Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe

François Heinderyckx

Adoption of the Information Society in Europe (as well as in the developed world at large), is considered a given and a political priority. The only uncertainty associated with this overwhelming and said to be irreversible trend is the rate of adoption and the nature of the obstacles holding it up. This contribution will argue that the attention and energy vested into studying these issues foster on restrictive perspectives partly based on erroneous assumptions. In particular, it will be argued that most IS adoption indicators are not only diverse (hence hazardous to compare) but more importantly deprived of unequivocal conceptual basis. The central and apparently simple ‘Internet use’ indicators will be used to elaborate on this issue.

Moreover, it will be argued that mainstream initiatives in assessing IS take up are overlooking two crucial issues: (a) that besides those individuals who cannot use IS technologies, there remains a significant and potentially irreducible proportion of individuals who simply do not want to use them and (b) that these ‘want-nots’ are likely to be discriminated in their rights as citizens.

The challenge of measuring IS adoption

Ever since the Information Society self-proclaimed its emergence and advent, it has been considered inseparable from a major shift in society bearing high expectations as a source of growth, wealth, employment, and well-being in general. Even though social and innovation research has gradually turned its focus on the users (Vedel, 1994), technological determinism still imposes the view that technological innovation drives progress. These prospects have triggered countless initiatives in attempting to measure its progress among businesses, administrations and households. Those measures have gradually become fully- 88 The European Information Society fledged socio-economic indicators alongside traditional indicators used to monitor countries or regions (GDP, unemployment rate, etc.). The development of the Information Society, however, is much more challenging to monitor than one would think. Undertakings to monitor the adoption of the Information Society rely almost exclusively on survey research interviewing representative samples of population about their use of IS related technologies. Given the prohibitive cost associated with such studies, measures are so far predominantly carried out by the industry for which the exercise is also one of plain market research. The successive waves of such indicators are strikingly heterogeneous in their methodology, up to the point where using their results requires great caution if only regarding the variables they actually measure. One of the core indicators of IS take up is the ‘Internet penetration’. Behind this seemingly simple and unambiguous concept lays a variety of variables as wide as that of the survey questions they are based upon. A number of ‘meta-sources’ try to compile various studies in order to provide a reliable basis for comparisons, mostly on a nation-by-nation perspective. NUA, Internetstats.com, CyberAtlas and other web sites gather statistics from various sources and try to aggregate them with too little concern for the diversity of underlying methodologies, except for a few words of caution (‘Often, there are widely differing counts. We do our best to check on the accuracy of counts by comparing them to regional growth patterns and other projections’ warns CyberAtlas).

For lack of a systematic meta-analysis, we shall consider two main clusters of indicators used to measure Internet adoption. The first cluster focuses on ‘access to’ the Internet. The questions used query whether respondents have within their reach the means to use the Internet, most often at home or at work. Although Internet is accessed from a number of places (Heinderyckx, 2001), one can regard as genuine Internet users those having a connection at home. This particular approach is quite typical of the market research perspective in which ‘penetration’ is gauged against ownership of the necessary equipment and services to use the Internet. These studies are easily identifiable when they feed triumphant headlines announcing that so many households, for example, are ‘connected’.

Using data from the Eurobarometer surveys organised by the European Commission, we can assess Internet penetration in European households on that very basis (EB 56.0, see second column of Table 1). On average, a little less than 30 % of all European respondents say they have access to the Internet from their home. However impressive these figures may be, they tell us very little about IS adoption. At best, they provide an evaluation of potential users. Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe 89 Deciphering the ‘Internet user’

The second cluster of indicators is centred on determining whether respondents qualify as actual ‘Internet users’. This apparently simple indicator can be particularly misleading. What makes one an ‘Internet user’? One way to avoid endless arguments about what is an adequate definition of an Internet user, is to simply ask people whether they consider themselves an Internet user. Even though such an approach obviously relies on a blurred and ambiguous basis, it is nonetheless relevant in the way it measures consistently respondents’ self- perception of being an Internet user, i.e. singling out individuals who feel they have taken a step towards those technologies and, in a way, are committed to integrate them in their way of life, if only partly.

