The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014

In contrary to the common argument that the digital access divide is quickly closing and that the focus should shift to skills and usage, this article shows that access to digital communication is a moving target unlikely to ever be solved. While the number of subscriptions reaches population saturation levels, the bandwidth divide continuous to be dynamic. The article measures the nationally installed bandwidth potential of 172 countries from 1986 to 2014. The overarching finding is that the divide in terms of bandwidth does not show any clear monotonic pattern. It fluctuates up and down over the decades as the result of an intricate interplay between incessant technological progress and diffusion of technology. The bandwidth divide between high- and low income countries has first increased and only decreased below historic levels very recently during 2012-2014. In general it shows that the bandwidth divide is linked to the income divide, which is notoriously persistent. The bandwidth distribution among all countries is undergoing a new process of global concentration, during which North America and Europe is being replaced by Asia as the new global leader. In 2014 only 3 countries host 50 % of the globally installed bandwidth potential (10 countries almost 75 %). The U.S. lost its global leadership in 2011, being replaced by China, which contributes more than twice as much national bandwidth potential in 2014 (29 % versus 13 %). Despite this bad news about the continuous persistence of the digital access divide among countries, exploratory analysis from a global perspective brings the good news that many more individual people seem to enjoy more equal access to global bandwidth. All of this showcases the urgency to systematically develop indicators to track the digital divide in terms of bandwidth

Big Data: Issues for an International Political Sociology of Data Practices

The claim that big data can revolutionize strategy and governance in the context of international relations is increasingly hard to ignore. Scholars of international political sociology have mainly discussed this development through the themes of security and surveillance. The aim of this paper is to outline a research agenda that can be used to raise a broader set of sociological and practice-oriented questions about the increasing datafication of international relations and politics. First, it proposes a way of conceptualizing big data that is broad enough to open fruitful investigations into the emerging use of big data in these contexts. This conceptualization includes the identification of three moments contained in any big data practice. Secondly, it suggests a research agenda built around a set of sub-themes that each deserve dedicated scrutiny when studying the interplay between big data and international relations along these moments. Through a combination of these moments and sub-themes, the paper suggests a roadmap for an international political sociology of the datafication of worlds

Constructive Consciousness of Gen-pro: Transforming Political Engagement with a Proactive Behavior, a Progressive Attitude, and a Professional Mindset

Studies on young people’s political engagement commonly fall along the binary of engagement or disengagement. Young people’s political disengagement is typically captured by declining membership in political parties, low voter turnout, and political apathy. The engagement paradigm maintains that young people are increasingly turning to the digital space to engage politically. Though the representation of young people’s disengagement in politics may seem clear, how today’s young people understand politics, political engagement, and what meaningful political engagement means to them continue to be contested. Specifically in recent years, East Asian and Southeast Asian young people’s relationship with politics is experiencing significant transformation. Young people in these regions are increasingly at the forefront seeking for political changes, standing up to authoritarianism, and demanding accountability from their leaders. They are exhibiting attitudes and behaviors that depart from the Asian Values concept that demands obedience to authority and political consensus over confrontation. Young people from Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Taiwan are ideal research participants considering the deep influence of the Asian Values concept in these societies. This study uses online focus group interview to gain a deeper understanding of young people’s attitudes towards politics, political engagement, and digital engagement, how young people perceive the challenges to their political engagement, and what being politically engaged truly means to them. To understand if there is a difference between how young people and the older generation perceive politics and political engagement, this study recruits young people, non-Millennials, and non-Gen-Z participants for an online survey. The interviews reveal that while young people from different societies perceive politics differently, they largely associate political engagement with digital engagement. They share similar challenges to engaging in politics – institution-, personal-, and society-related challenges. The online survey uncovers an interesting finding. Not only do young people and the older generation have similar perceptions of politics, but they also share similar perceptions of political engagement. This study proposes two policy recommendations to better include young people in politics. Today’s young people represent a generation ready for opportunities. We must recognize them as agents of change, capable of making meaningful contributions

A theoretical framework for constructive interpersonal leadership relations in knowledge-based organisations

