Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Are nonusers socially disadvantaged?

Presentation from 12th International conference Cyberspace

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Are nonusers socially disadvantaged?

  1. 1. Petr Lupač, Ph.D. Charles University in Prague World Internet Project The Czech Republic Financed due to Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA13-21024S) „World Internet Project –The Czech Republic II“
  2. 2. System of social inequality Unequal Internet access Unequal gains/losses The empirical evidence? VERY WEAK (van Dijk, Helsper)
  3. 3.  No interest/Not useful 25%  Do not know how to use/Confused by technologies 32%  No computer or device 20%  Too expensive/Cannot afford the fees/charges 6%  No time/Too busy 4%  Other 13%  No Internet connection 2% “sour grapes” reasoning and plain ignorance of the Internet ? van Dijk (2005: 35)
  4. 4.  2005-2008 project “WIP – Czech Republic” ◦ Assoc. Prof. David Šmahel, Ph.D. ◦ Funded by Ministry of Education ◦ Masaryk University, Brno  2013-2015 project “WIP – the Czech Republic II” ◦ Petr Lupac,Ph.D., Jan Sladek, M.A. ◦ Charles University in Prague ◦ Funded by the Czech grant agency ◦ Survey in 2014, CAPI, representative for the CZR
  5. 5.  Pilot study in May  Data collected in May and June 2014 by a specialized agency  Method of data collection ◦ CAPI F2F interviews ◦ Stratified random sampling combined with quota sampling ◦ Measures taken to include parts of the population with lower probability of being interviewed  Respondents declaring no or very low interest in being interviewed pre-recruited from CAWI panel (cca 8 % of the sample)  Trained experienced interviewers instructed to deal with soft-rejection  Financial incentives (computed or estimated from wage)  100 % of the interviews were recorded, controlled and problematic respondents were excluded  1316 respondents in the final sample, 79 % Internet users  Weighted sample representative for the population of the Czech Republic, age 15+  A good fit of results with other data sources (WIP I, CZSO, Facebook)
  6. 6. Problem: We do not know the share of non-questioned busy people in a general population -> four steps to balance the sample I. Weighting 92% of the sample (that was not pre-recruited) to fit the sociodemographic structure of the Czech population II. Finding the relations between sociodemographics and Internet use/nonuse as well as the “pure” percentage of Internet users III. Resulting Internet use added as a fixing variable to the weighting procedure IV. Weighting the whole sample by the following auxiliary variables  Region (14 categories – NUTS3), Size of municipality (5 categories), Gender (2 categories), Age (6 categories), Education (4 categories), Age x education (30 categories), Employment status (6 categories), Attended 2013 elections (2 categories) ◦ 5 iterations, weighting range: 0,5 – 2,0
  7. 7. WIP Czech Republic, Population 18+ ???
  8. 8. Users Nonusers Age 41 (42; 15) 68 (66; 15) Nr of people living in the household 3 (2,7; 1,2) 2 (2,1; 1,1) Ind. income/month 4/17 (5; 3) 2/17 (3; 2) Nr. of close friends 5 (6; 4) 3 (3; 3) Share of soc. environment using the Internet 80 % (70 %; 30 %) 30 % (30 %; 30 %) Life satisfaction 8/10 (7; 3) 7/10 (7; 4) Median (mean; std. dev)
  9. 9. Users Nonusers Nr of people living in the household 2 (1,9; 0,7) 2 (1,7; 0,8) Ind. income/month 3/17 (4; 3) 2/17 (2; 2) Nr. of close friends 4 (5; 3) 2 (3; 3) Share of soc. environment using the Internet 70 % (60 %; 30 %) 10 % (20 %; 30 %) Life satisfaction 7/10 (7; 3) 8/10 (7; 4) Median (mean; std. dev)
  10. 10. 65 % of nonusers do not know anyone (relative or acquaintance) who could help them set up or solve technical problem with Internet connection 30 % of nonusers do not know anyone who could order something for them via the Internet 28 % of nonusers do not know anyone who could send an email, fill an online form or find something online for them 31 % of nonusers asked someone to do so at least several times
  11. 11. Having proxy No proxy Age 66 (63; 13) 73 (73; 14) Nr of people living in the household 2 (2,03; 12) 1 (1,63; 4) Ind. income/month 2/17 (2; 3) 2/17 (2; 2) Nr of close friends 3 (4; 3) 1 (2; 3) Share of soc. environment using the Internet 30 % (40 %; 30 %) 0 % (20 %; 30 %) Life satisfaction 8/10 (7; 3) 6/10 (6; 4) Median (mean; std. dev)
  12. 12. Question: Not-using the Internet can be both advantage and disadvantage. Thinking about your personal experience in the recent years, how much does the fact that you are not using the Internet affected your life in the following areas? Please, answer with the help of the following scale, where -5 (minus five) means significant worsening and +5 (plus five) means significant improvement.
  13. 13.  My knowledge of what's going on in the Czech republic  My knowledge of what's going on in other countries  My knowledge of what's going on in your locality  My involvement in public life in my local community  Dealing with state authorities {getting subsidy, welfare, submitting documents, etc.}  Contact with my family and my family life  Contact with my friends and acquiantences  My overall financial situation (i.e., my incomes and expenses)  Building up my career and my success on labour market  Pursuing and developing my hobbies  Overall satisfaction with my life
  14. 14.  Important differences between users and nonusers are ◦ new-tech efficacy ◦ network capital (ICT in social environment)  Majority of nonusers declare no worsening of their life due to Internet nonuse.  The hypothesis of sour grapes reasoning is weakened due to negligible differences between proxy users and completely disconnected.
  15. 15.  We cannot go on without leaving an assumption of universal Internet added value. ◦ Internet added value should be understood as contextual  We cannot go on without understanding what explains (preceived) added value among users, i.e., what is the role of contextual variables in explanation of Internet added value …so, could data about users help us?
  16. 16.  The supposed role of variety/number of online activities and time spent online (van Dijk 2005) ◦ -> hours online weekly, nr. of online non SNS activities performed weekly  The important role of digital skills, age and education in gaining benefits from Internet use (van Deursen, van Dijk and Peters 2011) ◦ -> operational skills index, informational skills index, age, education  Previous social skills predict well sociability gains from Internet use (rich-get-richer hypothesis findings; c.f., Lee 2009) ◦ -> ntw size index (via resource generator, sum of strong and weak ties)  The role of bridging social capital in acquiring resources ◦ -> bridging = bonding * nr. of structural holes  The role of network capital in explaining individual state (Wellman and Frank 1999) ◦ -> share of Internet users in respondent’s social environment  The ability to benefit from technological development (Rogers 2003) ◦ -> innovativeness index
  17. 17. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Age -,13*** Education ,09** Time spent online OA variety - no SNS Operational skills Informational skills Innovativeness Life satisfaction Bridging cpt. Ntw. Size Ntw. capital Indispensability Adj. R2 ,02
  18. 18.  To understand (declared) ICT effects, crucial seems to be digital inclusion of BOTH a person AND his/her social environment => Nonusers should not be interpreted as sour grapes reasoning foxes  Matthew effect confirmed (not a surprise)
  19. 19. Petr Lupač, Ph.D. PETR.LUPAC@FF.CUNI.CZ @PetrLupac Department of Sociology Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts Celetna 13, Prague The Czech Republic

    Be the first to comment

    Login to see the comments

Presentation from 12th International conference Cyberspace

Views

Total views

297

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

2

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×