wip 2015 meeting reportcomparing notes on our research agendas 2015-2017. open discussion. 3pm...
TRANSCRIPT
�
WORLD INTERNET PROJECT MEETING 2015 MEMBERS REPORT
University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg Wednesday 8th to Friday 10th July, 2015
Back row Le= to Right: Jo-‐anne Petersen, Theirry Vedel, Pamela Davidsson, Petr Lupak, Yair Amichai-‐Hamburger, MaNas Dodel, Morihiro Ogasahara, Jeff Cole, Elena Brodovskaya, Moritz Buchi, Front row le= to right: Indra de Lanerolle, Tong-‐Yi Yuang, JusNn MarNn, Ellen Helsper, Sergio Godoy, Wannes Hierman, Anna Dombrovskaya, Margot Beauchamps (Other aXendees not present in the photo: Adreina Mandelli, Tiago Lapa and Lui Bing)
The World Internet Project 2015 Annual MeeNng was hosted by the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It brought together researchers from 19 countries for a three day programme of presentaNons, analysis and discussions on global Internet trends and the planning and co-‐ordinaNon of future research acNviNes. The first day of the meeNng offered the opportunity to engage with a broad range of South African researchers, policy makers and industry figures on ‘the Next Four Billion’ the next wave of Internet users in the global South. The 2nd and third days included discussions on new ways of measuring the impact of the Internet , Internet wellbeing and comparaNve Internet research. Research from China, Russia, Qatar and 5 other countries in the middle east, Uruguay, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Chile and South Africa was presented over the three day meeNng.
page �1
�
Contents
Programme page 3 ParIcipants page 6 Next Four Billion Conference Report page 7 WIP 2015 MeeIng Report page 12 WIP Business MeeIng Report page 18 WIP PresentaIons list page 21
Report compiled by Indra de Lanerolle, Network Society Project, Journalism and Media Programme, University of Witwatersrand. email: [email protected], twiXer: @indradl, August 2015.
Network Society Project, University of Witwatersrand networksocietylab.org World Internet Project www.worldinternetproject.net
page �2
�
Programme Wednesday 8th July Next Four Billion World Internet Project Network Society Project conference 8.30am Registration
9.00am Welcome by Professor Tawana Kupe, Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Witwatersrand
9.10 am Key Note Presentations
Professor Jeff Cole, director Centre for the Digital Future and founder of the World Internet Project
Professor Alison Gillwald, Executive Director of Research ICT Africa
Connecting the unconnected: Access and Affordability
11.00am
Panel Discussion on Internet Affordability and Access with Alison Gillwald, Mmamoloko Kubayi MP (Portfolio Committee Chairperson, Telecommunications and Postal Services) Jeff Cole chaired by Indra de Lanerolle, University of Witwatersrand
The new Internet Generation: Children online
12.00pm
Notes from abroad: Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics (UK) on risks and harms to children online
Notes from abroad: Matias Dodel Schubert, IPES, (Uruguay) on the world’s largest programme to get a laptop to every child (OLPC).
12.30pm
Lunch
The reality on online experience and use: Mobile Centric Internet
1.30pm Marion Walton, UCT on mobile centric Internet use
Luci Abrahams, LINK Centre, Wits on very low income Internet users
Koketso Moeti on black women Internet users
2.30pm Notes from abroad: Anna Dombrovskaya, Sholohov Moscow State University, on Russian political engagement on the Internet
Digital Jobs: how can the Internet create inclusive growth?
2.45pm Notes from abroad: Sergio Godoy Etcheverry director of the School of Communications, Catholic University (Chile) on the Internet’s economic impact
Panel Discussion on opportunities for digital jobs with Ashraf Paruk, Vodacom, Zahir Kahn, Project Isizwe, Reshaad Sha, Dark Fibre Africa, chaired by Robin Miller, Dalberg,
3.45pm Tea
Closing Address
4.00pm Closing remarks: Working towards an inclusive Internet. Honorable Ms Mmamoloko Kubayi MP, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee for Telecommunication and Postal Services
page �3
�
Thursday 9th July WIP 2015 MeeIng
8.30am Tea and Coffee
9.00am Welcome from Anton Harber, Caxton Professor of Journalism, University of Witwatersrand
Introduction and review of 2 day agenda. Informing the future of the World Internet Project
9.30 am Beyond access and use: new approaches to measuring the Internet's impact
Presentation by Dr Ellen Helsper, LSE, Approaches to measuring impact
Discussion
10.45am
Beyond access and use: thinking about wellbeing
Presentation by Dr Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Discussion
11.45am
Comparative Research goals for WIP - going beyond the descriptive
Introduction by Indra de lanerolle. Inputs from Anna (Russia), Moritz (Switzerland), Justin (Qatar), Jeff and others who have conducted comparative research using WIP dataset.