Text in English with abstracts in English, Afrikaans and VendaIn this qualitative study, the research objective was to present a theoretical framework for the phenomenon of interpersonal leadership relations (denoting both the dyadic relationship between two leader/followers and the leadership communication taking place in the dyad) in knowledge-based organisational contexts. It is posited that the interpersonal leader-follower dyad (LFD) may be viewed from a systems theory perspective as a system consisting of two system parts (individuals). These individuals are labelled ‘leader/followers’ to emphasise their mutual interdependence, and to indicate that these roles may be interchangeable, based on the knowledge needs in a particular situation (in line with the tenets of shared leadership). The dyadic system is influenced by its environment, the organisational context. However, the primary focus of this study is on interpersonal leadership communication as symbolic interaction between the leader/followers in the LFD. These three systemic levels are represented as major themes in the model resulting from this study: Theme 1 – an organisational environment that supports constructive interpersonal leadership relations (ILR); Theme 2 – symbolic interaction in the LFD; and Theme 3 – personal attributes that enhance ILR. The data were collected from two convenience samples. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants in Sample 1, while questionnaires were used to collect data from Sample 2. In both cases, thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the data. The major contribution of the study is the resulting theoretical framework of ILR, which comprises a theoretically based definition of ILR; a generic model of ILR; and current guidelines for fostering constructive ILR in knowledge-based contexts, with reference to the three systemic levels. The following definition was phrased based on the study: Constructive interpersonal leadership relations (ILR) in a knowledge-based organisational context is a dyadic process of symbolic communication between two expert leader/followers who mutually influence each other and share meaning to strengthen their relationship and to collaboratively transfer and apply knowledge to achieve organisational goals. In terms of the environment, it was found that organisational leaders should actively model and promote the following: a collaborative leadership concept, workplace spirituality, cultural inclusivity, and adaptation to advancing communication technologies. Regarding symbolic interaction in the LFD, the following communication practices were found to be central to constructive ILR: active listening, supporting followers as unique individuals, respectful communication, considering followers’ input, facilitating constructive redefinition of the other leader/follower’s self, role-taking (taking the perspective of the other leader/follower’s role), awareness of attribution, conflict management through non-threatening, respectful and preferably face-to-face discussion, facilitating a sense of meaning or purpose at work for the other leader/follower, and fostering constructive relationship properties such as trust. It was found that ILR may produce system outputs into the organisation that contribute to the organisational culture and climate, job performance, employee morale and engagement, and staff retention. Personal attributes were organised into personal values and competencies that support ILR. The most important personal values were identified as honesty, love or supportiveness, respect, relationships or engagement, trust, and professional excellence. Essential competencies were identified as listening skills, emotional communication competencies (particularly self-awareness, self-reflection and attending to others’ emotions), engagement skills, conflict management skills, and multicultural competency (including generational skills).In hierdie kwalitatiewe studie word ’n teoretiese raamwerk voorgelê vir die verskynsel ‘interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings‘ (verwysende na beide die diadiese verhouding tussen twee leier/volgelinge en die leierskapskommunikasie wat in die diade plaasvind) in kennisgebaseerde organisatoriese kontekste. Die uitgangspunt is dat die interpersoonlike leier-volgeling-diade (LVD) vanuit ‘n sisteemteoretiese perspektief beskou kan word as ‘n