
133. Bataineh, Lana & Abu-Shanab, Emad (2016). How perceptions of E-participation levels influ-
ence the intention to use E-government websites. Transforming Government: People, Process
and Policy, 10(2), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2015-0058.
134. Borchorst, Nikolaj G., McPhail, Brenda, Smith, Karen L., Ferenbok, Josef, & Clement, An-
drew (2012). Bridging Identity Gaps-Supporting Identity Performance in Citizen Service En-
counters. Computer Supported Cooperative Work – The Journal of Collaborative Computing,
21(6), 555-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9163-5.
135. Broome P. A. (2015). Before e-governance and e-government, back to basics! the case of the
Caribbean. SAGE Open, 5(3). DOI: 10.1177/2158244015603106.
136. Cegarra-Navarro, Juan-Gabriel, Eldridge, Stephen, Martinez-Caro, Eva & Polo, Maria T. S.
(2014). The Value of Extended Framework of TAM in the Electronic Government Services.
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 15-25.
137. Clark, Benjamin, Brudney, Jeffrey L. & Jang, Sung-Gheel (2013). Coproduction of Govern-
ment Service and the New Information Technology: Investigating the Distributional Biases.
Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687-701. DOI: 10.1111/ puar.12092.
138. Cushman, Mike & McLean, Rachel (2008). Exclusion, inclusion and changing the face of in-
formation systems research. Information Technology & People, 21(3), 213-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840810895993.
139. Gertrudix, Manuel, Gertrudis-Casado, Maria-Carmen & Alvarez-Garcia, Sergio (2016). Con-
sumption of Public Institutions’ Open Data by Spanish Citizens. Profesional de la Infor-
macion, 25(4), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.jul.03.
140. McNeal, Ramona, Hale, Kathleen & Dotterweich, Lisa (2008). Citizen-Government Interac-
tion and the Internet: Expectations and Accomplishments in Contact, Quality, and Trust. Jour-
nal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(2), 213-299.
DOI: 10.1080/19331680802298298.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature IX

141. Paskaleva, Krassimira (2008). Assessing Local Readiness for City E-Governance in Europe.
International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4(4), 17-36.
DOI: 10.4018/jegr.2008100102.
142. Ramos, Regner (2016) Driving Screens: Space, Time, and Embodiment in the Use of Waze. In
C. Travis & A. Von Lunen (Eds.) Digital Arts and Humanities: Neogeography, Social Media
and Big Data Integrations and Applications, 139-150. London: Springer Geography.
143. Sipior, Janice C., Ward, Burke T. & Connolly, Regina (2011). The digital divide and t-
government in the United States: using the technology acceptance model to understand usage.
European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 308-328.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.64.
144. Zhao, Fang, Wallis, Joseph & Singh, Mohini (2015). E-government development and the digi-
tal economy: a reciprocal relationship. Internet Research, 25(5), 734-766.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2014-0055.

Digital Public Service – theme 2:

Relationship between citizens and bureaucrats

145. Cindio, Fiorella de & Ripamonti, Laura A. (2010). Nature and roles for community networks
in the information society. AI & Soc, 25, 265-278. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-009-0261-y.
146. Cobo, Cristobal (2012). Networks for citizen consultation and citizen sourcing of expertise.
Contemporary Social Science, 7(3), 283. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.683445.
147. Craig, Shelly L., Mcinroy, Lauren B., Mccready, Lance T., Di Cesare, Dane M. & Pettaway,
Lincoln D. (2015). Connecting Without Fear: Clinical Implications of the Consumption of In-
formation and Communication Technologies by Sexual Minority Youth and Young Adults.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 159-168. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0505-2.
148. Lips, Miriam B. (2013). Reconstructing, attributing and fixating citizen identities in digital-era
government. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 61-70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443712464559.
149. Mishna, Faye, Bogo, Marion, Root, Jennifer, Sawyer, Jamileigh & Khoury-kassabri, Mona
(2012). “It just crept in”: The Digital Age and Implications for Social Work Practice. Clinical
Social Work Journal, 40(3), 277-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-012-0383-4.
150. Nam, Taewoo (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward Open Government and Government 2.0. In-
ternational Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2). 346-368.
DOI: 10.1177/0020852312438783.
151. Nam, Taewoo (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Gov-
ernment Information Quarterly, 29, 12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005.
152. Pors, Anja S. (2015). Becoming digital ‒ passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy.
Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(2), 177-192.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031.
153. Rybnikova, Irma (2014). E-Democracy or E-Domination? Critical Observations of One E-
Democracy Tool In A Local Governance Institution In Lithuania. Santalka : Filosofija, Komu-
nikacija, 22(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/cpc.2014.01.
154. Schou, Jannick & Pors, Anja S. (2018). Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in
digitalised welfare. Social Policy & Administration, 53(3), 464-477.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12470.
155. Tolbert, Caroline J., Mossberger, Karen & McNeal, Ramona (2008). Institutions, Policy Inno-
vation, and E-Government in the American States. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 549-
563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.x.
X Birgit Jæger

