wired up - white paper_new media and migrants

7/31/2019 Wired Up - White Paper_new media and migrants

1/30

Newmediauseamongyouthinmigration:

Asurvey-basedaccountShortversionofthetechnicalresearchreport

Authors:

FadiHirzalla

MarittedeHaan

Aslinlsoy

TheWiredUpteamMarittedeHaan,SandraPonzanesi,KevinLeander,

FadiHirzalla,KoenLeurs,Aslinlsoy,FleurPrinsen&LisaSchwartz.

UtrechtUniversity,Utrecht,theNetherlands

December2011


2/30

Tableofcontents

Introduction.......................................... ............................................... .............................................. .................... 1

1 Theusercontext....................................................................................................................................... 82 Mediauserprofiles................................................................................................................................14

3 Onlineidentityprofilingandlearning............................................................................................16

4 Globalversuslocalorientations........................................................................................................21

5 Networkedcommunitiesandlearningecologies.............................. .........................................23

Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................28


3/30

1

Introduction

Thistextsummarizesthefindingsofasurveythatwasconductedwithintheframeworkof

theWiredUpproject. A supplementary researchreport,serving as the appendix of thiswhitepaperandavailableathttp://www.uu.nl/wiredup,providesamoreextensiveandde-

tailedpictureofouranalysesandfindings.

Inthisintroductorysection,wewillbrieflydiscuss:

- thegeneralaimsandscopeoftheWiredUpproject,- thecharacteristicsofthe surveythatwas conductedwithintheWiredUpresearch

framework,- thesampleandsamplingprocedureofthissurvey,and,- theresearchquestionsthatguidedouranalyses.

WiredUp

WiredUpisamulti-methodandmulti-disciplinaryresearchprogramthatfocusesonhow

youngpeopleintheNetherlandsandtheUSwithamigrantbackgroundusenewmediaandspecifically internetvenues.Migrancy,central tothisprogram,embedsmanyofthe local

andglobalparadoxesthatalsopertaintodigitalmediawiththeircompressionofspaceand

time.However, thelinkbetween thetwofieldsisstillunder-theorised and is inneedof

moresituatedandcomparativeresearch.Bridgingapproachesfromthehumanitiesandso-

cialscience,theprimaryaimoftheprojectistodevelopnewconceptualtoolsandaninno-

vativemethodologicalapproachthatwillallowustomonitor,evaluateandassessthesocio-

culturalspecificitiesof the interactionbetweenyouthanddigitalmediainacomparative

perspective(migrantsversusnativeDutch,MoroccanmigrantsintheNetherlandsversus

MexicanmigrantsintheUSA,femalesversusmales,etcetera).

Ourresearch focusesona) identityconstruction and globalrepresentations,b)develop-

mentofnewlearningstrategiesandsocializationpatterns,c)newformsofdigitalliteracy


4/30

2

and youth networks, and d) differences and similarities of these dynamics in a cross-

nationalcomparison.Ourmulti-methodapproachwillenabletogaininsightsintothedy-

namicsbetweentheseglobaldigitalspacesandtraditionalcontextsofsocialization.Moreo-

ver,itwilllocatethestudyoftheeffectsofdigitalmediainrelationtosocio-culturalconfigu-

rationsmediatedbynationality,genderandethnicity,whichwillbeasignificantcontribu-

tiontothedebateondigitalmedia.

Theprojectconsistsof3separatebutreciprocalempiricalresearchphasesthatareprimar-

ilyconductedintheNetherlandsin2010and2011.Thefirstresearchphaseisbasedona

surveyaimedatcollectingdatathatcanbeusedtoidentifyandexplaintrendsintheuseof

(mainly internet-based) media among young people with a migrant background (often

calledmigrantshere,includingyouthbornintheNetherlandsbutwithparentsbornelse-

where),alsoincomparisonwithmediauseamongyoungpeoplewithanativebackground

(oftencallednativeshere).Wehavealsosurveyedthemediauseofyouthwithamigrant

backgroundintheUS,butthissummaryisbasedonlyontheresultsofthedataaboutthe

Dutchcontext.The survey-basedresultsare further scrutinizedandcomplementedwith

twoqualitativeresearchroundsconsistingof,amongstothers,in-depthinterviewsandeth-

nographicresearch.TheselaterroundsarebasedondatacollectedintheNetherlands.

Thispaperprovidesanoverviewofsomeoftheresultsofthefirst,survey-basedresearch

phase.Thetheoreticalimplicationsoftheseandotheranalysesofthesurvey,alsoincombi-

nationwiththefindingsfromthetwosubsequentresearchphases,willbeaddressedmore

extensivelyinotherpublicationsthatwillappearinandafter2012.