1pm Lunch
2pm New trends and themes in Internet research
Comparing notes on our research agendas 2015-2017. Open discussion.
3pm Methodology, frequency, funding
To be decided at the meeting
4.30pm Close
page �4
�
Friday 10th July WIP 2015 MeeIng 8.30am Tea and Coffee
9.00am Introduction to the day and final plans for tours
9.30am New Member Reports
Justin Martin, Qatar Margot Beauchamps, M@rsouinNetwork, France Matias Dodel, Uruguay wannes Herman, Belgium
Discussion
11am Fast Changing Countries
Bing Liu, CNNIC, China Elena , Sholohov University, dynamics of Internet communication in Russia in 2012-2014
Discussion
1pm Lunch
2pm WIP Business Meeting
Led by Jeff Cole. New members. Next meeting.
5.00pm Close
page �5
�
Participants in World Internet Project Meeting, 2015
Margot Beauchamps, M@rsouin Network, France
Liu Bing, China Internet Network InformaNon Centre, Beijing, China
Elena Brodovskaya, Sholohov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Moritz Buchi, Moritz Buchi, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Jeff Cole, Center for the Digital Future, USC Annenberg School of CommunicaNon and Journalism, Los Angeles, USA
Pamela Davidsson, .SE, Uppsala University, Sweden
MaNas Dodel, Society and Internet programme at the Catholic University, Uruguay
Anna Dombrovskaya, Sholohov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Sergio Godoy, School of CommunicaNons, Catholic University, SanNago, Chile
Yair Amichai-‐Hamburger, Research Centre for Internet Psychology, Herzliya, Israel
Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics and PoliNcal Science, London, United Kingdom
Wannes Hierman, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Indra de Lanerolle, Network Society Project, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Tiago Lapa, University InsNtute of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
Petr Lupak, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Adreina Mandelli, SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy
JusNn MarNn, Northwestern University, Doha, Qatar,
Morihiro Ogasahara, Kansai University, Tokyo, Japan
Theirry Vedel, Sciences Po, Paris, France
Tong-‐Yi Yuang, Taiwan e-‐Governance Research Center, NaNonal Chengchi University
page �6
�
World Internet Project Next 4 Billion Conference 8th July, 2015 Report
The Next 4 Billion Conference, organised as the first day of the World Internet Project 2015 MeeNng, aimed to address the future development of the Internet for ‘the rest’: the 4 billion people not currently using online. To speak about the ‘the Internet’ is, almost always, to speak about the future: the future of the Internet itself and the future that it will enable or effect. It is, of course a real technological and social object. But since its beginning, it has also been an idea -‐ an imaginary -‐ of things to come: what is possible and what is probable in human development. In other words, it involves predicNon. ScienNfic theories can offer predicNons but then so can Tarot Cards. As Manuel Castells, argues, the Internet is a product of society, and social systems are more like weather systems than apples falling from trees. So predicNon is perilous.
This perilousness was highlighted by Professor Jeff Cole from the University of Southern California, one of the key note speakers who opened the day. The World Internet Project has been tracking the development of Internet access and use for the last fi=een years. Speaking of the early days of the Project, he admiXed: “We never could have anNcipated that user-‐generated content would grow like it did, we didn’t expect people to upload so much content, or that most phones would have cameras, or that a single social network would have 1,5 billion people connected.” That didn't stop Jeff from offering some new predicNons. He suggested that soon, less than 10% of the populaNon would be using PCs or laptops. This was an importanX insight in a country and conNnent where Internet penetraNon is being driven by the mobile phone and mobile networks.
PoliNcal and economic decisions made and to be made, were interrogated throughout the day. No more so than in looking at what steps were needed to get more people online. World Internet Project research conducted by the the Network Society Project at Wits shows that in 2012, 34% of the South African adult populaNon had used the Internet. The Government’s broadband policy -‐ SA Connect -‐ sets a target of 90% of the populaNon on broadband by 2020. The policy was praised but the lack of progress since it was adopted by government, and the regulator, ICASA, was sharply criNcised. Mmamoloko Kubayi, MP and Chairperson of the Porpolio CommiXee Chairperson, TelecommunicaNons and Postal Services in the NaNonal Assembly, acknowledged that, as a naNon, “we are not doing very well.” She quesNoned why a good policy was not being followed. She also criNcised the regulator, ICASA: “We cannot have the regulator taking so long to release spectrum”, spectrum which is needed to enable investment in next-‐generaNon mobile networks capable of delivering broadband speeds.