Training and Learning – theme 1: Pedagogical ways to teach with ICT

156. Acosta, Danielle M. (2014). Tweet Up? Examining Twitter’s Impact on Social Capital and
Digital Citizenship in Higher Education. About Campus, (Jan.-Feb.), 10-17.
DOI: 10.1002/abc.21139.
157. Agodzo, Divine (2016). “Burying Their Heads in the Sand”: Critical Race Media Literacy &
Surrey School District Teachers. Multicultural Education, 24(1), 25-30.
158. Agosto, Denise E. & Abbas, June (2016). Simple Tips for Helping Students Become Safer,
Smarter Social Media Users. Knowledge Quest, 44(4), 42-47.
159. Aksal, Fahriye A. & Gazi, Zehra A. (2015). Examination on ICT Integration into Special Edu-
cation Schools for Developing Countries. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 14(3).
160. Alonso, Ángel S. M. & del Dujo, Ángel G. (2016). Pedagogic dilemmas to flows of
knowledge in the age of digital technology. International Journal of Educational Technology
in Higher Education, 13, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0030-1.
161. Alqahtani, Abdullah, Alqahtani, Fatimah & Alqurashi, Mohammed (2017). The Extent of
Comprehension and Knowledge with Respect to Digital Citizenship among Middle Eastern
and US Students at UNC. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 96-102.
162. Altinay, Fahriye, Dagli, Gokmen, & Altınay, Zehra (2017). Role of technology and manage-
ment in tolerance and reconciliation education. Quality and Quantity, 51(6), 2725-2736.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0419-x.
163. Altinay, Zehra, Ossiannilsson, Ebba, Kalac, Mustafa O., Basari, Gülsün, Aktepebasi, Ali & Al-
tinay, Fahriye (2016). Establishing a Framework on OER Practices for ICT Competence of
Disabled Citizens. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3).
164. Al-Zahrani, Abdulrahman (2015). Toward Digital Citizenship: Examining Factors Affecting
Participation and Involvement in the Internet Society among Higher Education Students. In-
ternational Education Studies, 8(12), 203-217.
165. Amiri, Shahram (2009). The effects of information and communication technology on at risk
children of low economic status: Make It-Take It After-School Case Study. International
Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology,
5(3), A1-A7.
166. Area, Manuel & Sanabria, Ana L. (2014). Changing the rules: from textbooks to PLEs. Cultu-
ra Y Educacion, 26(4, SI), 802-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2014.979068.
167. Area-Moreira, Manuel, Hernández-Rivero, Victor & Sosa-Alonso, Juan-José (2016). Models
of educational integration of ICTs in the classroom. Comunicar, 24(47), 79-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C47-2016-08.
168. Arnold, Nike (2013). The Role of Methods Textbooks in Providing Early Training for Teach-
ing with Technology in the Language Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 230-245.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12020.
169. Başak, Mehmet H. & Ayvacı, Hakan Ş. (2017). A Comparison is aimed at the Integration of
the Technology in Education System; As an Example of “Turkey and South Korea.” Egitim ve
Bilim, 42(190).
170. Becker, Ryan & Bishop, Penny (2016). “Think bigger about science”: Using Twitter for learn-
ing in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 47(3), 4-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2016.1135097.
171. Besnoy, Kevin D., Dantzler, John A. & Siders, James A. (2012). Creating a Digital Ecosystem
for the Gifted Education Classroom. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 305-325.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12461005.
172. Blithe, Sarah J., Carrera, Winter & Medaille, Ann (2015). Stories of Service-Learning: Guide-
lines for Increasing Student Engagement with Digital Storytelling. Journal of Library Innova-
tion, 6(1), 60-74.
173. Borthwick, Arlene C., Anderson, Cindy L., Finsness, Elizabeth S. & Foulger, Teresa S. (2015).
Special Article Personal Wearable Technologies in Education: Value or Villain? Journal of
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XI

Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(3), 85-92.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982.
174. Boyer, Wanda & Crippen, Carolyn L. (2014). Learning and Teaching in the 21st Century: An
Education Plan for the New Millennium Developed in British Columbia, Canada. Childhood
Education, 90(5), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.952218.
175. Brown, Abbie & van Tryon, Patricia J. S. (2010). Twenty-First Century Literacy: A Matter of
Scale from Micro to Mega. The Clearing House, 83(6), 235-238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2010.484438.
176. Buckingham, David & Martinez-Rodriguez, Juan B. (2013). Interactive Youth: New Citizen-
ship between Social Networks and School Settings. Comunicar, 40, 10-13.
DOI: 10.3916/C40-2013-02-00.
177. Cabiness, Cathrine, Donovan, Loretta & Green, Tim D. (2013). Integrating Wikis in the Sup-
port and Practice of Historical Analysis Skills. TechTrends, 57(6), 38-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0700-y.
178. Campbell, Chris (2013). Pedagogies afforded by new technologies: The introduction of iPods
in one secondary school. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 8(3), 169-178.
https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.3.169.
179. Careless, Erin J. (2015). “Typing Back”: Social Media as Space for Critical Discourse. New
Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 27(3), 50-55.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20111.
180. Cause, Lesley J. & Chen, Dora W. (2010). A Tablet Computer for Young Children? Exploring
Its Viability for Early Childhood Education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
27(3), 50-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562.
181. Chan, Majorie & Pallapu, Prasanthi (2012). An Exploratory Study on the Use of VoiceThread
in a Business Policy Course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 223.
182. Charania, Amina & Davis, Niki (2016). A Smart Partnership: Integrating Educational Tech-
nology for Underserved Children in India. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
19(3), 99-109.
183. Cheng, Gary & Chau, Juliana (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles,
online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a
blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243.
184. Cho, Vincent (2017). Vision, Mission, and Technology Implementation: Going One-to-One in
a Catholic School. Journal of Catholic Education, 20(2), 177-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.2002082017.
185. Choi, Moonsun (2016). A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship for Democratic Citizenship
Education in the Internet Age. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565-607.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549.
186. Choi, Moonsun, Glassman, Michael & Cristol, Dean (2017). What it means to be a citizen in
the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers &
Education, 107, 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002.
187. Cihak, David F., Wright, Rachel, McMahon, Don, Smith, Cate C. & Kraiss, Kelly (2015). In-
corporating Functional Digital Literacy Skills as Part of the Curriculum for High School Stu-
dents with Intellectual Disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disa-
bilities, 50(2), 155-171.
188. Clark, Lisa D. (2012). Technology and ethical/moral dilemmas of higher education in the
twenty-first century. Campus ‒ Wide Information Systems, 29(5), 358-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741211275116.
189. Clarke, Lane W. (2014). Reader Response 2.0: Using Technology to Support Literacy Growth.
New England Reading Association Journal, 50(1), 44-49.
190. Cohen, Jonathan D., Renken, Maggie & Calandra, Brendan (2017). Urban Middle School Stu-
dents, Twenty-First Century Skills, and STEM-ICT Careers: Selected Findings from a Front-
End Analysis. TechTrends, 61(4), 380-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0170-8.
XII Birgit Jæger

