SOCIAL INEQUALITY AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Main Article Content

Phuriphat Thanomsriuthai

Abstract

Regarding social inequality and national development in the digital age, cultural values ​​provide a better interpretation of information distribution potential than cultural practice. Information distribution potential of one society can be interpreted in a manner of avoiding uncertainty, having institutional and cultural collectivism, and gender equality. However, social context is also an important part of life in society because of digital integration as a government activity and policy. Building an understanding of human rights of communication is one aspect of the problem. Digital integration is a social right through educational process. Having digital knowledge that goes beyond information and communication technology requires social skills and practices necessary for today's technological transition in society to formulate new public policies. The use of computers and the internet promotes digital integration, especially among the disadvantaged living in remote areas, the effect of the exclusionary efforts from limited knowledge of computer and Internet use, digital literacy, and being a part of electronic integration. However, new generation may gradually change the perspectives on modernization, information, and communication technology. The victory of the change with a favorable political environment may bring more reality to the promotion of broadband reach for social participation and citizenship development.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

ทัศนีย์ เจนวิถีสุข. (2554). การสื่อสารเชิงพุทธกับการเปลี่ยนแปลงสังคม, บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย :

มหาวิทยาลัยมหาจุฬาลงกรณราชวิทยาลัยหน้า.

พระธรรมปิฎก (ป.อ.ปยุตฺโต). (2543). พุทธธรรม ฉบับปรับปรุงและขยายความ. พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 9.

กรุงเทพฯ : มหาจุฬาลงกรณราชวิทยาลัย.

_______. สยามสามไตร. (2552). พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 3. กรุงเทพฯ : พิมพ์สวย

Atak, M., & Erturgut, R. (2010). Importance of educated human resources in

the informationage and view of information society organizations on

human. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1452-1456.

Barros, C. (2013). “Representations of Poverty and Digital Inclusion: Clashes over alterity in the field of technology and the virtual universe”. Journal of

Latin American.

Beiers, H. R. (1986). “Information for the future: an examination of the role of the Australian commission for the future”. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 23, 12-15.

Benkler, Y. (1998). Communications infrastructure regulation and the distribution of control over content. Telecommunications Policy, 22(3), 183-196.

Bhagat, N. A. (1977). Information dissemination - a systems viewpoint. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-20(2), 76-79.

Britz, J. J. (2008). Making the global information society good: A social justice perspective on the ethical dimensions of the global information society. Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia, 52(7), 1171-1183.

Caidi, N. (2006). “Building "civilisational competence": A new role for libraries?” Journal of Documentation, 62(2), 194-212.

Carbo, T. (2008). “Ethics education for information professionals”. Journal of Library

Administration, 47(3-4), 5-25.

Chiriac, H. C. (2013). “Scientific and religious imaginary in the knowledge society”. European Journal of Science and Theology, 9(1), 111-122.

Correia, A. M. R., & Teixeira, J. C. (2003). “Information literacy: An integrated co

Pantzar, E. (2000). Knowledge and wisdom in the information society. Foresight, 2(2), 230- 236.

Vlasyuk, G. V. (2013). “On competitiveness of enterprise”. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(7), 969-978.

Walton, P., Kop, T., Spriggs, D. & Fitzgerald, B. (2013). “A digital inclusion:

Empowering all Australians. Australian Journal of Telecommunications

and the Digital Economy, 1(1).