Let us see what picture of the ‘Internet user’ is produced by such a broad approach. Using data from wave 56.3 of the Eurobarometer, we find that over one third (37,2 %) of the European population see themselves as Internet users (the question was “Do you use the Internet nowadays?”). Quite predictably, that proportion varies considerably among countries (from 19% in Greece to 68% in Sweden) and among various demographic groups (see first column of Table 1). Another approach to measuring Internet adoption is to concentrate not only on the use of Internet in general, but to include some notion of frequency of use. Some studies include in ‘Internet users’ statistics even those who use it very seldom. If one has ever used the Internet, it can be argued that he or she has taken that decisive first step towards IS technologies. On the contrary, one could argue that very low frequencies of use can be an indication of dissatisfaction which is likely to build up resistance against, rather than initiate transition towards IS technologies. Using questions querying the ‘frequency of use’ allows to differentiate ‘occasional users’ from ‘heavy users’. In fact, on the continuum of frequency of use, one might decide ‘true’ or ‘actual’ users are only found above a specific threshold of frequency. This approach can be upheld by arguing that it takes into account only individuals who have truly integrated IS technologies into their daily lives, their cultural practices, their information, communication and leisure activities. Again, the Eurobarometer provides figures regarding the frequency of use (EB 56.0). The third and fourth columns of Table 1 allow direct comparison with the previous approaches (access at home and self-perception).

If we consider only those using the Internet at least several times a week, the European average drops below a quarter (24%). And if we only count the ‘heavy users’, i.e. those using it on a daily basis, the figure falls below 10%. None of these approaches are completely satisfactory. In practice, each study tends to find its own set of indicators to determine the nature and amplitude of the 90 The European Information Society use of technologies in a particular way. Even if we agree on conventional qualifying factors for being an Internet user, we are still very far from understanding the mechanisms of adoption which require a finer investigation of the actual uses of the Internet. Being a user, even a regular one, still leaves a wide range of questions open as regards the actual applications being used, the time spent using them, etc. Such studies rely mostly on panels of Internet users whose representativeness is questionable.

Within the wide range of Internet applications frequently investigated, a few bear relevance well beyond their strict scope. One of these, for example, is the use of Internet for bank transactions. Its relevance, I argue, comes from a number of underlying attitudes associated with doing online banking: technical skills (in spite of the efforts for user-friendliness, the applications are still complex), trust in reliability (one would not resort to e-banking if having doubts about the fact that things will happen as they seem), trust in confidentiality (most people are quite nervous about secrecy of financial issues), willingness to carry out remote tasks which until recently required presential transactions with an individual (bank clerk), etc. All these attitudes indicate a strong basis for the most ambitious Internet applications, so that it could be argued that e-banking activities are to be considered as an aggregate parameter defining a particular class of core Internet users.

Let us consider this as yet another way to define, hence to measure the ‘Internet user’. Still based on Eurobarometer data, this would bring the proportion of Internet users in Europe down to a mere 6% (last column of Table 1). Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe 91

Table 1: Various approaches to measuring internet penetration using Eurobarometer data

Internet At least (Per cent) access several at times a Every Remote Self-perceived(1) home(2) week(2) day(2) banking(2) EU15(3) 36.3 29.3 23.7 9.1 6.0 S 67.6 59.4 48.8 24.9 27.7 DK 61.9 55.5 44.5 23.6 21.8 NL 61.5 53.7 39.9 19.9 12.2 FIN 53.0 34.3 33.0 11.4 24.5 L 48.4 46.3 31.2 13.2 14.0 UK 41.2 37.2 27.2 12.3 6.3 A 38.9 26.5 24.8 9.1 8.5 IRL 36.2 20.8 17.8 7.2 1.0 I 34.3 32.2 26.0 10.0 2.4 F 33.9 21.6 18.5 6.9 4.9 D 33.8 27.6 21.9 6.0 7.3 B 32.7 24.1 19.5 8.6 4.1 E 27.5 18.5 18.7 5.8 1.5 P 20.9 11.8 10.9 2.8 0.5 GR 18.9 12.1 9.7 3.7 0.6

Male 43.0 33.8 30.3 12.2 8.3 Female 30.0 25.1 17.6 6.2 4.0

Age 15 - 24 years 63.8 43.4 39.9 14.5 4.5 25 - 39 years 47.4 38.3 33.9 13.6 9.8 40 - 54 years 37.4 34.2 24.6 9.6 7.8 55 + years 11.9 10.9 6.0 2.1 2.2

Self-employed 43.5 37.4 30.8 12.1 10.6 Employed 45.4 37.4 32.6 12.7 9.3 Not working 27.5 20.8 14.7 5.4 2.4