191. Cohen, Sydnye (2012). Apps Meet the Common Core State Standards in Writing. Teacher Li-
brarian, 40(2), 32-35, 38-39.
192. Coskun, Yelkin D. (2015). Promoting Digital Change in Higher Education: Evaluating The
Curriculum Digitalisation. Journal of International Education Research, 11(3), 197-204.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v11i3.9371.
193. Couros, Alec (2009). Open, connected, social ‒ implications for educational design. Campus ‒
Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650740910967393.
194. Crichton, Susan, Pegler, Karen & White, Duncan (2012). Personal Devices in Public Settings:
Lessons Learned from an iPod Touch/iPad Project. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 10(1),
23-31.
195. Davis, Vicki (2009). Influencing Positive Change: The Vital Behaviors to Turn Schools to-
ward Success. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 8-12.
196. De Abreu, Belinha (2010). Changing Technology = Empowering Students through Media Lit-
eracy Education. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 26-33.
197. Denton, David W. (2012). Enhancing Instruction through Constructivism, Cooperative Learn-
ing, and Cloud Computing. TechTrends, 56(4), 34-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0585-1.
198. Domine, Vanessa (2011). Think Global, Act Local: Expanding the Agenda for Media Literacy
Education in the United States. Library Trends, 60(2), 440-453. DOI: 10.1353/lib.2011.0038.
199. Donohue, Chip & Schomburg, Roberta (2017). Technology and Interactive Media in Early
Childhood Programs. Young Children, 72(4), 72-78.
200. Dron, Jon & Ostashewski, Nathaniel (2015). Seeking Connectivist Freedom and Instructivist
Safety in a MOOC. Educacion XX1, 18(2), 51-76. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.13464.
201. Eagle, Lynne (2007). Commercial Media Literacy: What Does It Do, to Whom – and Does It
Matter? Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 101-110.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360207.
202. Ellison, Tisha L. & Evans, Jessica N. (2016). Minecraft, Teachers, Parents, and Learning:
What They Need to Know and Understand. School Community Journal, 26(2), 25-43.
203. Elsley, Susan, Gallagher, Michael & Tisdall, Kay M. (2014). The Dilemmas of Digital Meth-
odologies: Learning From Work on “Young Digital.” International Journal of Child, Youth &
Family Studies, 5(4.1), 702-717. http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs.elsleys.5412014.
204. Emerson, Judith & Bishop, John (2012). Videophone Technology and Students with Deaf-
Blindness: A Method for Increasing Access and Communication. Journal of Visual Impair-
ment & Blindness, 106(10), 622-633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210601006.
205. Ercegovac, Zorana (2012). Digital Image Tagging: A Case Study with Seventh Grade Stu-
dents. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(1), 97-110.
206. Erjavec, Karmen (2013). Informal Learning through Facebook among Slovenian Pupils. Co-
municar, 21(41), 117-126.
207. Fontichiaro, Kristin & Oehrli, Jo A. (2016). Why Data Literacy Matters. Knowledge Quest,
44(5), 20-27.
208. Franklin, Teresa (2011). Mobile Learning: At the Tipping Point. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(4), 261-275.
209. Galindo, Alberto J. (2009). Digital Citizenry. Signo Y Pensamiento, 28(54), 164-173.
210. Gallagher, Frank & Stewart, Kat (2011). Cable in the Classroom. College & Undergraduate
Libraries, 18(1), 111-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2011.550537.
211. Gammon, Mark A. & McGranahan, Carole (2015). Theory through Application: A Study in
the Use of Social Media for Teaching. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 23-32.
212. Gazi, Zehra A. (2016). Internalization of Digital Citizenship for the Future of All Levels of
Education. Egitim Ve Bilim, 41(186), 137-148. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.4533.
213. Gershenfeld, Alan (2011). Leveling Up From Player to Designer. Knowledge Quest, 40(1), 55-59.
214. Godfrey, Roxie V. (2016). Digital Citizenship: Paving the Way for Family and Consumer Sci-
ences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 108(2), 18-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14307/JFCS108.2.18.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XIII

215. Good, Bethany & Fang, Lin (2015). Promoting Smart and Safe Internet Use among Children
with Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Their Parents. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2,
SI), 179-188. DOI: 10.1007/s10615-015-0519-4.
216. Gozálvez, Vincent (2011). Education for Democratic Citizenship in a Digital Culture. Co-
municar, 18(36), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.3916/C36-2011-03-04.
217. Greene-Clemons, Cheresa D. (2016). Perceptions of technology engagement on culturally re-
sponsive pre-service teachers. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 339-353.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2016-0006.
218. Greenhow, Christine & Robelia, Beth (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in
online social networks. Learning Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140.
DOI: 10.1080/17439880902923580.
219. Greenhow, Christine, Robelia, Beth & Hughes, Joan E. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and
Scholarship in a Digital Age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671.
220. Gretter, Sara & Yadav, Aman (2016). Computational Thinking and Media & Information Lit-
eracy: An Integrated Approach to Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills. TechTrends, 60(5),
510-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0098-4.
221. Hagler, Barbara E. (2013). Value of Social Media in Today’s Classroom. The Journal of Re-
search in Business Education, 55(1), 14-23.
222. Hernández, E., Robles, M. C. & Martínez, J. B. (2013). Interactive Youth and Civic Cultures:
The Educational, Mediatic and Political Meaning of the 15M. Comunicar, 20(40), 59-67.
https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-02-06.
223. Hohlfeld, Tina N., Ritzhaupt, Albert D. & Barron, Ann E. (2010). Development and Valida-
tion of the Student Tool for Technology Literacy. Journal of Research on Technology in Edu-
cation, 42(4), 361-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782556.
224. Hollandsworth, Randy, Dowdy, Lena & Donovan, Judy (2011). Digital Citizenship in K-12: It
Takes a Village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0510-z.
225. Hollandsworth, Randy, Donovan, Judy & Welch, Mary (2017). Digital Citizenship: You Can’t
Go Home Again. TechTrends, 61(6), 524-530.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0190-4.
226. Howard, Jocelyn & Scott, Adele (2017). Any Time, Any Place, Flexible Pace: Technology-
Enhanced Language Learning in a Teacher Education Programme. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(6), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n6.4.
227. Howard, Keith (2013). Using Facebook and Other SNSs in K-12 Classrooms: Ethical Consid-
erations for Safe Social Networking. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(2), 39-54.
228. Howard, Patrick (2015). Digital Citizenship in the Afterschool Space: Implications for Educa-
tion for Sustainable Development. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(1), 23-
34. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2015-0002.
229. Hur, Mann H. (2016). Empowering the elderly population through ICT-based activities. In-
formation Technology & People, 29(2), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2015-0052.
230. Hussain, Raja M. R. & Sze-Yeng, Foo (2008). Using Weblogs as a Tool for Reflective Learn-
ing. Journal on School Educational Technology, 3(3), 26-37.
231. Isman, Aytekin & Gungoren, Ozlem C. (2014). Digital Citizenship. The Turkish Online Jour-
nal of Educational Technology, 13(1).
232. Ivashkevich, Olga (2015). Engaging a Prosumer: Preservice Teachers Interrogate Popular Toys
through Stop-Motion Animation. Art Education, 68(2), 42-47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2015.11519313.
233. Jane, Emma A. (2015). Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching
online hostility. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(1), 65-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9362-0.
234. Jensen, Amy P. (2008). Beyond Mediatized Transmissions of Youth Culture: A Study in Digi-
tal Citizenship. Youth Theatre Journal, 22(1), 94-197.
DOI: 10.1080/08929092.2008.10012610.
XIV Birgit Jæger

