Hi Folks, We are currently teaching a group of students using a system with a functionality of typical contemporary social software. This mailing list should be the right place to ask whether you are familiar with studies of on-line behaviour. Is there someone/university interested/working in this area? I would highly appreciate if you could share any contacts/resources or your thoughts on it. Best, Karen Stepanyan, BCUC/Brunel University Doctoral Candidate
Hello Karen For me the much more interesting study is a new sort of "digital divide", where people have access to the Internet, but they don't really have "on-line behaviour" except swapping jokes and pictures, and doing a Google search twice a month. There is some research on literacy, based in Canada but presently occurring in about 20 countries around the world. I've personally been involved in collecting some of the data here in NZ. There are about 20 questions asked about computer use. Interestingly people were not asked if they received any list mail. Nor were they asked if they had joined any social networks. Nor were they asked if they had published some personal web pages. In my view this shows that the people who compiled the questions are about 5 years behind the times. However that may not be the case. I interviewed about 60 people. I know 5 of those were functionally illiterate. (This is NZ, our educational standards are good, and I'm shocked.) Over 80% had Internet access in the home. Not a single person mentioned list mail, or social networks or personal web pages. As I said these were no specific questions, but there was a question something like "Do you do anything else on the Internet that we haven't talked about." People mentioned genealogy, and music making, and specialist business applications. A bit late in the day I started to ask an exploratory question, mentioning lists and social networks, but never got a positive response. So I conclude the prime online behaviour is NOT being online, even when people have personal access. Such behaviour confounds me. It's not at all what my expectation would anticipate. This confirms with a much bigger number the small group I observed using their computers in Bryndwr, Christchurch in September 2003. http://www.ate.co.nz/internet/bryndwr.html When you begin to understand this, the implications are enormous. Non-participation explains very easily the long tails we see on lists and in social networks. On LinkedIn for instance the mean number of connections per member is less than 5 and depending on how many people with zero connections there are, the mean may be much lower than that. LinkedIn might have 8 million members, but they are not Linked In. On Ryze 5% of the members attract about 50% of all the attention. Another 10% get about 46% of the attention, leaving 4% of attention for all the rest. Mostly that 85% of the membership would be best described as not participating. Hence the long tail. What disturbs me about this is the failure of "Digital Strategy" in Canada, in New Zealand and I'm sure elsewhere. The digital superhighway was the dream in the mid 1990's. What we got was the "world wide wait" as most of you will remember, and concern about the "digital divide". We certainly have a digital divide. But it's not the one we expected to have. If the digital superhighway can be said to exist, we need to ask why most of the computers connected to it are controlled by people who have no idea how to benefit from using that terminal. This understanding has led me to found the Global Engagement Trust. Here are three links. The GET Wiki: http://get.wikispaces.com/ My GET page: http://www.ate.co.nz/global/index.html John O'Brien's GET page: http://www.irmstrategies.com/global/index.html Regards John Karen Stepanyan wrote:
This mailing list should be the right place to ask whether you are familiar with studies of on-line behaviour. John Stephen Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz Should we be talking? Can I help? Google me
This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people to use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, do?" and "WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have really begun to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk reaction to discovering that someone does not "engage," "participate," or "produce" things on the web. After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my own car, or build my own calculators, so why should I expect others to learn HTML, join a list, or defrag their own harddrive? I am, of course, puzzled on a personal level as to why someone wouldn't find these things as ridiculously fascinating as I, but I have come to realize that we cannot possibly be expected to engage deeply with every item we come across on a daily basis, simply because of the sheer amount of data and processes with which we regularly interact. There just isn't enough time in the world, so we must each pick and choose according to our tastes and talents. -Alexis On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, John Veitch wrote: ::Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:10:21 +1300 ::From: John Veitch <jsveitch@ate.co.nz> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org, jsveitch@ate.co.nz ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] On-line behaviour :: ::Hello Karen :: ::For me the much more interesting study is a new sort of "digital ::divide", where people have access to the Internet, but they don't really ::have "on-line behaviour" except swapping jokes and pictures, and doing a ::Google search twice a month. :: ::There is some research on literacy, based in Canada but presently ::occurring in about 20 countries around the world. I've personally been ::involved in collecting some of the data here in NZ. There are about 20 ::questions asked about computer use. Interestingly people were not asked ::if they received any list mail. Nor were they asked if they had joined ::any social networks. Nor were they asked if they had published some ::personal web pages. In my view this shows that the people who compiled ::the questions are about 5 years behind the times. :: ::However that may not be the case. I interviewed about 60 people. I know ::5 of those were functionally illiterate. (This is NZ, our educational ::standards are good, and I'm shocked.) Over 80% had Internet access in ::the home. Not a single person mentioned list mail, or social networks or ::personal web pages. As I said these were no specific