Income - - 21.1 12.6 10.7 4.5 1.9 - 26.2 17.7 15.4 5.6 3.7 + 36.7 31.0 22.5 7.1 7.2 + + 56.7 55.6 45.5 19.1 15.8 92 The European Information Society

TEA(4) up to 15 years 10.1 9.6 5.6 2.1 1.2 16 - 19 years 32.5 27.9 20.6 7.2 5.5 20 + years 56.4 48.1 43.1 18.7 14.4 Still studying 78.4 54.1 49.3 17.5 5.2

Average coefficient of variation(5) 0.36 0.39 0.44 0.50 0.63

(1) Eurobarometer 56.3 (n=15,926, fieldwork January-February 2002) ; (2) Eurobarometer 56.0 (n=16,162 , fieldwork August-September 2001) ; (3) weighted average ; (4) Terminal Education Age (age at which respondent stopped full-time education) ; (5) COV=std deviation/mean

These five different, yet uncomplicated definitions of ‘Internet users’ not only result in a wide range of levels of penetrations, they also prompt significantly different patterns among various demographic groups. The deviation observed among classes of such basic demographic variables as nationality, gender, age, level of education and occupation are notably higher when considering narrower definitions of the Internet user (see ‘Average coefficient of variation’ in Table 1). Figure 1 plots the penetration values for each EU country in both the self- perception of being an Internet user (broadest definition) and the use of e-banking (narrow definition). Coefficients of variation indicate much more ample differences among countries as regards e-banking (COV=0.95) than regarding broad penetration (COV=0.35). Figure 1 also shows that although the two variables are globally correlated, they are far from perfectly so. Countries with similar levels of Internet penetration on the broad scale (Denmark and Netherlands, 62%) show considerable difference in the stricter scale of e-banking (22 versus 12%). Countries showing not so dissimilar levels on the stricter scale of e-banking such as Austria and the Netherlands (8.5 and 12%) nonetheless present contrasting levels on the broader scale of self-perception (39 versus 61.5%). Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe 93

Figure 1

40

30 S

F I N D K 20

L N L 10 A D E U 1 5 U K F B I E I R L 0 G R + P 01020304050607080

Proportion of self-perceived internet users (C. of Var. = 0.35)

Likewise, the key demographic variables traditionally underlying the ‘digital divide’ (Servaes and Heinderyckx, 2002) give quite a different picture depending on the approach used as the basis for Internet penetration. The gender gap is much less spectacular on the self-perception scale than on stricter scales (where men are twice as keen on Internet as women, see Table 1). The generation gap takes a particular shape using the e-banking criterion given that younger users are less involved in financial transactions. The e-banking criterion enhances the already spectacular income gap.

Even this quick comparison of five approaches to Internet penetration assessment using a coherent source (all our data comes from recent Eurobarometer surveys so that differences observed cannot, in our comparison, be attributed to methodological discrepancies) shows how delicate the exercise of measuring the Information Society can be. Methodological choices are never neutral and may impact considerably the observations and the conclusions one might draw upon them. Yet, measuring the Information Society faces even more fundamental issues, that of the very meaning of the variables to be measured, as can be seen by continuing to examine our example of the ‘Internet users’. 94 The European Information Society Internet users as ‘audience’?

History somewhat repeats itself. The early newspapers could only assess their success on the basis on circulation figures. Soon, their legitimacy and more importantly their advertising rates demanded that the number of readers be evaluated. This could only be achieved by surveys on representative samples. Respondents were (and still are) asked whether they read a particular newspaper. Interestingly, the notion of ‘being a reader’ of a newspaper is as simple in appearance, and as tricky to handle as that of the ‘Internet user’. What is a ‘reader’? In spite of genuine efforts of harmonisation, the definitions used to qualify as such vary among countries and among studies. The variations revolve along two dimensions: (a) what is considered ‘to read’ and (b) what is the reference period. In some cases, one is considered a reader if he has barely held a copy of the publication in hand. As for the reference period, it can range from the past 24 hours to the past week, if not more. In many cases, the result of some of these ridiculously broad definitions is that one who is merely in contact with some issue of a newspaper or a magazine is to be included in its readership, its audience. Likewise, audiences for posters and billboards are assessed by studying people’s whereabouts. In this case, one passing by (‘abeam’) a poster is considered as having had an ‘opportunity to see’ (OTS) the poster, and on that basis in included in the audience of that board.