235. Jones, Lisa M. & Kimberly J. Mitchell (2015). Defining and measuring youth digital citizen-
ship. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2063-2079. DOI: 10.1177/146144815577797.
236. Karaduman, Hidir (2017). Social Studies Teacher Candidates’ Opinions about Digital Citizen-
ship and its Place in Social Studies Teacher Training Program: A Comparison between the
USA and Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2).
237. Keengwe, Jared & Onchwari, Grace (2009). Technology and Early Childhood Education: A
Technology Integration Professional Development Model for Practicing Teachers. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 209-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0341-0.
238. Keengwe, Jared, Schnellert, Gary & Jonas, Denise (2014). Mobile phones in education: Chal-
lenges and opportunities for learning. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 441-
450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9235-7.
239. Keppell, Mike (2014). Personalised Learning Strategies for Higher Education. In K. Fraser
(Ed.). Future of Learning and Teaching in Next Generation Learning Spaces, 3-21. Interna-
tional Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Vol. 12.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-362820140000012001.
240. Keskin, Hasan K., Bastug, Muhammet & Atmaca, Taner (2016). Factors Directing Students to
Academic Digital Reading. Egitim ve Bilim, 41(188). DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.6655.
241. Kim, Deoksoon & Jang, Seung E. (2014). Dialogic Practices in Using Podcasting and Blog-
ging as Teaching Tools for Teachers Seeking ESOL Certificate. Journal of Educational Com-
puting Research, 51(2), 205-232. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.d.
242. Kirkman, Jacqueline (2014). Building a Culture of Trust: Trust in the Use of Educational
Technology. Australian Educational Computing, 29(1), 10.
243. Kostaris, Christoforos, Sergis, Stylianos, Sampson, Demitios G., Giannakos, Michail Í. & Pel-
liccione, Lina (2017). Investigating the Potential of the Flipped Classroom Model in K-12 ICT
Teaching and Learning: An Action Research Study. Journal of Educational Technology & So-
ciety, 20(1), 261-273.
244. Lamb, Annette & Johnson, Larry (2011). Sensible Approaches to Technology for Teaching,
Learning, and Leadership. Teacher Librarian, 38(3), 62-66.
245. Marta-Lazo, Carmen & Pérez, María del M. G. (2012). Critical Insights in Media Literacy Re-
search in Spain: Educational and Political Challenges. Medijske Studije, 3(6), 139-151.
246. McGillivray, D., McPherson, G., Jones, J. & McCandlish, A. (2016). Young people, digital
media making and critical digital citizenship. Leisure Studies, 35(6), 724-738.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.1062041.
247. McLoughlin, Catherine E. & Alam, Sultana L. (2014). A Case Study of Instructor Scaffolding
Using Web 2.0 Tools to Teach Social Informatics. Journal of Information Systems Education,
25(2), 125-136.
248. McNeill, Michael C. & Fry, Joan M. (2012). The Value of ICT from a Learning Game-playing
Perspective. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation,
Sport & Dance, 7(2), 45-51.
249. Middaugh, Ellen & Kahne, Joseph (2013). New Media as a Tool for Civic Learning. Co-
municar, 20(40), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.3916/C40-2013-02-10.
250. Miller, Beth (2016). Can I Use This App or Website for My Class? What to Know about In-
structing Teachers and Students on Digital Citizenship, Digital Footprints, and Cybersafety.
Knowledge Quest, 44(4), 22-29.
251. Misirli, Zeynel A. & Akbulut, Yavuz (2013). Development of a Scale to Explore Technology
Literacy Skills of Turkish 8th Graders. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(4), 249-262.
252. Morgan, Hani (2014). Enhancing Instruction and Communication with Twitter. Childhood Ed-
ucation, 90(1), 75-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.872522.
253. Nebel, Michelle, Jamison, Barbera & Bennett, Linda (2009). Students as Digital Citizens on
Web 2.0. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 5-7.
254. Nordin, M. S., Ahmad, T. B. T., Zubairi, A. M., Ismail, N. A. H., Rahman, A. H. A., Trayek,
F. A., & Ibrahim, M. B. (2016). Psychometric Properties of a Digital Citizenship Question-
naire. International Education Studies, 9(3), 71-80.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XV

