1. Directions for WIP-related research: A theoretical framework WIP New Zealand | Nigel Smith http://wipnz.aut.ac.nz

2. 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

3. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences A contextual framework Demographics User characteristics Power/Access issues Activities Attitudes Uses Intended/Unintended Individual/Group /Societal Negative/Positive Diffuse/Specific

4. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Early utopian hopes The Internet Changing lives Complementing social connectivity Individual liberty Pluralism Community Diversity Kapor (1993) Rheingold (1993) Katz & Aspden (1997)

5. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Early reaction: a dystopian view The Internet Loneliness, depression, less communication Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay & Scherlis (1998) The Internet Loss of contact with social environment Nie & Erbring (2002) Putnam (2001) The Internet -ve impact on social capital & community

6. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences A more neutral context The Internet DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman & Robinson (2001) Power / inequality / access issues Community / social capital Politics Economic institutions Arts / entertainment

7. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Q: Is there a main effect? A: No Involvement Katz & Rice (2002) Access Interaction Social 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)

8. Q: Is there a main effect? A: No Leaning (2005) Instrumental / Neutral Determinist / Utopian Substantivist / Dystopian Modal vs “Like the telephone and television before it, the Internet by itself is not a main effect cause of anything.” (2000, p. 57) Bargh, McKenna et al. (2000, 2002, 2004) Interactionist

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Social Anxiety Identity experiments Social competence Loneliness Variety of comm. partners Valkenburg & Peter (2008) Self concept unity

12. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Structure of WIPNZ variables Crothers (2008) Household characteristics User characteristics Ratings / attitudes towards Internet Equipment / Access Consequences Time / Activities

13. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences WIP research context General WIP location of analysis Patterns of communication Satisfaction Digital Literacy Trust Social effects Addiction Divide / Inequality User profile types Psychological characteristics Loneliness / anxiety Democracy / governance Online communities

14. WIP Intl comparisons: Two issues of interest to New Zealand Dialup vs Broadband

15. WIP Intl comparisons: NZ interests Education Internet Use at School (Hours per week)

16. WIP Intl comparisons: NZ interests Education The Internet and School-Related Work

17. 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

18. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline 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

19. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Outcome: Intended research Education issue Learning outcomes Gaming pedagogy Engagement Personality variables Teaching style Learning styles

20. 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

23. 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:

24. Offline AntecedentsOnlineOffline Consequences Structure of WIPNZ variables Crothers (2008) Household characteristics User characteristics Ratings / attitudes towards Internet Equipment / Access Consequences Time / Activities General / transactions / Work access Government / Home access Learning / School access Youth oriented Activities

25. 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

26. Suggestions for main survey Avoid ‘main effect’ questions Balance coverage with more on consequences Rephrase ‘since the internet’ questions

27. Opportunities for collaboration Identifying and mapping areas for collaboration will avoid duplication and maximise efficiency Sharing of methodological expertise