Alison Gillwald, another of the keynote speakers, said that much of the infrastructure -‐ internaNonal connecNvity and the naNonal fibre network -‐ is in place. Over 80% of the populaNon in South Africa live within 10 kms of a fibre-‐opNc cable,
page �7
MMAMOLOKO KUBAYI, CHAIR OF THE SA PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND POSTAL SERVICES AT NEXT 4 BILLION CONFERENCE, WITS INTERNET WEEK. PHOTO: WITS VUVUZELA
�
according to the SA Connect policy document. She and others viewed the biggest challenge as being access or what the telecommunicaNons industry call ‘the last mile’. Comparing South Africa with other countries on the conNnent, the quality of our access networks and the speeds available are good. The problem is largely one of cost.
Gillwald argued that “being pro-‐market is being pro-‐poor”. Echoing the South African NaNonal Development Plan which states that: “..affordable internet access is best achieved through effecNvely regulated compeNNve markets, complemented by targeted state intervenNon”, she argued that compeNNon is what drives down prices while at the same Nme maintaining sufficient investment in the infrastructure. However, she emphasised that this didn’t mean the state should ‘get out of the way’: strong compeNNon required strong regulaNon.
Many of the leaders driving the innovaNons in South Africa that are
enabling increases in penetraNon were present. One of them was Zahir Khan, COO of Project Isizwe which is helping one of South Africa's three capital ciNes to deliver broadband over WiFi. The City of Tshwane is about a quarter of the way to their target of 2,800 Public Wifi hot spots offering free broadband in public spaces like parks to the 3 million residents of the city. Fibre to the home and office, which could not only provide much faster Internet services but also increase compeNNon were also discussed. Ideas for increasing compeNNon included introducing ‘open access’ on mobile networks so that ISPs could offer data as they do on fixed lines.
Digital DisrupIon
A powerful theme at the conference was the new scale and visibility of economic disrupNon that Internet-‐enabled organisaNon was bringing. Jeff Cole saw disintermediaNon moving to a new level -‐ taking out whole industries and major businesses. As he was speaking, Uber drivers were facing inNmidaNon from other car-‐service drivers a few kilometres away from the meeNngs. If you are a taxi driver in Johannesburg, Uber is a threat. But Uber has also created thousands of new jobs in the city. In a discussion on digital jobs this theme
page �8
SOUTH AFRICAN MOBILE DATA COSTS ARE MORE THAN THREE TIMES HIGHER THAN TUNISIA’S, THE LOWEST COST COUNTRY. SOURCE: RESEARCH ICT AFRICA
TSHWANE RESIDENTS USING FREE WIFI BROADBAND INTERNET. TSHWANE HAS OVER 600 FREE PUBLIC WIFI POINTS DELIVERING SPEEDS OF UP TO 9MBPS. PHOTO: INDRA DE LANEROLLE
�
was taken further and some of the complexiNes explored. Research by Dalberg for the Rockefeller FoundaNon and work by the World Bank has suggested that ‘digital jobs’ could be important sources of income in Africa. These include, for example, jobs in internaNonal call centres sited here to serve
customers in Europe which can make use of high speed fibre connecNons, english or french speaking populaNons, similar Nme zones and lower rates of pay. Sergio Godoy from Chile pointed out though that digital jobs are likely to be less secure. Another factor raised was the globalisaNon of these jobs. This points to another aspect of the digital economy: its globalising effects. The evening before the conference, Facebook launched their first office in Africa -‐ inspite of capturing a significant proporNon of Africa’s online adverNsing market, unNl now they had not felt the need to have even one worker employed on the conNnent.
The Next GeneraIon
Some of the research presented by WIP members that created the greatest excitement concerned children. The research community is now rejecNng the concept of ‘digital naNves’ -‐ a generaNon for whom the Internet is somehow less problemaNc or challenging because they have grown up with it. Ellen Helsper from LSE pointed out that children’s lives in many countries are profoundly digital but, like the physical environment, the digital environment that they have to negoNate is not designed by them. She presented research conducted in over thirty countries over the last decade on children’s use of and astudes towards the Internet.
Her work offered a challenge to the approach taken by the South African Film and PublicaNon Board in their aXempt to tackle children’s exposure to online content but also raised some quesNons for the FPB’s criNcs. She said that pornography is children’s greatest fear. They are also worried about seeing real violence, especially when it involves children. They want to be warned about this – especially visual content. But she also reported that children do not want to be excluded from online environments that give them pleasure and joy. And their own views of what is disturbing or upsesng are not always the same as what adults think it is or should be. Helsper suggested that the best way of managing these issues would be a mulN-‐stakeholder approach including children, parents, online content providers and the state. It was good to see the head of research for the FPB present at the event. We are hoping that further South African research on children online will follow Ellen's visit.