255. Ohler, Jason (2011). Digital Citizenship Means Character Education for the Digital Age. Kap-
pa Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 25-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516720.
256. Oxley, Cathy (2010). Digital citizenship: Developing an ethical and responsible online culture.
Proceeding of the 12th Biennial School Library Association of Queensland, Brisbane, Austral-
ia, 27 Sep.-1 Oct. 2010.
257. Parycek, Peter, Sachs, Michael & Schossböck, Judith (2011). Digital Divide among youth: so-
cio-cultural factors and implications. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(3), 161-
171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17415651111165393.
258. Petrucco, Corrado (2013). Fostering Digital Literacy between Schools and the Local Commu-
nity: Using Service Learning and Project-Based Learning as a Conceptual Framework. Inter-
national Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 4(3), 10-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijdldc.2013070102.
259. Plopper, Bruce L. & Conaway, Anne F. (2013). Scholastic Journalism Teacher Use of Digital
Devices and Social Networking Tools in a Poor, Largely Rural State. Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator, 68(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695812472895.
260. Ramos, Sara I. M. & de Andrade, António M. V. (2016). ICT in Portuguese reference schools
for the education of blind and partially sighted students. Education and Information Technolo-
gies, 21(3), 625-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9344-6.
261. Reid, Geordy G. & Boyer, Wanda (2013). Social Network Sites and Young Adolescent Identi-
ty Development. Childhood Education, 89(4), 243-253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.815554.
262. Reynolds, Rabecca (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring “social constructivist digi-
tal literacy” development in learners: a proposed framework. Educational Technology, Re-
search and Development, 64(4), 735-762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4.
263. Ribble, Mike S. (2012). Digital Citizenship for Educational Change. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
48(4), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2012.734015.
264. Ribble, Mike S. (2009). Passport to Digital Citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology.
December 2008/January 2009, 14-17.
265. Ribble, Mike S., Bailey, Gerald D. & Ross, Tweed W. (2004a). Digital Citizenship. Address-
ing Appropriate Technology Behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-13.
266. Ribble, Mike S. & Bailey, Gerald D. (2004b). Digital Citizenship. Four Questions for Imple-
mentation. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(2), 12-15.
267. Richards, Reshan (2010). Digital Citizenship and Web 2.0 Tools. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 6(2), 516.
268. Ritzhaupt, Albert D., Liu, Feng, Dawson, Kara & Barron, Ann E. (2013). Differences in Stu-
dent Information and Communication Technology Literacy Based on Socio-Economic Status,
Ethnicity, and Gender: Evidence of a Digital Divide in Florida Schools. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291-307.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607.
269. Robertson, Margaret (2009). Young “netizens” creating public citizenship in cyberspace. In-
ternational Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(4), 287-293.
DOI: 10.1080/10382040903251158.
270. Shifflet, Rena, Toledo, Cheri & Mattoon, Cassandra (2012). Touch Tablet Surprises: A Pre-
school Teacher’s Story. Young Children, 67(3), 36-41.
271. Smith, Judith & Hu, Ran (2013). Rethinking Teacher Education: Synchronizing Eastern and
Western Views of Teaching and Learning to Promote 21st Century Skills and Global Perspec-
tives. Education Research and Perspectives, 40, 86-108.
272. Smythe, Suzanne & Breshears, Sherry (2017). Complicating Access: Digital Inequality and
Adult Learning in a Public Access Computing Space. The Canadian Journal for the Study of
Adult Education, 29(1), 67-81.
273. Stone, Gerard, Fiedler, Berton A. & Kandunias, Chris (2014). Harnessing Facebook for Stu-
dent Engagement in Accounting Education: Guiding Principles for Accounting Students and
XVI Birgit Jæger

Educators. Accounting Education, 23(4), 295-321.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.908730.
274. Sugar, William & van Tryon, Patricia J. S. (2014). Development of a Virtual Technology
Coach to Support Technology Integration for K-12 Educators. TechTrends, 58(3), 54-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0752-7.
275. Swallow, Meredith J. C. (2017). The Influence of Technology on Teaching Practices at a
Catholic School. Journal of Catholic Education, 20(2), 154-176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.2002072017.
276. Szarka, K., Brestenská, B., & Puskás, A. (2016). Didactical Aspects of Virtual Wall in Educa-
tion. Education and Science Without Borders, 7(14), 75-79.
277. Taranto, Gregory, Dalbon, Melissa & Gaetano, Julie (2011). Academic Social Networking
Brings Web 2.0 Technologies to the Middle Grades. Middle School Journal, 42(5), 12-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2011.11461778.
278. Terry, Richard (2017). Time, Telos, Techne, Doxa: The Challenges of Massive Open Online
Cources. Knowledge Cultures, 5(2), 65-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.22381/KC5220175.
279. Union, Crieg D., Union, Lori W. & Green, Tim D. (2015). The Use of eReaders in the Class-
room and at Home to Help Third-grade Students Improve their Reading and English/ Lan-
guage Arts Standardized Test Scores. TechTrends, 59(5), 71-84.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0893-3.
280. Villano, Matt (2008). Text unto Others... As You Would Have Them Text unto You. T.H.E.
Journal, 35(9), 47-51.
281. Von Burg, Alessandra B., Burg, Ron von, Mitchell, Gordon R. & Louden, Allan D. (2012).
Emerging Communication Technologies and the Practices of Enhanced Deliberation: The Ex-
perience of Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Summer Institute. Journal of Public De-
liberation, 8(1).
282. Vrabec, Norbert, Polievkova, Petra & Moravcikova, Maria (2013). The Role of Media Litera-
cy Development as a Part of Religious Education Curriculum. European Journal of Science
and Theology, 9(5), 211-223.
283. Webb, Mary, Davis, Niki, Bell, Tim, Katz, Yaacov J., Reynolds, Nicholas, Chambers, Dianne
P. & Syso, Maciej M. (2017). Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century:
Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445-468.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9493-x.
284. Woodley, Carolyn & Silvestri, Michel (2014). The Internet Is Forever: Student Indiscretions
Reveal the Need for Effective Social Media Policies in Academia. American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 28(2), 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.896587.
285. Wylie, Scott & Marri, Anand R. (2010). Teledeliberative democratic discourse: a case study of
high school students’ use of Web 2.0. Campus ‒ Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 193-209.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741011073815.
286. Yücel, Cemil (2013). WebQuest Usage in Democracy, Human Rights and Citizenship Educa-
tion. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(4).
287. Yusuf, Muhammad, Adams, Carl & Dingley, Kate (2016). Digital Citizen Participation within
Schools in the United Kingdom and Indonesia: An Actor-Network Theory (ANT) Perspective.
Information, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/info7040069.
288. Zhang, Hui & Zhu, Chang (2016). A Study of Digital Media Literacy of the 5th and 6th Grade
Primary Students in Beijing. The Asia ‒ Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 579-592.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0285-2.

