Establishing the Human Perspective of the Information Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Establishing the human perspective of the information society Helen Partridge BA (UQ), GradDipPsych (UQ), MIT (QUT) Submitted in fulfilment of QUT Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information Technology Queensland University of Technology 2007 Supervisory Panel Principal Supervisor Associate Professor Sylvia Edwards Faculty of Information Technology, QUT Associate Supervisors Professor Christine Bruce Faculty of Information Technology, QUT Associate Professor Gillian Hallam Faculty of Information Technology, QUT Dr Paul Baxter Department of Employment and Training Queensland State Government ii Abstract The digital divide is a core issue of the information society. It refers to the division between those who have access to, or are comfortable using, information and communication technology (ICT) (the “haves”) and those who do not have access to, or are not comfortable using ICT (the “have-nots”). The digital divide is a complex phenomenon. The majority of studies to date have examined the digital divide from a socio-economic perspective. These studies have identified income, education and employment as the key factors in determining the division between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Very little research has explore the psychological, social or cultural factors that contribute to digital inequality in community. The current study filled this gap by using Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) to examine the psychological barriers that prevent individuals from integrating ICT into their everyday lives. SCT postulates that a person will act according to their perceived capabilities and the anticipated consequences of their actions. Four studies have explored the digital divide using SCT. Because of limitations in the research design these studies have shed only limited light onto current understanding of digital inequality in community. The current research was the first study exploring the digital divide that (i) incorporated both socio-economic and socio-cognitive factors, (ii) used a community context that ensured the recruitment of participants who represented the full spectrum of the general population, and (iii) was conducted in both the US and Australia. Data was gathered via self administered questionnaires in two communities: Brisbane, Australia and San Jose, USA. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 330 and 398 participants from the US and Australia, respectively. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to explore the research question: what influence do socio-cognitive factors have in predicting internet use by members of the general population when the effects of socio-economic factors are controlled? The results of this analysis revealed that attitudes do matter. The US study found that socio-economic factors were not statistically significant predictors of internet use. The only factor that found to be a significant predictor of use was internet self efficacy. In short individuals with higher levels of internet self efficacy reported higher levels of internet use. Unlike the US study, the Australian study found that by themselves several socio-economic factors predicted internet use. In order of importance these were age, gender, income and ethnicity. However, the study also iii revealed that when socio-economic factors are controlled for, and socio-cognitive variables included into the analysis, it is the socio-cognitive and not the socio- economic variables that are the dominant (in fact the only!) predictors of internet use. The research illustrated that the digital divide involves more than just the availability of resources and funds to access those resources. It incorporates the internal forces of an individual that motivates to them to use or integrate ICT into their lives. The digital divide is not just about ICT such as computers and the internet. It is about people. As such, the key to solving the issue of digital inequality is not going to be found with corporate or government funds providing physical access to technology. Instead, the key to solving digital inequality is inside the individual person. The alternative view of the digital divide presented in this research is by no means intended to minimise the role played by socio-economic factors. Indeed, the socio- economic perspective has helped shed light on a very real social issue. What this research has done is suggest that the digital divide is more complex and more involved than has been imagined, and that further and different research is required if genuine insights and real steps are going to be made in establishing an information society for all. Keywords information society, information literacy, digital divide, social cognitive theory, psychology, “haves”, “have-nots”, self-efficacy, survey method, internet, Australia, USA iv Table of Contents Supervisory panel ………………………………………………………………………... ii Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………. iii Keywords ……………………………………………………………………………......... iv Table of contents ………………………………………………………………………… v List of tables ……………………………………………………………………………… viii List of figures ……………………………………………………………………............. ix Statement of original authorship ……………………………………………………… x Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………… xi Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………... 