questions, but ::there was a question something like "Do you do anything else on the ::Internet that we haven't talked about." People mentioned genealogy, and ::music making, and specialist business applications. A bit late in the ::day I started to ask an exploratory question, mentioning lists and ::social networks, but never got a positive response. :: ::So I conclude the prime online behaviour is NOT being online, even when ::people have personal access. Such behaviour confounds me. It's not at ::all what my expectation would anticipate. :: ::This confirms with a much bigger number the small group I observed using ::their computers in Bryndwr, Christchurch in September 2003. ::http://www.ate.co.nz/internet/bryndwr.html :: ::When you begin to understand this, the implications are enormous. ::Non-participation explains very easily the long tails we see on lists ::and in social networks. On LinkedIn for instance the mean number of ::connections per member is less than 5 and depending on how many people ::with zero connections there are, the mean may be much lower than that. ::LinkedIn might have 8 million members, but they are not Linked In. :: ::On Ryze 5% of the members attract about 50% of all the attention. ::Another 10% get about 46% of the attention, leaving 4% of attention for ::all the rest. Mostly that 85% of the membership would be best described ::as not participating. Hence the long tail. :: ::What disturbs me about this is the failure of "Digital Strategy" in ::Canada, in New Zealand and I'm sure elsewhere. The digital superhighway ::was the dream in the mid 1990's. What we got was the "world wide wait" ::as most of you will remember, and concern about the "digital divide". We ::certainly have a digital divide. But it's not the one we expected to have. :: ::If the digital superhighway can be said to exist, we need to ask why ::most of the computers connected to it are controlled by people who have ::no idea how to benefit from using that terminal. This understanding has ::led me to found the Global Engagement Trust. Here are three links. ::The GET Wiki: http://get.wikispaces.com/ ::My GET page: http://www.ate.co.nz/global/index.html ::John O'Brien's GET page: http://www.irmstrategies.com/global/index.html :: ::Regards ::John :: :: :: :: :: ::Karen Stepanyan wrote: ::> This mailing list should be the right place to ask whether you are familiar with studies of on-line behaviour. ::John Stephen Veitch ::http://www.ate.co.nz ::Should we be talking? Can I help? ::Google me :: ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ ::
Alexis Turner wrote:
This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people to use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, do?" and "WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have really begun to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk reaction to discovering that someone does not "engage," "participate," or "produce" things on the web. After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my own car, or build my own calculators, so why should I expect others to learn HTML, join a list, or defrag their own harddrive?
Hello Alexis I've very pleased to see you take this up. Yesterday I thought I'd found somebody who agreed with concerns I've been expressing for three years. I refer to "The Digital Divide and What to Do About it" by Eszter Hargittai and drawing on the work of Paul DiMaggio. Sadly this paper acknowledges the same problem that I've identified and then gets lost. (Thank you to the person who posted that link.) Researchers: Find some real live "ordinary people". Sit them in front of a terminal. Ask them to do what they always do on-line. Watch and learn. I promise you the FIVE people will be enough to convince you that there is a serious problem and to give you research work that will keep you busy for about 10 years. Alexis; you might contract out your vehicle maintenance and your vegetable growing, but I hope you are not going to contract out your ability to think, your eating, and your ability to make friends. If people are going to be on-line they need to understand the value of and the importance of three simple things. 1. Know how to keep your computer safe. 2. Find and join groups of people who share your interests (Both on-line and off-line). 3. Join and participate in a social network on-line. About 50% of people can't do number one, about 80% of people are not doing number two, and about 95% of people don't do number three. These three things are basic to on-line engagement. If you are going to learn to think more deeply, more widely, and to more purpose, you need to be connected to other people. The promise of the digital age is a fraud if you as an individual can't become part of it. That means you MUST be able to participate, not merely be a consumer. You have to develop your own brain. You can't buy one at the supermarket. Regards John -- John Stephen Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz Should we be talking? Can I help? Google me
I think that the computer safety angle is an important one for a lot of otherwise sensible people, and there is also a fear of cyberstalking. This may look silly to us, but fear is a potent driver for people when they are dealing with the unknown, and The Internet ranks as Very Unknown.. I don't know about NZ (having left there in 1998), but my observation of life in Sydney is that many, if not most, people limit their engagement with new people (consciously or unconsciously). If this is true in f-t-f environments, why would they seek out the company of other new people online? I was driven online by not finding people whom I wanted to connect with in my f-t-f environment in a provincial city. It changed my life in ways I don't want to go into here. But most of my family, workmates and people I knew socially thought I was crazy to make the changes I did as a result of online connections. I found this bizarre and frustrating, for reasons I'm sure you'll understand. Do you think that will change in time? In other words, is it, at least partly, generational? (I am 55, so am very unusual in my age group - in this as well as many other things!) M-H On 28/11/2006, at 7:14 AM, John Veitch wrote:
If people are going to be on-line they need to understand the value of and the importance of three simple things. 1. Know how to keep your computer safe. 2. Find and join groups of people who share your interests (Both on- line and off-line). 3. Join and participate in a social network on-line.
