Directions for WIP-related research: A theoretical framework WIP New Zealand | Nigel Smith

Directions for WIP-related research: A theoretical

framework

WIP New Zealand | Nigel Smith

http://wipnz.aut.ac.nz

Aim

• To offer a framework to inform WIP (NZ) research direction

• To situate the WIP in a theoretical context• To reflect on WIP International comparisons• To outline WIP NZ research directions in the light of theory and WIP Intl findings

Offline Antecedents Online Offline Consequences

A contextual framework

Demographics

User characteristics

Power/Access issues

Activities

Attitudes

Uses

Intended/Unintended

Individual/Group/Societal

Negative/Positive

Diffuse/Specific


Early utopian hopes

The Internet

Changing lives

Complementing social

connectivity

Individual liberty

Pluralism

Community

Diversity

Kapor (1993)

Rheingold (1993)

Katz & Aspden (1997)


Early reaction: a dystopian view

The InternetLoneliness,

depression, less communication

Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler,

Mukopadhyay & Scherlis (1998)

The InternetLoss of contact

with social environment

Nie & Erbring (2002)

Putnam (2001) The Internet

-ve impact on social capital &

community


A more neutral context

The Internet

DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman & Robinson (2001)

Power / inequality / access

issues

Community / social capital

Politics

Economic institutions

Arts / entertainment


Q: Is there a main effect? A: No

Involvement

Katz & Rice (2002)

Access InteractionSocial capital

“Syntopia brings together the offline and online realms of action, local and global concerns, and individual and collective pursuits … It can foster both virtue and sin even while it synthesizes dystopian and utopian impulses” (p. 354)

Q: Is there a main effect? A: No

Leaning (2005)

Instrumental / Neutral

Determinist / Utopian

Substantivist / Dystopian

Modal

vsvs

“Like the telephone and televisionbefore it, the Internet by itself is not a main

effect cause of anything.” (2000, p. 57)

Bargh, McKenna et al. (2000, 2002,

2004)

Interactionist

Digital Divide Approach

• Divide seen in terms of age, education, income, ethnicity, geographic location• Country differences (wealth, welfare-state type)• Normalisation vs stratification• Focus on access and frequency of use

Digital Divide vs Digital Differentiation

Peter & Valkenburg

(2006)

Digital Divide vs Digital Differentiation

Digital Differentiation Approach

Those with greater socio-economic, cognitive, and cultural resources, and skills…

…will use the internet more frequently as an

(a) information (H1) and

(b) as a social medium (H2); and

(c) less as an entertainment medium (H3).

Peter & Valkenburg

(2006)


Social Anxiety

Identity experiments

Social competence

Loneliness

Variety of comm.

partners

Valkenburg & Peter (2008)

Self concept unity


Structure of WIPNZ variables

Crothers (2008)

Household characteristics


Ratings / attitudes towards Internet

Equipment / Access

ConsequencesTime /

Activities


WIP research context

General WIP location of analysis

Patterns of communication

Satisfaction

Digital Literacy

Trust

Social effects

AddictionDivide / Inequality

User profile types

Psychological characteristics Loneliness

/ anxiety

Democracy / governance

Online communities

WIP Intl comparisons: Two issues of interest to New Zealand

Dialup vs Broadband

WIP Intl comparisons: NZ interests

Education

Internet Use at School

(Hours per week)

WIP Intl comparisons: NZ interests

Education

The Internet and School-Related Work

Theoretical drivers for WIP NZ research direction

• Modal level of analysis (not ‘main effect’ research)• Avoid utopian/dystopian extremes• ‘Differentiation’ rather than ‘divide’ approach• Complement main survey with additional work on consequences


Outcome: Subsequent analysis

Dialup vs Broadband

issue

Urban-Rural

Broadband vs dialup

Income

Gender

Age

Employment status

Ethnicity

Education

NB: Demographic variables explain only a modest proportion of variance. New questions exploring satisfaction with reliability and speed included for 2009


Outcome: Intended research

Educationissue

Learning outcomes

Gaming pedagogy

Engagement

Personality variables

Teaching style

Learning styles

Possible WIP NZ research directions

• Trend and longitudinal panel analysis• Further exploration of youth/adult comparisons with paired dataset • Establishing smaller online panel for more frequent data collection• Integration of other NZ research (eg. official statistics)• Exploring collaboration with BIT NZ researchers• Effect of social networking on life satisfaction/wellbeing• Open ended research with young people

Acknowledgments

Funders are not responsible for the findings of the NZ team or the other International partners

WIP NZ team members: Allan Bell, Jennie Billot, Charles Crothers, Ian Goodwin, Kevin Sherman, Philippa Smith

ICDC Administrator: Kristie Elphick

Funders:


Structure of WIPNZ variables

Crothers (2008)

Household characteristics


Ratings / attitudes towards Internet

Equipment / Access

ConsequencesTime /

Activities

General / transactions / Work access

Government / Home access

Learning / School access

Youth oriented Activities

Reflections on WIP methodology

• ‘Since being connected to the internet’ questions• Mobile-only populations – impact on landline sampling • Engagement with theory - Scale development – within main survey? In related research? Use of MVA?• Lessons from other international comparative surveys? Eg WVS, ISSP

Suggestions for main survey

• Avoid ‘main effect’ questions• Balance coverage with more on consequences• Rephrase ‘since the internet’ questions

Opportunities for collaboration

• Identifying and mapping areas for collaboration will avoid duplication and maximise efficiency• Sharing of methodological expertise

Documents

Directions for WIP-related research: A theoretical framework WIP New Zealand | Nigel Smith