Mauas Dodel from Uruguay looked at a different aspect of the children’s Internet: its use in educaNon. He reported on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) programme, originally started by Nicolas Negroponte, the former director of the MIT Media Lab. Uruguay is the only country in the world where OLPC has been fully implemented on a naNonal scale. In a populaNon of a liXle more than 3 million people, more than six hundred thousand laptops have been distributed. As well as a computer, every child is given a free mobile Internet connecNon. All textbooks are available free on their computers.
page �9
LAUNCH OF FACEBOOK’S FIRST OFFICE IN AFRICA, SANDTON, JULY 2015. PHOTO: INDRA DE LANEROLLE
�
The provincial educaNons department has recently launched a pilot tablet programme in selected schools. Though Dodel was careful to note that naNonal contexts may vary greatly, his list of success factors in Uruguay -‐ insNtuNonal design, addressing teachers mistrust and fears, and building strong public/private partnerships -‐ might be relevant to educaNon authoriNes designing ICT and Internet programmes here.
The Next 4 Billion
An important focus of the South African research presented was on ‘mobile-‐centric’ or ‘.mobi’ Internet use. As Internet penetraNon has increased in Africa, the number of PCs has not. An important body of research in South Africa over the last five years has focused on how people who are largely dependent on mobile phones and mobile networks use the Internet. But if the future is mobile, the mobile-‐centric present imposes severe constraints on many of its users.
Marion Walton from UCT described the ‘Pavement Internet’ -‐ the strategies people on low incomes use to share Internet content. Low income users pay more for data than middle-‐class and rich users. One GB of data on Vodacom, the largest network, costs R149. You can buy the same amount for as liXle as R7 if you have access to a fixed line which is generally available only to the beXer-‐off. Walton described how online sharing doesn’t work for these users. They want to download rather than use ‘share’ buXons so they can share face-‐to-‐face with their friends without incurring addiNonal data costs. It reminded me of a story the South African filmmaker Lionel Ngakane once told of going to the cinema as a child. He and his friends would save enough pennies to buy a single Ncket and send one of the group into the cinema. A=er the movie finished, the boy would have to re-‐tell the film, scene by scene, to the others outside the cinema.
Luci Abrahams reported on her research on low income and very low income users. She highlighted the value these users place on being able to communicate and the careful raNoning they have to do to use what for them is a very expensive commodity. Koketso MoeN reported on her work at amandla.mobi, a social mobilisaNon tool aimed at low-‐income African language speakers, especially women. She described some of the complex means they have put in place to enable the Internet and cash-‐poor to engage with their campaigns -‐ offering mulNple routes for users from USSD, WhatsApp, Mxit (a South African online plaporm) and SMS to please call me’s and missed calls. She also raised the issue of the language of the Internet. All their content is translated into four languages, something few content producers in South Africa seem to consider, let alone implement. Analysis at the Network Society Project showed that in 2012, only 4% of South African adults who said they could not read and write english easily used the Internet.
Conclusion Anna Dombrovskaya’s presentaNon dealt with poliNcal discourse online in Russia, a subject of global interest. As one of the last presentaNons on first day of the WIP meeNng it captured the interdisciplinary nature of the World Internet Project and of Internet studies in general. What the day also demonstrated was the appeNte amongst other researchers, business leaders, government and
page �10
ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD IN URUGUAY. PHOTO: COURTESY MATIAS DODEL
�
civil society organisaNons for the insights and data that WIP members brought. This was summed up by the Chairperson of the Parliamentary CommiXee responsible for broadband in South Africa. She spoke of of the need for a strategic shi=, so that South Africa and other developing economies could transform the digital divide and move into the digital economy. She thanked all the contributors to the discussion. As she said: “sharing experiences across the globe shows there are things we can learn.”
page �11
�
World Internet Project Meeting Thematic Discussions 9th July, 2015 Report
The day started with a welcome from Anton Harber, Caxton Professor of Journalism at the University of Witwatersrand.
The agenda for the day differed from previous years’ WIP MeeNngs in being organised themaNcally. This followed a discussion in Milan in 2014 where it was agreed that this might be a more interesNng and producNve approach than the previous focus on country-‐based reports. The day was also planned so that the discussions could feed into the next review of the WIP Common QuesNons which is planned for 2016.
Following online discussions earlier in the year, four themes had been idenNfied:
1. Approaches to measuring Impact
2. Wellbeing
3. ComparaNve WIP research now and in the future
4. IdenNfying WIP members current and planned research interests.
In addiNon, at Jeff's suggesNon, a discussion was held on WIP funding.