About 50% of people can't do number one, about 80% of people are not doing number two, and about 95% of people don't do number three.
These three things are basic to on-line engagement. If you are going to learn to think more deeply, more widely, and to more purpose, you need to be connected to other people. The promise of the digital age is a fraud if you as an individual can't become part of it. That means you MUST be able to participate, not merely be a consumer. You have to develop your own brain. You can't buy one at the supermarket.
Regards John
--
John Stephen Veitch http://www.ate.co.nz Should we be talking? Can I help? Google me
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
You should check the work of Pew Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/ Particularly interesting here is there studies of "Refusniks" and why some people remain isolated or offline. While clearly there are refuseniks - I think the latest Pew Internet work finds that those groups are becoming increasingly demographically isolated and over time are vanishing. There are for example elder populations which have not gotten online - but as generations move demographically, this is becoming a smaller factor. You can also find some statistical data aggregated on Cybertelecom. This page has a subcategory re refuseniks http://www.cybertelecom.org/data/broadband.htm --- John Veitch <jsveitch@ate.co.nz> wrote:
Alexis Turner wrote:
This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people to use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, do?" and "WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have really begun to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk reaction to discovering that someone does not "engage," "participate," or "produce" things on the web. After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my own car, or build my own calculators, so why should I expect others to learn HTML, join a list, or defrag their own harddrive?
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org Light to Unite! Click the Website to lite the candle and Bristol Myers Squibb will donate $1 to fight AIDS (up to $100K total). World AIDS Day is Dec. 1 https://www.lighttounite.org/ At last check, only $84K has been raised.
Dear all, Interesting discussion . . . I agree very much to what John pointed out: "We have a digit divide but not the one we expected to have." I like to add a different aspect to that discussion. What about not looking at society level but looking at working environments. How can we work in projects teams with a huge "digital divide"? In work settings it's not anymore a question of choice but a question of alignment, so that everybody can participate and collaborate in the project.
From my own experience, I know that different attitude and skills with regards to e-technologies (especially communication tools) make it very difficult to work together and create a common vision. Has anybody similar experiences? What once it was a challenge to work in multidisciplinary teams, in our days the challenge is to work in teams with a huge "digital divide". The biggest issue is that many still see the internet and it's applications as a question of tools - it's IT. They are little aware that by using those "tools" a new way of communication and collaboration is possible, which can/will change the way of working. IT on the other side is puzzled on how come that the tools developed does not get used - or not used properly - or only by a specific group. There is little awareness that those tools need also a ?culture of usage?. And second question is of course when does it make sense to push for new e-technology based application and when not.
Any thoughts or comments? Regards Nicole MA. Nicole Reinhold, Senior Research Consultant nicole.reinhold@philips.com, http://www.design.philips.com air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org wrote on 2006-11-27 09:55:55 PM:
You should check the work of Pew Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/ Particularly interesting here is there studies of "Refusniks" and why some people remain isolated or offline. While clearly there are refuseniks - I think the latest Pew Internet work finds that those groups are becoming increasingly demographically isolated and over time are vanishing. There are for example elder populations which have not gotten online - but as generations move demographically, this is becoming a smaller factor.
You can also find some statistical data aggregated on Cybertelecom. This page has a subcategory re refuseniks http://www.cybertelecom.org/data/broadband.htm
--- John Veitch <jsveitch@ate.co.nz> wrote:
Alexis Turner wrote:
This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people to use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, do?" and "WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have really begun to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk reaction to discovering that someone does not "engage," "participate," or "produce" things on the web. After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my own car, or build my own calculators, so why should I expect others to learn HTML, join a list, or defrag their own harddrive?