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 The research problem 1-1 1.3 The research questions 1-3 1.4 The research study 1-4 1.5 Significance of the research 1-5 1.6 Research limitations 1-6 1.7 Thesis overview 1-7 1.8 Conclusion 1-9 Part A: Setting the scene Chapter 2: The Information society ………………………………………………… 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 The information society is here! 2-1 2.3 What is the information society? 2-2 2.4 Does the information society really exist? 2-6 2.5 Ways of researching the information society 2-9 2.6 Information literacy: the fifth school of thought 2-15 2.7 Conclusion 2-32 Chapter 3: The digital divide …………………………………………………......... 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 What is the digital divide? 3-1 3.3 Crisis or myth? 3-13 3.4 Who is excluded by the digital divide? 3-16 3.5 Digital divide or digital divide s? 3-32 3.6 Access, access, access! 3-34 3.7 A theoretical framework to the digital divide? 3-36 3.8 Conclusion 3-38 Chapter 4: Social cognitive theory ………………………………...……………… 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Triadic reciprocality 4-1 v 4.3 The role of human agency 4-3 4.4 The key construct: self-efficacy 4-4 4.5 What self-efficacy is not 4-6 4.6 General or domain specific? 4-8 4.7 Sources of self-efficacy 4-9 4.8 Consequences of self-efficacy 4-13 4.9 Self-efficacy and information literacy: closely linked concepts 4-13 4.10 Application of self-efficacy in understanding the digital divide 4-18 4.11 Criticisms of social cognitive theory 4-23 4.12 Conclusion 4-24 Part B: Exploring the problem Chapter 5: The method ……………………………………….…...………….......... 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Research philosophy 5-1 5.3 Research problem 5-5 5.4 Research plan 5-6 5.5 Research context 5-13 5.6 Sampling plan 5-13 5.7 The research instrument 5-19 5.8 Ethical issues 5-41 5.9 Data analysis 5-41 5.10 Conclusion 5-42 Chapter 6: The participants ……………………………………………………....... 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 The US participants 6-1 6.3 The Australian participants 6-16 6.4 Conclusion 6-29 Chapter 7: Construct validation ………………………………………………....... 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Methods used for construct validation 7-1 7.3 Factor analysis 7-3 7.4 Construct validity of the social-cognitive measures 7-15 7.5 Construct validity of internet use measure 7-31 7.6 Common method variance testing 7-32 7.7 Conclusion 7-32 Part C: Developing the theory Chapter 8: The results …………………………………………………………........ 8-1 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Multiple regression analysis 8-1 8.3 The analysis 8-4 8.4 The revised research model 8-11 8.5 Conclusion 8-13 vi Chapter 9: Discussion and recommendations ……………………………........ 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Overview of the review 9-3 9.3 Overview of the research findings 9-3 9.4 Significance and contributions of the research 9-4 9.5 Limitations 9-8 9.6 Recommendations for future research and practice 9-11 9.7 Conclusion 9-13 References ……………………………………………………………………………….. R-1 Appendices Appendix 1: Self administered questionnaires A1 Appendix 2: Expert comment form A2 Appendix 3: APS poster 2003 A3 Appendix 4: The pre and pilot tests A4 Appendix 5: Administration instructions A5 vii List of Tables Table 2.1 The seven faces of information literacy ……………………………….. 2-18 Table 3.1 Twelve perspectives or dimensions on the digital divide ………........ 3-36 Table 6.1 Summary of characteristics against US questionnaire type…………… 6-4 Table 6.2 Questionnaire type by gender (US) ...……………………………........ 6-6 Table 6.3 Questionnaire type by age (US) ...……………………………………... 6-5 Table 6.4 Questionnaire type by highest education level (US) ………………….. 6-8 Table 6.5 Questionnaire type by current employment (US) .…………………….. 6-9 Table 6.6 Questionnaire type by income (US) ……………………………………. 6-9 Table 6.7 Questionnaire type by ethnicity (US) …………………………………... 6-10 Table 6.8 Questionnaire type by disability (US) ………………………………….. 6-12 Table 6.9 Summary statistics for the demographic variables (US)……………... 6-12 Table 6.10 Summary statistics for San Jose, CA, USA …………………………... 6-13 Table 6.11 Summary of characteristics against Australian questionnaire type…... 6-17 Table 6.12 Questionnaire type by gender (Australia) ……………………………... 6-18 Table 6.13 Questionnaire type by age (Australia) ……………………………........ 6-19 Table 6.14 Questionnaire type by highest education level (Australia) .. ………... 6-19 Table 6.15 Questionnaire type by regrouped employment (Australia) ………….. 6-20 Table 6.16 Questionnaire type by income (Australia) …………………………….. 6-21 Table 6.17 Questionnaire type by ethnicity (Australia) ……………………………. 6-21 Table 6.18 Questionnaire type by disability (Australia) …………………………… 6-22 Table 6.19 Analysis of variance – internet use by survey type (Australia) ……… 6-23 Table 6.20 Summary statistics for the demographic variables (Australia) ……… 6-24 Table 6.21 Summary statistics for Brisbane QLD, Australia ……………………..