↓ Skip to main content

Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide

Overview of attention for article published in New Media & Society, January 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
132 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Culture is digital: Cultural participation, diversity and the digital divide
Published in
New Media & Society, January 2019
DOI 10.1177/1461444818822816
Authors

Sabina Mihelj, Adrian Leguina, John Downey

Abstract

Digital media are seen as important instruments of increasing participation and diversity in arts and culture. To examine whether this view is justified, this article draws on two bodies of research that have hitherto remained disconnected: research on cultural participation, and research on the digital divide. Building on these insights, the article examines the Taking Part Survey data on digital media and cultural participation in the UK between 2005/06 and 2015/16, focusing on museums and galleries. While the results confirm that digital media provide an important means of engaging new audiences, they also show that the engagement with museums and galleries both on- and off-line remains deeply unequal. Most worryingly, the gaps between the haves and the have nots are even wider on-line than in the case of physical visits. Rather than helping increase the diversity of audiences, online access seems to reproduce, if not enlarge, existing inequalities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 132 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Master 15 11%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 39 29%
Arts and Humanities 18 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 8%
Computer Science 6 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 41 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2021.
All research outputs
#310,853
of 20,114,356 outputs
Outputs from New Media & Society
#82
of 1,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,530
of 361,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New Media & Society
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,114,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.