sisteem wat uit twee sisteemdele (individue) bestaan. Hierdie individue word ‘leier/volgelinge‘ genoem om hulle wedersydse interafhanklikheid te beklemtoon; en om aan te toon dat hierdie rolle uitruilbaar mag wees, afhangende van die kennisbehoeftes in ’n gegewe situasie (met verwysing na die teorie van gedeelde leierskap). As ’n sisteem word die LVD ook deur die omringende omgewing of organisatoriese konteks beïnvloed. Die primêre fokus van hierdie studie is egter op interpersoonlike leierskapskommunikasie as simboliese interaksie tussen die leier/volgelinge in die LVD. Hierdie drie sistemiese vlakke word in hierdie studie deur die hooftemas in die studie verteenwoordig en ook as sulks in die voortvloeiende model uitgebeeld: Tema 1 – ’n organisatoriese omgewing wat konstruktiewe interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings (ILV) ondersteun; Tema 2 – simboliese interaksie in die LVD; en Tema 3 – persoonlike eienskappe wat ILV bevorder. Die teoretiese raamwerk van ILV bestaan uit die volgende: ’n teoreties gefundeerde definisie van ILV; ’n generiese model van ILV; en ’n raamwerk van huidige riglyne vir die kweek van konstruktiewe ILV in kennisgebaseerde kontekste, met verwysing na die drie sistemiese vlakke van omgewing, diade en individuele leier/volgelinge. Die volgende definisie is op grond van die navorsingsresultate geformuleer: Konstruktiewe interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings (ILV) in ’n kennisgebaseerde organisatoriese konteks is ’n diadiese proses van simboliese kommunikasie tussen twee kundige leier/volgelinge wat mekaar wedersyds beïnvloed en betekenis deel om hulle verhouding te versterk en kennis samewerkend oor te dra en aan te wend om organisatoriese doelwitte te bereik. In terme van die organisatoriese omgewing is bevind dat organisatoriese leiers, veral senior leiers, die volgende aktief moet modelleer en bevorder in die organisasie: ’n samewerkende leierskapskonsep, spiritualiteit in die werkplek, kulturele insluiting, en aanpassing by vooruitgang in kommunikasietegnologie. Met verwysing na simboliese interaksie in die LVD is die volgende praktyke bevind as sentraal tot konstruktiewe ILV: aktiewe luistergedrag, die ondersteuning van volgelinge as unieke individue, respekvolle kommunikasie, die inagneming van volgelinge se insette, die fasilitering van die konstruktiewe herdefiniëring van die ander leier/volgeling se self, rol-inneming (die inneem van die rolperspektief van die ander leier/volgeling), bewustheid van attribusie, die bestuur van konflik deur nie-bedreigende, respekvolle en – waar moontlik – aangesig-tot-aangesig bespreking, die fasilitering van ’n sin van doel of betekenis by die werk vir die ander leier/volgeling, en die kweek van konstruktiewe verhoudingseienskappe (vertroue, uitruilbare leier/volgeling-rolle en wedersydse invloed is geïdentifiseer as belangrik). Dit is ook bevind dat ILV sisteemuitsette in die organisasie mag genereer wat bydra tot die organisatoriese kultuur en klimaat, werkprestasie, werknemers se moreel en betrokkenheid, en personeelbehoud. Persoonlike eienskappe is verdeel in waardes en vaardighede wat ILV ondersteun. Die belangrikste waardes is geïdentifiseer as eerlikheid, liefde, respek, verhoudings, vertroue, en professionele uitnemendheid. Die volgende vaardighede is geïdentifiseer as noodsaaklik: luistervaardighede, emosionele kommunikasievaardighede (met spesifieke verwysing na selfbewussyn, selfrefleksie en aandag aan ander se emosies), betrekkingsvaardighede, konflikbestuursvaardighede, en multi-kulturele vaardighede (wat generasievaardighede insluit). Die date is ingesamel uit twee gerieflikheidsteekproewe. Indiepte-, semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude is gevoer met Steekproef 1 (kundiges op gebiede verwant aan ILV in kennisgebaseerde kontekste), terwyl vraelyste gebruik is om data te verkry by Steekproef 2 (leier/volgelinge in kennisgebaseerde kontekste). Tematiese ontleding is in beide gevalle gebruik om die data te ontleed en te interpreteer.Kha iyi ngudo ya u tandula ‘qualitative’, ndivho ya ṱhoḓisio yo vha u ṋetshedza mutheo wa thiyori kha sia ḽa vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa vhukati ha vhathu (zwine zwa amba vhushaka ha tshumisano vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vhavhili na vhudavhidzani kha vhurangaphanḓa vhune ha khou bvelela nga kha tshumisano yeneyo) kha nyimele