The topics all addressed directly or indirectly, aims and acNviNes of WIP and WIP members. In looking at outcomes and wellbeing, Ellen and Yair raised quesNons as to whether the common quesNons should move beyond measuring access and use. Reviewing how members had undertaken comparaNve studies raised technical and conceptual quesNons on how the common quesNons were used in research and idenNfying our research interests offered ideas for further collaboraNon.
Beyond access and use: new approaches to measuring the Internet's impact
This discussion started with a presentaNon by Ellen Helsper, LSE on Measuring digital literacy and digital outcomes. She reported on a research project between Oxford Internet InsNtute, LSE and the University of Twente on developing a framework for measuring outcomes of Internet use . 1
Among the points Ellen made were that exisNng instruments tended to conflate use and skills (is sending an email a use or a skill?); that while digital literacy and skills had been invesNgated, relaNvely liXle research had been done to measure tangible outcomes of Internet use. She presented some of the work that had been done by her research group to develop scales and measures that seeks to address this gap. There were many interesNng ideas very relevant to WIP work in Ellen’s presentaNon. For example, in measuring outcomes she disNnguished between what she saw as a
See: Helsper, E.J., van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Eynon, R. (2015). Tangible Outcomes of Internet Use. From Digital 1
Skills to Tangible Outcomes project report. Available at: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112
page �12
�
quanNtaNve measure of outcomes -‐ achievement (‘was an outcome achieved?’) and a qualitaNve measure -‐ saNsfacNon (‘Were you saNsfied?’).
There was a good discussion on the issues Ellen had raised and their relevance to the WIP common quesNons. There was some debate on the relaNonship between skills and outcomes. Sergio raised quesNon of astudes and moNvaNons and other contextual factors. Thierry wondered whether there was a hierarchy of skills. Indra raised an issue of process -‐ we needed to think about literacy and thus outcomes as a learning process.
Matais suggested that skills would be an important component to address in the common quesNons. Petr pointed out that a large baXery of quesNons would be required and so it would be difficult to add to the common quesNons. (see ‘modules’ discussion below).
Beyond access and Use: Wellbeing
Yair presented another approach in moving beyond access and use and a parNcular aspect of outcomes: the Internet’s role in wellbeing, taken as a psychological construct. He said that while there was no agreed definiNon of wellbeing, it generally was taken to include such concepts as ‘contentment’, ‘happiness’ or ‘life saNsfacNon’. He started from the posiNon that the Internet offered many posiNve opportuniNes, including, for example, fun, anonymity and control of exposure. But also offered challenges, for example -‐ aXenNon and distracNon. He discussed the idea of ‘switching off’, remaining connected to physical (outdoor) environment, issues of ‘existenNal loneliness’ (Rogers). He referred to some global projects engaged with quesNons of wellbeing online including the UNESCO ‘wellbeing in digital media project’. He reminded us that the Internet is a rich environment and simple models of it either ‘causing’ benefits or harms.
ComparaIve analyses using WIP data
Anna presented a cluster analysis of use in twelve countries using WIP data. She aimed to correlate sophisNcaNon of Internet use with the poliNcal systems of the 12 countries.
There was an interesNng discussion which began with methodological quesNons. The survey measured individual behaviours while the analysis aimed to idenNfy naNonal characterisNcs and relate these to the individual behaviours. At the naNonal level it was also a small sample (12). Others pointed out that, apart from poliNcal systems, there were many other variables that could account for differences in use and that these had not been considered in the analysis. It was also suggested that a different approach would be to analyse the cases together, rather than on the basis of country comparisons. Another point made was that there were reasons to explore country comparisons both of ‘similar’ countries and dissimilar countries.
This led to a broader discussion about how country specific factors were needed to explain and contextualise results from WIP surveys. One idea that was suggested was that short country reports
page �13
�
that addressed these contextual factors would be very useful as an output in addiNon to the data sets.
A further recommendaNon of the meeNng was that those who had already conducted comparisons using the WIP data should write short notes on any technical or other challenges they had had which could be used by others . 2
Members Research Interests
There followed a discussion where each parNcipant reported on their own and their organisaNon’s current and planned research interests. This showed a great diversity ranging from the economic to the psychological. But it also helped idenNfy a number of common research themes and opportuniNes for collaboraNon. Some of these were picked up in later discussions on strengthening research networks and creaNng new WIP modules (see later secNons below).