Training and Learning – theme 2: Teachers competences

289. Ayad, Fuad I. & Ajrami, Sameh J. (2017). The Degree of Implementing ISTE Standards in
Technical Education Colleges of Palestine. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 16(2), 107-118.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XVII

290. Blackwell, Jacqueline & Yost, Nancy (2013). Teacher Education Programs and Technology:
Preparing Teacher Candidates for Working with P-8 Students. Childhood Education, 89(5),
325-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.830918.
291. Brown, Cheryl (2012). University Students as Digital Migrants. Language and Literacy, 14(2),
41-n/a.
292. Burden, Kevin J. & Kearney, Matthew (2017). Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’
mobile learning practices. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110-125.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2017-0027.
293. Cakir, Recep & Yildirim, Soner (2015). Who are They Really? A Review of the Characteris-
tics of Pre-service ICT Teachers in Turkey. The Asia ‒ Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1),
67-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0159-9.
294. Easley, Michelle & Yelvington, Marie (2015). What’s in a Name: Reimagining the School Li-
brary Program. Teacher Librarian, 42(5), 21-23.
295. Finger, Glenn, Romeo, Geoff, Lloyd, Margaret, Heck, Deborah, Sweeney, Trudy, Albion, Pe-
ter & Jamieson-proctor, Romina (2015). Developing Graduate TPACK Capabilities in Initial
Teacher Education Programs: Insights from the Teaching Teachers for the Future Project. The
Asia ‒ Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 505-513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0226-x.
296. Gallo, Laura L., Rausch, Meredith, Smith, Carol K. & Wood, Susannah (2016). School Coun-
selors’ Experiences Working with Digital Natives: A Qualitative Study. Professional School
Counseling, 20(1), 14-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.14.
297. Hardman, Elizabeth (2015). How Pedagogy 2.0 Can Foster Teacher Preparation and Commu-
nity Building in Special Education. Social Inclusion, 3(6).
http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i6.415.
298. Lewis, Carrie L. (2015). Preservice Teachers’ Ability to Identify Technology Standards: Does
Curriculum Matter? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 235-
254.
299. Lowenthal, Patrick R., Dunlap, Joanna C. & Stitson, Patricia (2016). Creating an Intentional
Web Presence: Strategies for Every Educational Technology Professional. TechTrends, 60(4),
320-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0056-1.
300. Martínez, Raidell A. & Fernández, Raúl L. (2015). Digital literacy for teachers in Cuban Tour-
ism and Hotel Management Schools. Some experiences on its development. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12, 3-16.
https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i3.1994.
301. Masood, Mona (2010). An Initial Comparison of Educational Technology Courses for Train-
ing Teachers at Malaysian Universities: A Comparative Study. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9(1).
302. O’Reilly, Erin N. (2016). Developing technology needs assessments for educational programs:
An analysis of eight key indicators. International Journal of Education and Development Us-
ing Information and Communication Technology, 12(1), 129-143.
303. Simsek, Ömer & Yazar, Taha (2017). Investigation of teachers’ educational technology stand-
ards self-efficacy. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 7(1), 23-54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.002.
304. Solar, Mauricio, Sabattin, Jorge & Parada, Victor (2013). A Maturity Model for Assessing the
Use of ICT in School Education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 206-218.
305. Stobaugh, Rebecca R. & Tassell, Janet L. (2011). Analyzing the degree of technology use oc-
curring in pre-service teacher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accounta-
bility, 23(2), 143-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9118-2.
306. Van Fossen, Phillip J. & Berson, Michael J. (2008). Social Studies Special Issue: Civic Litera-
cy in a Digital Age. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 122-
124.
XVIII Birgit Jæger

307. Vaughan, Michelle & Beers, Courtney (2017). Using an Exploratory Professional Develop-
ment Initiative to Introduce iPads in the Early Childhood Education Classroom. Early Child-
hood Education Journal, 45(3), 321-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0772-3.
308. Wadmany, Rivka, Zeichner, Orit & Melamed, Orly (2014). Students in a Teacher College of
Education Develop Educational Programs and Activities Related to Intelligent Use of the Web:
Cultivating New Knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 18-28.
309. Wang, Shing-kwei, Hsu, Hui-yin, Campbell, Todd, Coster, Daniel C. & Longhurst, Max
(2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology in-
side and outside of classrooms: considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy
than their teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 62(6), 637-662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4.
310. Wei, Leong M., Piaw, Chua Y., Kannan, Sathiamoorthy & Moulod, Shafinaz A. (2016). Rela-
tionship between Teacher ICT Competency and Teacher Acceptance and Use of School Man-
agement System (SMS). Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 36-52.
311. Yigit, E. Öslem (2014). Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers’ Perspectives towards Netizen-
ship. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2).