The early days of radio and television bear even more resemblance with the current situation of IS technologies. Early broadcasters circulated figures not of viewers or listeners of their station, or of any station, but rather the number of receivers sold. These figures appear nowadays as of limited interest except for the manufacturers and sellers of those appliances, yet the ‘access to Internet’ approach, or the number of domain names or of ISPs or of Internet hosts that we often see today is very similar in nature.

Likewise, in more recent times, the transnational and thematic television stations, by lack of systematic study of their audience, usually advertise the number of households where their programme is received, or rather ‘can be received’, that is, most of the time, the number of subscribers to ‘bouquets’ or cable carriers on which they are included, if not the number of households in the area covered by their signal. There again, confusion exists between audience and potential audience. As does confusion prevail in radio audience measurement where two notions coexist, one based on simple contact with a station (audiences), the other taking into account the time spent listening to the various stations (market shares). Nowadays, the audience of broadcast media is monitored using complex survey approaches involving diary-based surveys (for radio) as well as people-meters Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe 95 panels (for television). However, various evolutions lead to an increased audience fragmentation which begins to cause difficulties in audience measurement and calls for an integrated system capable of tracking audience trends of all media based on large samples surveys (Heinderyckx and Phillips, 2001).

But to what extent can the history of media audience measurement be transposed to assessing the implementation of IS technologies? Or even to the sole issue of Internet use? The frequent reference to ‘new media’ certainly entertains the idea that, after all, the Internet is just a case of new media, so that monitoring its users in just a case of measuring new audiences.

Although such an approach seems quite stimulating, it is based on two questionable assumptions, namely that (a) Internet is a medium and (b) that Internet users are the audience of that medium. Internet is, indeed, a medium if only because it serves the purpose of disseminating information and content to large and dispersed numbers of individuals which could, on that basis, be considered as audiences. As such, the web site or web pages can be seen as a suitable medium for advertising, so that similar instruments to those used for analogous purposes in traditional media would be suitable.

However, this would reduce the Internet to only a fragment of its reality and use. Studying television audience can be boiled down to two questions: is one (a) watching television and, if yes, (b) what channel? Even though there are many ways to watch television (how loud the volume, doing anything else at the same time, etc.) measurement can merely work on that simple dual basis. No such luck when assessing Internet users. Web surfers have a wealth of possibilities to go beyond browsing when, for example, they rely on the Internet for communicating with others (e-mail, chat, forum), or even to, themselves, disseminate content to an audience (personal web pages, peer-to-peer file exchange). The multifaceted use of Internet related technologies, and the fact that these facets combine into an unlimited and evolutional number of patterns makes the study of the use of the Internet, hence of the IS adoption, a knotty enterprise. It also brings into question the sheer relevance of such notion as the ‘Internet user’, hence its measurement.

Measuring and monitoring the Information Society, i.e. understanding how the Information Society takes shape, how new technologies tempt some, but not others, how adoption reshapes existing media and communication practices, at what pace, in what directions, and for whom, and so many more crucial questions cannot be merely touched upon without a sustained effort in quantitative as well as qualitative research among users as well as non-users, including time-budget analysis to monitor the role and place the new practices take and how it affects 96 The European Information Society pre-existing practices. These studies are not only complex and expensive. More importantly, they take time. Too much time in comparison with the pace at which changes, innovations and evolutions are taking place.

The issue of the ‘want-nots’

Most of the industry driven studies are understandingly oriented towards IS as a market: hardware and software purchase, ISP and broadband, e-commerce, advertising exposure and response etc.

In a number of instances, one can suspect that the questions used to survey IS penetration are worded in such a way as to produce an optimistic snapshot of the situation, if not to provide the highest possible figures. One can speculate that this favourable light sustains efforts to demonstrate the fast growing rate of penetration, thus reassuring investors while simultaneously creating a momentum likely to make non-users feel deviant and pressure them to join the movement. This is not unlike self-fulfilling prophecies: the projections built upon these surveys usually come to the conclusion that the progression is overwhelming and that soon nearly everybody will own and use a particular technology.

Literature, news discourse as well as political rhetoric on the subject converge predominantly on the fact that the advent of the Information Society is unquestionable, inevitable and indeed necessary in order to solve and anticipate various societal problems (Mansell, 2002). Therefore, it is widely accepted that anything likely to stimulate ICTs take-up is of general interest, hence legitimate as a priority.