Wannes Hierman, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Focus on Online Privacy. Doing research about privacy in Belgium. Interested in cultural influences in astudes towards privacy. See this as a very interesNng area. Think WIP comparaNve work could be very producNve. Taking it further I would like to compare how much informaNon people share on social networks. Theory: Hofstadter individualisNc vs collecNvist cultures.
Morihiro Ogasahara, Kansai University, Tokyo, Japan
Choices regarding which social networks individuals select.
Theirry Vedel, Sciences Po, Paris, France
Privacy and big data and specifically people’s interest/ willingness in making bargain between sharing personal informaNon in return for services.
Margot Beauchamps, M@rsouin Network, France Privacy (similar to Thierry) and also maybe, wellbeing. Sharing economy: astudes and pracNces of sharing economy, impact. Wikipedia. Does internet empower with low social capital.
Jeff Cole, Center for the Digital Future, USC Annenberg School of CommunicaLon and Journalism, Los Angeles, USA
Media, ecommerce, social media, health care, cars -‐ how cars are researched and bought and what tech consumers want in cars, texNng and driving, banking and finance.
Pamela Davidsson, .SE, Uppsala University, Sweden
School students and the Internet. Monitor app use on mobiles (with an app loaded on mobile phones). Thinking of doing a study on ‘new swedes’ and Internet. End of domain names. Passwords.
Anna Dombrovskaya, Sholohov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Comparing people’s online content (on social networks) and offline presentaNon. Values and how Internet influences them. ‘Cyber metrics’.
Moritz Buch (Switzerland) has provided a note. See papers and presentations below for location.2
page �14
�
Sergio Godoy, School of CommunicaLons, Catholic University, SanLago, Chile
Trust and whether Internet facilitates trust between people and organisaNons. Would like to re-‐examine early assumpNons in common quesNons -‐ now we need new insights re mobile. Interested in Ellen’s thinking about outcomes, skills, moNvaNons.
JusLn MarLn, Northwestern University, Doha, Qatar
Focus on news, entertainment, media use online. Interested in Instant messaging: the main use of Internet. 95% of users do it and one in three messages is to or from a group.
Petr Lupak, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Privacy. Criminal use of the Internet.
Moritz Buchi, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Privacy -‐ what do you do to protect your informaNon? Skills. Interested in today’s discussion on impacts or outcomes and thinking about tangible and intangible factors. Also interested in social wellbeing. Also involved with public service broadcasNng and impact of the Internet. Would like to develop more theoreNcal work around moNvaNons.
MaLas Dodel, Society and Internet programme at the Catholic University, Uruguay
Thinking about reducing some use quesNons and adding something about skills. e-‐commerce and e-‐government. Cyber safety and preventaNve behaviours also research interests.
Indra de Lanerolle, Network Society Project, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
‘.mobi' or ‘mobile-‐centric’ Internet use -‐ subsNtuNon for other mobile use (voice, sms), ‘Internet-‐Lite’: Walled gardens: internet.org, and other models becoming popular in laNn America. Digital jobs and economy, ciNzen parNcipaNon. Changes in digital literacy and digital learning.
Tong-‐Yi Yuang, e-‐Governance Research Center, NaLonal Chengchi University, Taiwan
Do we need a framework for WIP -‐ a theoreNcal basis for the common quesNons? We now have so=ware for collecNon of data from people’s internet use.
Ellen Helsper, London School of Economics and PoliLcal Science, London, United Kingdom
Outcomes and skills. Other themes: social perspecNves rather than an individual set of acNons or choices. Where do people get help to improve digital skills. Develop more theoreNcl work around moNvaNons. Trust. What is online only rather than online/offline or offline only.
Funding of WIP research Jeff pointed out that we were losing some long term members, due to funding issues. Though we were also adding new members. Going around the room, we idenNfied the funding sources that applied in each members country:
page �15
�
Belgium NaNonal grant 4 yrs (based on a proposal around Cyber bullying), Japan naNonal educaNon research funding rejected for lack of originality France naNonal/regional funding Sweden domain registrar Russia NaNonal research grant Qatar university research fund Czech Republic was public funding, now looking for private funding Switzerland paid for from specific research projects Uruguay seeking funding Israel looking for private funding South Africa seeking public and private funding Taiwan naNonal funding, centre funding UK commercial, donor and government US The Centre pays and gets income from private sector consulNng.
Jeff explained how this centre funded the research without direct funding but by consulNng to provate sector clients including adverNsing giant WPP and then using some of those funds to pay for the research itself. He had found that business leaders didnt want huge amounts of data. Rather they wanted judgements and explanaNons that were informed by data. ‘Just tell people what they need to know’ as he put it.
In a number of countries the research was paid for as part of other themaNc research projects. This was a challenge for long term sustainability.