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org
Light to Unite! Click the Website to lite the candle and Bristol Myers Squibb will donate $1 to fight AIDS (up to $100K total). World AIDS Day is Dec. 1 https://www.lighttounite.org/ At last check, only $84K has been raised. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir. org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
::Alexis Turner wrote: ::> This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot ::> lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people ::> to use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, ::> do?" and "WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have ::> really begun to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk ::> reaction to discovering that someone does not "engage," "participate," or ::> "produce" things on the web. After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my ::> own car, or build my own calculators, so why should I expect others to learn ::> HTML, join a list, or defrag their own harddrive? :: ::On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, John Veitch wrote: ::Hello Alexis :: ::I've very pleased to see you take this up. ::Yesterday I thought I'd found somebody who agreed with concerns I've been ::expressing for three years. I refer to "The Digital Divide and What to Do ::About it" by Eszter Hargittai and drawing on the work of Paul DiMaggio. Sadly ::this paper acknowledges the same problem that I've identified and then gets ::lost. ::(Thank you to the person who posted that link.) :: ::Researchers: Find some real live "ordinary people". Sit them in front of a ::terminal. Ask them to do what they always do on-line. Watch and learn. I ::promise you the FIVE people will be enough to convince you that there is a ::serious problem and to give you research work that will keep you busy for ::about 10 years. :: ::Alexis; you might contract out your vehicle maintenance and your vegetable ::growing, but I hope you are not going to contract out your ability to think, ::your eating, and your ability to make friends. :: ::If people are going to be on-line they need to understand the value of and the ::importance of three simple things. ::1. Know how to keep your computer safe. ::2. Find and join groups of people who share your interests (Both on-line and ::off-line). ::3. Join and participate in a social network on-line. :: ::About 50% of people can't do number one, about 80% of people are not doing ::number two, and about 95% of people don't do number three. :: ::These three things are basic to on-line engagement. If you are going to learn ::to think more deeply, more widely, and to more purpose, you need to be ::connected to other people. The promise of the digital age is a fraud if you as ::an individual can't become part of it. That means you MUST be able to ::participate, not merely be a consumer. You have to develop your own brain. You ::can't buy one at the supermarket. :: ::Regards ::John John, Regarding this line specifically: ::Alexis; you might contract out your vehicle maintenance and your vegetable ::growing, but I hope you are not going to contract out your ability to think, ::your eating, and your ability to make friends. No, of course I'm not. But your argument suggests that going online is the only way I can acheive those three things (friends, thinking, and learning). Human interaction, thought, and learning...engagement with the world in other words...was not invented with the advent of the internet. It has been bolstered by it, certainly, but crying because people still turn to books and face to face seems to me a bit self-important (no offense to you is meant - I believe that most if not all of us have this natural reaction when people cannot "appreciate" our medium of choice, and it is my own similar reaction that has caused me to begin to question this response). That's not to say that this divide doesn't exist - I worked tech support for many years and I certainly don't need to walk yet another person through how to eject a disk (that was a 40 minute phone call, in case you're curious) to appreciate that fact. But it is precisely that experience that makes me realize that it is selfish to expect users to understand the fine points, and to engage in every aspect of the internet. I am able to "use" a road perfectly well without understanding the subtleties of concrete, and I am quite thankful that there are others in the world who have devoted their attentions to the matter precisely BECAUSE their work frees me to use that road in happy ignorance, while giving me the time to devote MY attentions to other things like simply getting myself to the store in one piece. There are simply too many things in the world for me to be actively engaged with all of them. For some, that means the Internet falls off the list. Now, I will say, there is one thing which I personally DO believe is crucial knowledge for users of the Internet - the ability to critically evaluate a source. But that, I suspect, is a slightly different discussion, and certainly not unique to the web. -Alexis
Eszter Hargittai is doing work in that sort of area, I think. Certainly worth having a look http://www.princeton.edu/~eszter/research.html --- Karen Stepanyan <subscribe.karen@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Folks,
We are currently teaching a group of students using a system with a functionality of typical contemporary social software.
This mailing list should be the right place to ask whether you are familiar with studies of on-line behaviour.
Is there someone/university interested/working in this area? I would highly appreciate if you could share any contacts/resources or your thoughts on it.
Best, Karen Stepanyan, BCUC/Brunel University Doctoral Candidate
Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001
participants (7)
-
Alexis Turner -
Dominic Pinto -
John Veitch -
Karen Stepanyan -
Mary-Helen Ward -
Nicole Reinhold -
Robert Cannon