From that viewpoint, non-users are seen as outcasts likely to be left out of society and needing help to gain access to what has become a basic and necessary commodity. The gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ of the IS has become known as the ‘digital divide’. Its reduction now ranks alongside that of homelessness, unemployment or illiteracy in the political agendas of all industrialised countries and beyond.

However prevailing these views have become, discordant voices can be heard particularly regarding the role of public authorities in stimulating a market which, some say, if given time, might simply regulate itself and, as cost decreases, primarily leave out those who choose not to join rather than those who cannot (Compaine 2001). Issues in measuring Information Society adoption in Europe 97

This leads to an important distinction generally overlooked: beyond the well documented ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, we must consider the ‘can-nots’ and, more importantly, the ‘want-nots’. When talking about the Information Society, mainstream discourse usually only distinguishes the first two categories which, in essence, constitute an oversimplification, for this dichotomy tends to uphold the absurd idea that one is either ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the Information Society (not to mention the underlying idea that those who are out are deviant). The ‘can-nots’ are occasionally mentioned when explanations have to be provided as to the causes for ‘not having’: they can’t afford and/or they lack the skills. There again, the assumption is that ‘they wish they could’, but they cannot, yet.

What we call the ‘want-nots’ are seldom discussed. They are seen as a classic by- product of resistance to change, reactionary fringes of population against modernity. The fact that ‘want-nots’ are largely neglected (apart for trying to convince them otherwise) is hardly surprising and does not seem, at first sight, to be a matter of concern. After all, even in the most ‘advanced’ countries, there is still a sizeable number of households with no television. However, I believe IS technology is different and the ‘want-nots’ cannot be overlooked, if only for one emerging motive: ‘e-government’. Although the term still sounds like a politician’s fantasy, a vague project nurtured to give campaigns a flavour of modernity, many administrations in many countries, regions, localities are engaged in a process of thorough reorganisation and modernisation under the banner of ‘e-government’ which has become a goal as well as a leverage for in depth organisational changes.

The likely outcome of this turmoil is the development of online applications made available to the public (citizens and businesses). When those applications are offered as an alternative for traditional procedures, the ‘want-nots’ of IS simply decide implicitly to carry on doing things as before. Yet, a number of new services are developing (e.g. access to information, tax simulation, full-text search of legal documents, etc.) that IS ‘want-nots’ will be deprived of. Worse, the same is true of e-government applications which are intended to replace pre-existing services, hence introducing discrimination which infringes fundamental principles of today’s democracies.

We can see early examples of the problems which lay ahead. In 2003, the official journal of Belgium will no longer be printed in its traditional paper format. The official publication will only be accessible online. Even though the vast majority of regular subscribers to the journal (lawyers, large companies, university professors) do have access to the internet and do find it much more convenient, those citizens or businesses not wanting to blend into the Information Society, or simply repelled 98 The European Information Society by the Internet or by computers, are now deprived of access to the most elementary source of official information. The implications go well beyond that of refusing to acquire a television set.

It seems that public authorities have moved to a position whereby using ICTs is considered essential and in the public interest, as is vaccination, road safety, sewage or running water. For public authorities to determine that something is of so essential a nature, there needs to be either unquestionable evidence that it will improve safety and well-being and / or public and democratic debate. The Information Society and its adoption by the population became unquestionable following neither of these processes.

References

Compaine, B. A. (2001), The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Heinderyckx, F. (2001), ‘Measuring the Information Society – the use of the Internet by the European consumer’, European Information Technology Observatory, EITO, pp. 414-439. Heinderyckx, F., Phillips, A. (2001), ‘Mesurer les audiences à l’époque de la convergence médiatique’, in Droesbeke J.-J., Lebart, L., Enquêtes, modèles et applications, Paris: Dunod, pp. 231-24. Mansell, R. (2002), ‘From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies’, Current Sociology, 50:3, pp. 407-426. Servaes, J., Heinderyckx, F. (2002), ‘The ‘New’ ICTs environment in Europe: closing or widening the gaps?’, Telematics and Informatics, 19:2, pp. 91-115. Vedel, T. (1994), ‘Sociologie des innovations technologiques et usager: Introduction à une socio-politique des usages’ in Vitalis, A. (dir.), Médias et nouvelles technologies, Rennes: Editions Apogée, pp. 13-34.