It was agreed that we should: inform the other members when we got funding and also share funding proposals where possible to help strengthen the sustainability of the network.
page �16
�
Learnings and insights from the discussions of the day
In a wide ranging discussion on what we had learnt during the day a number of important ideas emerged. Sergio suggested it was Nme for a re-‐invenNon of the WIP. He argued that the WIP is not the common quesNons, important though they are. Rather it is a global community of pracNce. We discussed the many opportuniNes for increased research collaboraNon, both in using the common WIP database but also in connecNng our broader research interests and projects. We also discussed the opportunity to develop survey modules on themes such as privacy, children, freedom of expression that could form the basis of collaboraNon between members in the future. The advantage of a modular approach was that those who had an interest could extend the scope of the WIP without extending the common quesNons.
World Internet Project Country Presentations 10th July, 2015 Report
Agenda: Mid East Countries report France report Uruguay report Russia Report China Report
JusNn MarNn from Northwestern University, Qatar presented findings from Northwestern University, Qatar of WIP survey in 6 Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia). He reported that picture sharing has exploded. Whats App and Facebook dominated social media and direct (or instant) messaging was now bigger than email. They also found that new (social ) media was considered credible source of informaNon in the Gulf States. There was an interesNng discussion both on their publishing approach (a query-‐able online database) and on some of the challenges of data collecNon and interpretaNon. For example, what were appropriate interpreNons of answers to the quesNon on freedom of speech?
Margot Beauchamp from the M@rsouin network in France reported on the network of regional Internet researchers in France and their successes and challenges in collaboraNons in conducNng common surveys.
MaNas Dodel from the Catholic University in Uruguay reported on their WIP survey. He found that Internet use and Internet skills could lead to improvvements in socio-‐economic wellbeing. He looked at digital inequaliNes not in terms of access but in terms of how different socio-‐economic groups use the Internet.
Elena Brodovskaya, from the Social CompuNng InsNtute, Sholokov University Moscow, reported on their most recent WIP Russia survey. She noted that Internet penetraNon had not increased since the last survey. This led to an interesNng discussion on ‘plateaus’, how long it would take countries to reach them and the combinaNon of supply and demand issues that might explain them.
page �17
�
WIP Business Meeting 10th July, 2015 Report Agenda 1. CommunicaNons 2. Modules and themaNc working groups 3. Next Conference 4. New members
1. CommunicaIons We all agreed that we needed to increase and improve communicaNons between members between meeNngs but we all also agreed that previous aXempts to do this had had limited success.
The parNcipants commiXed to three things: 1. Sharing milestones in their WIP work with Phoebe, Michael and Jeff -‐ funding secured, going
into field etc 2. Sharing milestones in Internet research: new papers, funding, research projects, even job
opportuniNes. Ellen and Yair are good examples.
We also discussed what plaporms would be most effecNve. There was no plaporm, other than email, that everyone used. For the moment, the mailing list is the most realisNc plaporm. ACTION POINT It was agreed that we should share Skype addresses and Whatsapp numbers in addiNon to email addresses.It was agreed that if we tweet on Internet research we should all use the hashtag #WIP
Sergio had pointed out the previous day that much of the value in the WIP in the network of researchers. We also idenNfied many collaboraNve projects that had already been iniNated as a result of WIP.
ACTION POINT. It was agreed that members who were not present should be surveyed to capture their research interests (as had been done at the meeNng)
2. ThemaIc Working Groups and other ideas for collaboraIon This discussion followed from the previous day’s discussion on research interests, and the agreement that we should work towards modules for those topics where some members wanted to collaborate without having to argue for extending the common quesNons.
We formed a number of themaNc working groups in the meeNng. 1. Internet Privacy, Chaired by Wannes (Belgium) 2. Internet Commerce, Chaired by Adreina (Italy) 3. Internet Health and Wellbeing, Chaired by Yair (Israel) 4. PoliNcs and poliNcal engagement on the Internet, Chaired by Tong-‐Yi (Taiwan) 5. Entertainment, Chaired by JusNn (Qatar) 6. Safety and Literacy, Chaired by Ellen (UK)
page �18
�
ACTION POINT (all) If members are interested in parNcipaNng in any of these groups they should contact the relevant chair directly.
ACTION POINT (ThemaNc working group Chairs) It was agreed that each group would produce a report and a suggested module for presentaNon at Taiwan.
3. Next MeeIng A discussion on the format for next year brought up a number of suggesNons. It was agreed that next year will include a review of the Common QuesNons. It was agreed that this years format, building on previous years worked well: Day one: meeNng with WIP members and local researchers/others on topic of common interest Day two: ThemaNc discussions on key research areas of common interest Day three: New country reports and Business meeNng
It was agreed that we should conNnue with a format of a 3 day conference followed by tours. There was also agreement that a roundtable format (as in South Africa) helped the discussion. Also agreement that the themaNc discussions that had taken place the day before were very construcNve and should be kept.