ya tshiimiswa yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho. Zwo sumbedziswa uri tshumisano ya murangaphanḓa-mutevheli vhukati ha vhathu (leader-follower dyad (LFD)) i nga lavheleswa u bva kha sia ḽa sisiṱeme ya thyori sa sisiṱeme ine ya vha na zwipiḓa zwivhili (vhathu). Vhathu avha vha vhidzwa ‘vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli’ hu u itela u khwaṱhisedza u ḓitika havho nga muṅwe, na u sumbedza uri mishumo iyi i nga imelelana, zwo ḓitika nga ṱhoḓea dza nyimele yeneyo. (zwi tshi tevhedza vhatevheli vha vhurangaphanḓa uvho). Sisiṱeme ya tshumisano i ṱuṱuwedzwa nga nyimele yayo, nyimele ya tshiimiswa. Fhedziha zwa ndeme kha ngudo iyi ndi nga vhudavhidzani ha vhurangaphanḓa vhukati ha vhathu sa tshiga tsha tshumisano vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli kha LFD. Maga aya mararu a sisisṱeme a imelelwa nga ṱhoho khulwane kha nḓila yo livhisaho kha ngudo iyi: Ṱhoho 1 – mupo/nyimele ya tshiimiswa i ṱuṱuwedzaho vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa vhu vhuedzaho vhukati ha vhathu (interpersonal leadership relations (ILR)); Ṱhoho 2 – Tshiga tsha tshumisano kha LFD; na Ṱhoho 3 – Vhuvha ha muthu vhune ha konisa ILR. Data yo kuvhanganywa u bva kha sambula dzine dza vha dza tsinisa. Mbudziso dzo ṱanḓavhuwaho, dzi sa langiho kufhindulele kha vhavhudziswa dzo itwa hu na vhadzheneli kha Sambula ya u thoma (1), ngeno khwesheya dzo shumiswa u kuvhanganya data kha Sambula 2. Kha nyimele dzoṱhe ho shumiswa ṱhaṱhuvho i re na vhushaka na ṱhoho u itela u ṱhaṱhuvha na u ṱalutshedza data. Zwine ngudo iyi ya vhuedza khazwo ndi mvelelo ya mutheo wa thyori wa ILR, ine ya vha na ṱhalutshedzo yo ḓitikaho nga thyori ya ILR, nḓila ya u angaredza ya ILR; na tsumbanḓila dza zwino u itela mbuelo ya ILR kha nyimele yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho, zwo lavhelesa kha maga a sisiṱeme. Ṱhalutshedzo i tevhelaho yo vhekanywa zwi ḓitika nga ngudo: Vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa Vhuvhedzaho vhukati ha vhathu (ILR) kha nyimele ya tshiimiswa yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho ndi maitele a tshumisano ya tshiga tsha vhudavhidzani vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha re na nḓivho vhane vha ṱuṱuwedzana na u kovhekana zwine zwa amba u itela u khwaṱhisa vhushaka havho khathihi na u fhirisa na u shumisa nḓivho u itela u zwikelela zwipikwa zwa tshiimiswa. Zwi tshi ya nga nyimele, zwo wanala uri vharangaphanḓa vha tshiimiswa vha tea u vhumba na u ṱuṱuwedza zwi tevhelaho: muhumbulo wa tshumisano kha vhurangaphanḓa, zwa tshimuya mushumoni, u katela zwa mvelele, na u ṱanganedza u shumiswa ha thekhinoḽodzhi ya vhudavhidzani. Maelana na tshumisano nga tshiga kha LFD, maitele a vhudavhidzani a tevhelaho a wanala a one a ndeme kha ILR ire na mbuelo: u thetshelesa nga vhuronwane, u tikedza vhatevheli hu na kupfesesele kwa uri vhathu vho fhambana, vhudavhidzani ha ṱhonifho, u dzhiela nṱha mihumbulo ya vhatevheli, u ṱuṱuwedza u ṱhalutshedza nga nḓila yo fhambanaho i vhuedzaho ya vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha shumaho u ya nga vhone vhaṋe, u dzhia dzhenelela (u vhona nga nḓila ine vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha vona ngayo), u tangnedza nḓivho, ndaulo ya phambano nga kha nyambedzano i sa shushedziho, ya ṱhonifho, nga maanḓa nga nyambedzano vhathu vho livhana zwifhaṱuwo, u ṱuṱuwedza nḓivho ya ṱhalutshedzo kana ndivho ya mushumo kha vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli, u ṱuṱuwedza zwithu zwi fhaṱaho vhushaka vhu vhuedzaho u fana na u fulufhedzana. Zwo tumbulwa uri ILR i bveledza sisiṱeme ya mvelelo u vha tshiimiswa tshine tsha dzhenelela kha mvelele na vhuḓipfi, kushumele kwa mushumo, u ṱuṱuwedzea na u dzhenelela ha vhashumi, nauri vhashumi vha sa ṱuwe. U ṱanganedzea ha muthu zwo vheekanywa zwi tshi ya nga mikhwa ya muthu ene muṋe na vhukoni zwine zwa tikedza ILR. Mikhwa ya muthu ya ndemesa yo topolwa sa u fulufhedzea, lufuno, ṱhonifho kana u dzhenelela, fulufhelo, na vhukoni kha zwa phurofeshinaḽa. Vhukoni ha ndeme ho sumbedzwa sa vhukoni ha u thetshelesa, vhukoni ha vhudavhidzani ha muhumbulo (nga maanḓa u ḓiḓivha, u ḓilingulula/sedzulusa na u dzhiela nzhele vhuḓipfi ha vhaṅwe vhathu), vhukoni ha u dzhenelela, vhukoni ha ndaulo ya phambano, na vhukoni ha u dzhenelela kha mvelele nnzhi (zwi tshi katela vhukoni ha zwa murafho).Communication ScienceD. Litt. et Phil. (Communication