Training and Learning – theme 3: Role of libraries

312. Bebbington, Sandra, Goldfinch, Ellen & Taylor, Julian (2016). Digital Badges for Professional
Development: Meeting the Evolving Needs of Library Personnel with the CLA School Library
Standards. Partnership. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Re-
search, 11(1), 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v11i1.3630.
313. Bibbo, Tamatha & d’Erizans, Roberto (2013). The future of the librarian as a meta-data spe-
cialist. The International Schools Journal, 33(1), 46-53.
314. Dempsey, Megan E., Dalal, Heather, Dokus, Lynee R., Charles, Leslin H. & Scharf, Davida
(2015). Continuing the Conversation: Questions about the Framework. Communications in In-
formation Literacy, 9(2), 164-175. DOI: 10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.2.193.
315. Ejikeme, Anthonia N. & Okpala, Helen N. (2017). Promoting Children’s learning through
technology literacy: challenges to school librarians in the 21st century. Education and Infor-
mation Technologies, 22(3), 1163-1177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9481-1.
316. Eve, Juliet, de Groot, Margo & Schmidt, Anne-Marie (2007). Supporting lifelong learning in
public libraries across Europe. Library Review, 56(5), 393-406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242530710750581.
317. Farmer, Lesley (2012). The roles of professional organizations in school library education:
Case studies from around the world. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(2), 1-11.
318. Farmer, Lesley S. J. (2013). Informatization and Digital Citizenship. In Technology Use and
Research Approaches for Community Education and Professional Development, 85-101.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2955-4.ch006.
319. Farmer, Lesley S. J. (2016). Teaching Ethics to Teens Via School Library Reference Services.
The Catholic Library World, 86(4), 242-250.
320. Fontichiaro, Kristin, Moreillon, Judi & Abilock, Debbie (2009). How Do School Librarians Fit
In? Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 70-72.
321. Gow, E. (2013). Exploring User Training Needs at Middle Temple Law Library. Legal Infor-
mation Management, 13(2), 80-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1472669613000236.
322. Hamilton, Buffy J. (2012). Introduction. Library Technology Reports, 48(2), 2-7.
323. Hay, Lyn (2012). Experience the “Shift”: Build an iCentre: A Spotlight on What’s Trending in
Australia. Teacher Librarian, 39(5), 29-35.
324. Hay, Lyn (2015). The Evolution of the iCentre Model. Teacher Librarian, 42(4), 15-19.
325. Hill, Valerie (2015). Digital citizenship through game design in Minecraft. New Library
World, 116(7-8), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-09-2014-0112.
326. Houghton-Jan, Sarah (2010). Internet Filtering. Library Technology Reports, 46(8), 25-33.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XIX

327. Johnson, Anna M., Sproles, Claudene & Detmering, Robert (2010). Library instruction and in-
formation literacy 2012. Reference Services Review, 41(4), 675-784.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2013-0040.
328. Johnson, Anna M., Sproles, Claudene, Detmering, Robert & English, Jessica (2012). Library
instruction and information literacy 2011. Reference Services Review, 40(4), 601-703.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907321211277396.
329. Johnson, Doug (2013). Top Ten School Library Game Changers of the Past Twenty-Five
Years. Teacher Librarian, 40(4), 28-31.
330. Johnston, Melissa P. (2013). School Librarian + Technology Specialist: Partnership for Effec-
tive Technology Integration. Knowledge Quest, 42(1), 70-75.
331. Johnston, Melissa P. (2015). Blurred Lines: The School Librarian and the Instructional Tech-
nology Specialist. TechTrends, 59(3), 17-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0849-7.
332. Karno, Valerio & Roth, Adam D. (2017). LIS Education in an Interdisciplinary Frame: Inte-
grating Digital Media into the Ethics of Digital Personhood. DESIDOC Journal of Library &
Information Technology, 37(1), 38-41. DOI: 10.14429/djlit.37.1.10861.
333. O’Connell, Judy (2014). Researcher’s Perspective: Is Teacher Librarianship in Crisis in Digital
Environments? An Australian Perspective. School Libraries Worldwide, 20(1), 1-19.
DOI: 10.14265.20.1.002.
334. Perez, Lisa (2010). The Role of School Librarians in Promoting the Use of Educational Tech-
nologies. Teacher Librarian, 38(1), 72-73.
335. Schutte, Annie (2016). Making a Literacy Plan: Developing an Integrated Curriculum That
Meets Your School’s Needs. Knowledge Quest, 44(5), 50-55.
336. Sharp, Sandra (2005). Fast forward to the future: e-enabling in Leeds libraries. The Electronic
Library, 23(2), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470510592942.
337. Simsek, Eylem & Simsek, Ali (2013). New Literacies for Digital Citizenship. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 4(2), 126-137.
338. Sobolik, Joanne, Russell, Elizabeth, Klatt, Holli, Thompson, Debbie, Jones, Kim & Wieczorek,
Stephanie (2014). Exciting Times: A Transformation of Media Centers, Media Specialists, and
Learning a District’s Philosophy. Teacher Librarian, 41(4), 21-25.
339. Wine, Lois D. (2016). School Librarians as Technology Leaders: An Evolution in Practice.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 207-220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328-2967/57/2/12.

Training and Learning – theme 4: Online learning

340. Barbour, Michael & Plough, Cory (2009). Social Networking in Cyberschooling: Helping to
Make Online Learning Less Isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 56-60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0307-5.
341. Bedenlier, Svenja M. (2016). Culture and Online Learning: Global Perspectives and Research.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(2).
342. Bower, Matt (2011). Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environ-
ments ‒ their impact on the learning process. Distance Education, 32(1), 63-83.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.565502.
343. Branch, Jennifer & de Groot, Joanne (2013). From Face-to-Face to Distance Education: The
Story of Two Canadian School Library Educators. School Libraries Worldwide, 19(1), 1-12.
344. Calhoun, Daniel W., Green, Lucy S. & Burke, Panne (2017). Online Learners and Technology:
A Gap in Higher Education and Student Affairs Professional Preparation. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 18(1), 45-61-112.
345. Cameron, Roslyn & Miller, Allison (2014). Case studies in e-RPL and e-PR. Australian Jour-
nal of Adult Learning, 54(1), 89-113.
346. Chung, Hsiu-Ying, Lee, Gwo-Guang & Liu, Shih-Hwa (2014). Policy and barriers related to im-
plementing adult e-learning in Taiwan. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(3), 389-414.
XX Birgit Jæger

347. Czerkawski, Betul (2016). Blending Formal and Informal Learning Networks for Online
Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(3).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2344.
348. Farmer, Lesley S. J. (2013). Digital Citizenship and Distance Education. In Advancing Library
Education: Technological Innovation and Instructional Design, 1-15.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3688-0.ch001.
349. Hilton, Jason T. (2013). Digital Critical Dialogue: A Process for Implementing Transformative
Discussion Practices within Online Courses in Higher Education. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 9(4), 602-614.
350. Moreira, José-António & Reis-Monteiro, Angélica (2017). Higher Education Distance Learn-
ing and e-Learning in Prisons in Portugal. Comunicar, 25(51), 39-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C51-2017-04.
351. Tu, Chih-hsiung, Sujo-montes, Laura, Yen, Cherngjyh, Chan, Junn-yih & Blocher, Michael
(2012). The Integration of Personal Learning Environments & Open Network Learning Envi-
ronments. TechTrends, 56(3), 13-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-012-0571-7.