Next years format would have to give sufficient Nme for common quesNons review which has been a substanNal and long discussion in the past. It was suggested that it could be done more efficiently if we broke up into small groups for some of the Nme with each group tackling some of the quesNons. In order to do this efficiently, a small commiXee would meet virtually and gather proposals for changes. Jeff underlined the need for parsimony. If anyone proposed a new quesNon, they should also propose a quesNon to be removed.
A commiXee was appointed that it was agreed would manage a review process prior to next years meeNng: Tong-‐Yi Taiwan Andreina Italy Margot France MaNas Uruguay Sergio Chile Ellen UK Michael US
We also discussed that it would be useful if each year members were asked to complete a short report on relevant new research, conferences, publicaNons etc.
ACTION POINTS (Tong-‐Yi) Roundtable format. Deal with Common QuesNons in small groups so require break out spaces. Include Nme in the agenda to discuss new modules.
page �19
�
ACTION POINT NEXT MEETING (Tong-‐Yi)It was also agreed that while the SA conference hotel was very good, it would be good to have a 3 star as well as a 4 star opNon. Some parNcipants were explicitly restricted from staying in 4 star hotels.
ACTION POINT NEXT MEETING (Tong-‐Yi)It was agreed that Tong-‐Yi, Jeff and Indra would form a reference group for Tong-‐Yi to support his organising of next years conference.
ACTION POINT -‐ COMMON QUESTIONS (Jeff?) It was agreed that a spreadsheet should be circulated for people to idenNfy which Common QuesNons they had or had not used and if they had any problems with any of the demographic quesNons.
ACTION POINT (Indra? Tong-‐Yi) Dra= short survey form for members on acNviNes in previous year for gathering prior to annual meeNngs.
4. New Members Jeff led a discussion on opportuniNes to recruit new members. Various members agreed to contribute to the process of recruiNng and Jeff re-‐iterated that all members were free to either develop such discussions themselves or to forward leads and contacts to Jeff to follow up. ACTION POINTS FROM DISCUSSION (names below) Brazil Tiago and Ellen to share contacts. Tiago is partnering a Brazilian Univ. He will explore possible partnership in Brazil for WIP. Peru MaNas has suggesNons for Peru. Will pass details to Jeff Cuba Agreed would be very interesNng to have a partner there Europe prioritu countries Germany and UK Singapore Ellen is in touch with a contact at NTU. LSE is sesng up links with them India Andreina will pass contact of new dean at Borconni in india.
The meeNng was closed with thanks to the organisers.
page �20
�
Papers and Presentations by WIP members at WIP 2015 Some of these papers and presentaNons (if provided by presenters) are available here: hXp://networksocietylab.org. If you would like your papers added please mail [email protected]
WIP 2015 Next Four Billion Conference Wednesday 8th July, 2015
Brodovskaya, E. and Dombrovskaya, A. ‘The Internet and policy in Russia: Internet communicaNon of the Russian poliNcal parNes’
Dodel, M. ‘One laptop to every child’
Godoy, S. ‘CiNzens as customers, customers as ciNzens. IT-‐based trust related to local governments and e-‐commerce in Chile’
Helsper, E. (2015a) ‘Children Online: OpportuniNes and Benefits, Risks and Harm’
WIP Annual MeeIng 2015 proceedings Thursday 9th July, 2015
Amichai-‐Hamburger, Y (2015) ‘The Internet and Wellbeing’
Buchi, M (2015) ‘A note on technical problems in using WIP datasets for comparaNve research’
Dombrovskaya A ‘InterrelaNon of Internet communicaNon and poliNcal system: results of cross-‐naNonal research’
Helsper, E (2015b) ‘Measuring digital literacy and digital outcomes’
Helsper, E, van Deursen, A.J.A.M, Eynon, R. (2015) ‘Tangible Outcomes of Internet Use: From Digital Skills to Tangible Outcomes project report’ Published paper Available at: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112
Friday 10th July, 2015
Beauchamp, M (2015) ‘The M@rsouin research network’
Bing, L (2015)“Internet Development in China”
Brodovskaya, E (2015) ‘Dynamic CharacterisNcs of Internet use in Russia, 2012 and 2014’
Dodel, M (2015) ’Uruguay, Society & Internet: Findings Of The WIp Uruguay 2013 Survey’ MarNn, J (2015) ’Internet use in 6 Arab countries’
page �21