The Appropriation of ICTs - Day 2
I’ve been reading the book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” by Glaser and Strauss, which first introduced the concept of Grounded Theory as a form or sociological research. Among the many things I realized I don’t know on sociological research, I was really surprised by the insistence of these authors on the generation of sociological theory, instead of the verification of theories, as the main concern of the sociologist. Although I concede that I might be misunderstanding the point these authors are trying to make, I’ve been struggling with this idea and, at the same time, trying to apply it as I review and study the transcriptions of my fifteen interviews.
I’ve been using NVivo 7 to code these interviews, but I have found this software really burdensome: slow, buggy, crashing several times, and worst, not very suited to the task of coding interviews. Definitively, a software with low usability.
From my pilot study and from my early attempts at coding using NVivo I determined a set of categories (nodes) that are the result of my exploration of certain specific topics.
Topics Explored
Q.01 Computer
Q.02 Internet
Q.03 Email
Q.04 Internet Messaging
Q.05 Mobile Phones
Q.06 Online Social Networks
Q.07 Life at home
Q.08 Coming to Glasgow
Q.09 Keeping in touch - Home
Q.10 Keeping in touch - Locally
Q.11 Internet - Current Use
Q.12 Mobile Phones - Current Use
Q.13 IM - Current Use
Q.14 Online Social Networks - Current Use
Q.15 Life in Glasgow
Categories
1. Adaptation to audience
2. Adaptation to technological milieu
3. Allegiance
4. Appropriation
5. Community through technology
6. Convenience
7. Cost of technology
8. Early adoption of ICTs
9. Individuality
10. Off-line activities
11. Origin - Computers
12. Origin - Email
13. Origin - IM
14. Origin - Internet
15. Origin - Mobile Phone
16. Origin - Social Networks
17. Parents role
18. Peer influence
19. Piracy
20. Self-image
21. Studies
22. Technological Frames
23. Unallegiance
24. Uses of ICTs - Commercial
25. Uses of ICTs - Communication
26. Uses of ICTs - Entertainment
27. Uses of ICTs – Information
There seems to be some overlapping in these categories. For instance, category 3 (Allegiance) and 23 (Unallegiance) refer to opposite sides of the same phenomenon, that is, how attached or not a person is to a particular software application. Similarly, nodes 4 (Appropriation) and 9 (Individuality) seem to be linked. For instance, a person seems to be able to appropriate a technology because the technology affords some level of personal expression, even through something as “simple” as the ability to post a blog, as in the case of MSNSpaces; a system that from a certain perspective lacks the features found in other “modern” online social networks like Facebook. Here I should highlight the fact that I have a category called “appropriation” when at the same time I’m trying to make all of these nodes fit into the “process of appropriation” of technology. I’m still not sure how to solve this situation. In some cases the subject says something that clearly indicates that a technology has reached the status of “appropriated,” that is, the technology has clearly become part of a person’s lifestyle in such a way that the subject stops thinking of the technology as a separate entity and thinks instead in terms of what the technology affords. For instance, in talking about the reasons why Facebook is preferred over Orkut, a subject declares:
“Basically that is the problem with Orkut, but Facebook is much more secure than Orkut ‘cause Facebook has restricted access, only your friends and people whom you get to your friend list can see your profile.”
And then reaffirms:
“In Facebook I feel more comfortable, I keep uploading stuff.”
These declarations suggest the subject has been able to compare the pros and cons of both systems and has found one of them, at least from her point of view lacking. Around three months ago, when this subject joined Facebook she might have been unsure of its features, but now she seems to be so familiar with Facebook that she declares how comfortably she feels with this system and shows it by continually uploading stuff to her Facebook profile. On the other hand, what I call the “process of appropriation,” may begin when a person is first introduced to a piece of technology; which doesn’t necessarily mean the technology will be used, adopted, or appropriated.
Finally, node 17 (Parents role) and 16 (Peer influence) seem to be complementary aspects of the same phenomenon. Both categories refer to the range of influences that intervene in the process of adopting a new technology. It is frequent to find that the acquisition of a “novel” peace of technology or the adoption of a new computer application is almost always the direct result of external forces that provide the technology (e.g. through the purchase of a laptop or a mobile phone), or encourage its use (first by introducing the technology and second by acting as technical support to solve concerns regarding it). This category also covers other forces like that of the media that encourage the use of a novel technology as part of a life style, and even government interventions that promote the use of certain technologies to raise the literacy of a group and/or to ascend in the economic ladder. In any case, a further refinement of my second set of categories (nodes) seems to be necessary… and a recoding of some of my interviews!
I coded three or four interviews using NVivo but I realized that I was missing much needed reflection on the interviews themselves for reason of being struggling with the software. Thus, I decided to go the old way and printed the interviews (again!) and started coding with a pencil. In this way, and influenced by what I’ve been reading I started the process of memoing and trying to generate theory through some very premature hypotheses like the following:
Hypothesis 1
There seems to be a relationship between the way certain groups characterize themselves and the appropriation of certain technologies that reinforce this in-group characterization.
