![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
In the iCS article, ‘Who Creates Content?’ (April 2013), Blank contends that digital production inequality depends on the type of online content in question. Using 2010 survey data from the UK, he uses a principle component analysis to cluster content activities into three types and conducts a logistic regression analysis with an eye toward social class. He finds some levels of inequality but also finds parity with two of his content categories. These findings differ from a substantial body of literature from the United States. Rather than explaining these differences between Britain and the United States with substantive and theoretical reasons, Blank attempts to find fault with the methodology of this existing literature. In this comment, the author shows how Blank's analysis does not reveal as much digital production equality as he claims it does because of his misinterpretation of causal paths of inequality, as well as problems with his operationalization of online content, which conflates Internet activities and online content. In the process, the author explains why Blank's resulting critiques are misguided. Finally, to explain better his unique findings and to help advance the field of digital inequality, the author suggests discrepancies between Grant's findings and previous research may be attributable to differing study populations: Internet users versus the general population; the age differences of respondents; the timing of the studies; and between-country variations. At stake in this debate is the reproduction of social class stratification with digital technology and content creation.
Notes
Hereafter Hargittai and Walejko (Citation2008) will be referred to as H/W and Correa (Citation2010) as Correa.
Blank also references H/W's Table 3 in his Note 7, but this is in reference to descriptive statistics.
To further address the artefact question, I isolated one study that had many of the digital production activities (dependent variables) under study and was able to test a variety of digital production activities in relationship to class and also found inequality.
The naming of the three categories also reflects the conflation between content and practice. For instance, ‘skilled content’ does not describe the content itself, like ‘political content’ but describes an attribute of what the author guesses is required of these variables over the others. Yet oddly, posting videos, which requires quite a bit of skill, as well as can often be more ‘creative’ than ‘social’ is left out of this category. Furthermore, Blank ends up classifying and comparing Hargittai's content variables of music, poetry/fiction, film/video and artistic photography with his ‘social and entertainment’ category, rather than with the creative content variables. Blank does sometimes refer to his study of different types of content creation, rather than content, but he nonetheless emphasizes that these activities result in different types of content.