Training and Learning – theme 5: Technology leadership of schools

352. Akcil, Umut, Altinay, Zehra & Altinay, Fahruye (2016). Assessing the Effects of Managers in
the Digital Age on the Management Process of Digital Citizenship Roles. Anthropologist,
23(1-2, SI), 209-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2016.11891943.
353. Akcil, Umut, Aksal, Fahriye A., Mukhametzyanova, Farida S. & Gazi, Zehra A. (2017). An
Examination of Open and Technology Leadership in Managerial Practices of Education Sys-
tem. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 119-131.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00607a.
354. Banoglu, Köksal, Vanderlinde, Ruben & Çetin, Münevver (2016). Investigation of Principals’
Technology Leadership Profiles in the context of Schools’ Learning Organization Culture and
ICT Infrastructure: F@tih Project Schools vs. the Others. Egitim ve Bilim, 41(188).
DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.6618.
355. Beytekin, Osman F. (2014). High School Administrators’ Perceptions of Their Technology
Leadership Preparedness. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(14), 441-446.
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2014.1858.
356. Gürfidan, Hasan & Koç, Mustafa (2016). The Impact of School Culture, Technology Leader-
ship, and Support Services on Teachers’ Technology Integration: A Structural Equation Mod-
eling. Egitim ve Bilim, 41(188). DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.6722.
357. Hayashi, Christine A. & Fisher-Adams, Grace (2015). Strengthening Leadership Preparation to
Meet the Challenge of Leading for Learning in the Digital Age: Recommendations from
Alumni. Educational Leadership and Administration, 26, 51-67.
358. Larson, Lotta, Miller, Teresa & Ribble, Mike (2010). 5 Considerations for Digital Age Lead-
ers. Learning & Leading with Technology, (December/January 2009-10), 12-15.
359. Metcalf, Wendy & LaFrance, Jason (2013). Technology Leadership Preparedness: Principals’
Perceptions. Journal of Research in Education, 23(1), 58-75.
360. Moyle, Kathryn (2014). Technologies, Democracy and Digital Citizenship: Examining Aus-
tralian Policy Intersections and the Implications for School Leadership. Education Sciences,
4(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci4010036.
361. Ribble, Mike & Miller, Teresa N. (2013). Educational Leadership in an Online World: Con-
necting Students to Technology Responsibly, Safely, and Ethically. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 17(1), 137-145.
362. Richardson, Jayson W., Bathon, Justin, Flora, Kevin L. & Lewis, Wayne D. (2012). NETS.A
Scholarship: A Review of Published Literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa-
tion, 45(2), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782600.
Digital Citizenship ‒ A Review of the Academic Literature XXI

363. Yorulmaz, Alper & Can, Süleyman (2016). The Technology Leadership Competencies of El-
ementary and Secondary School Directors. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Re-
search, 11(1), 47-61.

Training and Learning – theme 6: Cyber-bullying

364. Bayraktar, Fatih (2017). Online Risks and Parental Mediation Strategies Comparison of Turk-
ish Children/Adolescents Who Live In Turkey and Europe. Egitim ve Bilim, 42(190).
DOI: 10.15390/EB.2017.6323.
365. Harrison, Tom (2015). Virtuous reality: moral theory and research into cyber-bullying. Ethics
and Information Technology, 17(4), 275-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9382-9.
366. Modecki, Kathryn L., Barber, Bonnie L. & Vernon, Lynnette (2013). Mapping Developmental
Precursors of Cyber-Aggression: Trajectories of Risk Predict Perpetration and Victimization.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 651-661.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9887-z.
367. Navarro, Jordana N., Clevenger, Shelly, Beasley, Maddie E. & Jackson, Lindsay K. (2017).
One step forward, two steps back: Cyberbullying within social networking sites. Security
Journal, 30(3), 844-858. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2015.19.
368. Ockerman, Melissa S., Kramer, Constance & Bruno, Michelle (2014). From the School Yard
to Cyber Space: A Pilot Study of Bullying Behaviors Among Middle School Students. RMLE
Online, 37(6), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2014.11462109.
369. Peker, Adem (2015). Analyzing the Risk Factors Predicting The Cyberbullying Status of Sec-
ondary School Students. Egitim ve Bilim, 40(181), 57-75. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2015.4412.
370. Reason, Lisa, Boyd, Michael & Reason, Casey (2016). Cyberbullying in Rural Communities:
Origin and Processing through the Lens of Older Adolescents. The Qualitative Report, 21(12),
2331-2348.
371. Safaria, Triantoro (2016). Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying in a Sample of Indonesian
Junior High School Students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1).
372. Styron, Ronald A., Bonner, Jessica L., Styron, Jennifer L., Bridgeforth, James & Martin, Ce-
celia (2016). Are Teacher and Principal Candidates Prepared to Address Student Cyberbully-
ing? Journal of At-Risk Issues, 19(1), 19-28.
373. Tomczyk, Łukasz & Wąsiński, Arkadiusz (2017). Parents in the Process of Educational Impact
in the Area of the Use of New Media by Children and Teenagers in the Family Environment.
Egitim ve Bilim, 42(190). DOI: 10.15390/EB.2017.4674.