For instance, Chinese subjects frequently characterize themselves (at least while studying in China) as an always-studying group. This circumstance seems to be the direct result of a constant struggle to excel in school to increase their possibilities of securing the highest-paid job available. Excellence in school is believed to be fostered by the acquisition of a computer at home; a computer that will be, arguably, used for school related activities. The following two declarations are representative of this:
12 years ago. My parents bought a computer for me. I used CD-ROMs to search for information to help my studies. I was around 12 years old finishing elementary school. My parents bought a computer for my studies.
China 1
I got a computer at home when I was in high school; I was 16 years old. My parents got a computer for me because I told them I need to connect to the Internet because I need to study; I need to get information from outside of the world, blah, blah, blah… and my parents just bought one for me. At the same time I got my computer I was also getting access to the Internet. My excuse was that I would perform better at school.
China 2
However, this hypothesis should not be understood as trying to highlight an exclusive Chinese characteristic. The acquisition of a computer and the “uses” given to those computers to support school related activities were just more evident among the Chinese subjects interviewed. (I am trying to distance myself from so-called “cultural classifications.” I remain interested in my initial three national groups but just to try to identify patterns of appropriation among them.)
Hypothesis 2
For subjects who have achieved a certain level of expertise in the use of certain ICTs certain technologies (e.g. Online Social Networks) are easily appropriated because they provide avenues to express individuality and community.
I guess I need to clarify several keywords here. By expertise I mean those users who make frequent use of ICTs and for whom these technologies (perhaps by reason of being exposed for a longer period of time) seem to have acquired a certain value, for example, by making communication more convenient or expedite. (Although these users may see themselves as experts in these technologies they are not necessarily so.) It seems to be that users who have achieved this level of expertise tend to appreciate and value more their enhanced abilities of communication. This rationalization propels them further to experiment with additional features of the available technology. Thus, these expert users will use their enhanced abilities of communication to consciously express personal preferences, tastes and choices, in a word, their individuality.
Furthermore, some of these same expert users will make a conscious choice to use certain ICTs not necessarily to express individuality but to remain involved with a group of friends and/or relatives whom, in turn, seem to value the opportunity to remain involved in the everyday life of the student abroad.
[I need to provide some examples of this hypothesis here…]
Again, issues of individuality and community seem to be more evident among Chinese participants. I attribute this circumstance to their longer exposure to web-based ICTs that allow this type of expression. There is nothing to indicate that Greek participants (who seem to be the less versed in the use of web-based technologies in my sample) wouldn’t use similar technologies to express the same traits (individuality and community) if they were given similar features in a technology in which they might be experts (e.g. mobile phones).
There are three more hypotheses, which I will elaborate upon tomorrow. However, I would like to comment now on the more practical aspects of my research.
I’ve been recruiting new students for my experiment; however, I haven’t received the participation I was hoping for. I advertised my study on Facebook (in the group of the International Society), on my website (http://jose.rojasr.googlepages.com/study), and through some flyers I distributed in some recent social events of the International Society. I have secured two interviews tomorrow Wednesday with one Chinese and one Greek subject (http://jose.rojasr.googlepages.com/calendar), and I’m also waiting to hear from two more who made contact with me this morning.
As can be seen in my invitation, I’ve been offering some money to those interested in taking part in this study because I believe it would be very difficult to secure participation (and retention) over such an extended period of time. I have reduced the length of my interviews to just 30 min (more of this below), thus every person taking part in the study would only have to invest two hours of time per month. I think £15.00 per two hours of time per month is more or less fair. The problem now is how do I secure enough funds for 15 people over (at least) three months? I need around £675.00 for this and I am willing to invest all the money I made over the past few days in a part-time job I had; however, it only amounts to around £390.00.
As mentioned, I will reduce the length of my interviews to just 30 min each. I’ve done this to explore in more detail and depth the same themes/topics I explored in my previous interviews (see “Topics Explored” above). With this I’m trying to a) ensure that each interview is kept within a specific topic. Thus, when analyzing the transcript (ideally as I conduct those interviews) I will have all the responses already split into the topics, which in turn might render the process of comparison somehow easier; and b) bypass the problem I think I had with my previous interviews (e.g. time constraints, breadth of questions), ensuring this time more deep and meaningful answers.
Finally, interviews arranged in this form could also explore present use of ICTs from simple questions such as:
- What did you do yesterday?
- How are you preparing assignment/essay X?
- How did you coordinate last weekend’s party/club night/pub night?
- Compare and contrast the way you communicate with your friends at home and here in Glasgow
- Compare and contrast your experience as a student in your country and in the University of Glasgow