5/30

3

Ourapproachindesigningthesurveyandresearchquestions

Indesigningthesurveywehadbothinmindtomaketheconnectionwithearliersurvey-

basedresearchonmediauseofyouthsothatourresearchcouldbuilduponandextendear-lierfindingsandtodesignalternativewaystosurveymediauseofyouth.Ourchallengewas

todo this from themulti-disciplinary conceptual perspective of theWiredUp program,

whilealsoworkinginlinewithmethodologicaltraditionsofsurvey-basedresearch.Asear-

lierandmoretraditionalsurvey-basedresearchprimarilyfocusedonpatternsofmediause

(whatapplicationsareusedandhowoften),weextendedthisapproachinthefollowing

ways:

Mediauseofmigrantyouthasrelatedtonon-migrantyouthWehavedesignedthesurveysuchthatitcouldcapturesomeofwhatweassumedcould

showparticularcharacteristicsofthemediauseofmigrantyouthasrelatedtothatofnon-

migrantyouth.Indoingso,wepaidattentionto,forinstance,particularpatternsofaccess

amongyoungpeople,theirsupervisionathome,thekindofonlinecommunitiestheyestab-

lishintermsofwithwhomtheyconnectuponline,butalsothenatureoftheresourcesthey

useforonlineprofilingordigitallearning(e.g.,whetherthesewereborrowedfromorasso-

ciatedwithmigrantrelatedcategoriesornot).

InternetuseaspracticesoflearningandidentityInsteadofsearchingouthowyouthareconsumersofparticularmediaapplications,ourgoal

wastogaininsightintothewidevarietyofwaysinwhichtheinternetisusedbyyouthto

continue theiroffline life, including socializing, seeking outandprofiling their identities,

finding information, building online networks, and learning from others, among other

things.Thesurveywasinparticulardesignedtoaddressissuesaroundonlinelearningand

onlineidentityprofiling.Forinstance,whiletuningintopopularfunctionsoftheinternetfor

youth,wedesignedquestionsthataskyoungpeopletoreflectonwhatandhowoftenthey

docertainactivitiesonlinethatcanbeconsideredrelevantfortheirlearning,suchasex-

changinglinksandtextswitheachother,andgivingeachotherfeedbackontheironline


6/30

4

productions. Or, togive an example on identification, questions were designed that ask

youngpeoplewhatresourcesandcategoriestheyprefertousetoprofiletheiridentitieson-

line.

HowonlinepracticesrelatetoofflinepracticesAsoneofthegoalsoftheWiredUpprojectistostudyonlineactivitiesasrelatedtooffline

ones,thesurveytakesintoconsiderationhowyoungpeoplesinternetuseisrelatedtosimi-

laractivitiesorfunctionsintheofflineworld.Forinstance,thesurveyasksrespondentsif

theironlinecontactsarealsocontactedoffline,anditasksthemtoevaluatehowtheylook

upinformationonlineascomparedtoaskingfororlookingupinformationoffline(e.g.,con-

sultingfriendsorbooks).

GlobalversuslocalorientationsFurthermore,wewereinterestedintowhatextentthemediauseofyouthreflectsaglobal

orientationoraccesstoglobalnetworksofpeopleortextsascomparedtolocalorientation

ornetworks.Thisglobal/localorientationwasexaminedinparticularwithregardtoiden-

tityprofilingactivitiesonline,thegeographicaldispersionoftheirsocialnetworks,andthe

locationoftheresourcestheyconsultonline.

NetworkedlearningecologiesFinally,thesurveywasdesignedtocapturethenetworkednatureofyoungpeoplesinternet

use.Theironlinesocialnetworksaswellastheonlineactivitieswiththeircontactswere

bothsurveyed.Wewereinterestedinthesizeandthecompositionoftheirnetworkswith

respecttotheethnicity,age,genderandsocialrelationshipoftheircontacts.Butwealso

wereinterestedintheonlineactivitiesyouthdevelopwiththeircontactsandwedesigned

thesesuchthattheyrepresentedpossiblenetworkedlearningecologies.


7/30

5

Oursample

Thesurveywascarriedoutinthecourseof2010among1408students(aged12to18)in7

secondaryschoolsintheNetherlands.Ourstratifiedsamplingprocedureyieldeddatadis-tributionsthatarelargelycongruentwithcensusdatawithrespecttoage,genderandedu-

cationlevel.

Givenourspecificresearchinterests,ouraimwastoformasamplewithsubstantialgroups

ofrespondentswithanativeandmigrantbackground.Tothisend,werandomlyselected

schoolsinregionswheremostmigrantyoungpeoplelive,creatingadatasetwith31.8%na-

tiveDutchyoungpeopleandtheremainderofmigrantorigin.Wediversifiedthesample

withregardtoage,genderandeducationlevel.Theaverageageofourrespondentswas

14.5years(SD=1.7),andabouthalfofthem(47%)ismale.Some52%oftherespondents

wasfollowingalowerpreparatoryschoolforsecondaryvocationaltraining(calledVMBO:

Voorbereidend Middelbaar Beroeps Onderwijs); 17% of the respondents was attending

higherpreparatoryschoolforsecondaryvocationaltraining(VMBO-T:VoorbereidendMid-

delbaarBeroepsOnderwijsTheoretisch);16%wasattendinggeneralsecondaryeducation,

preparing for vocational university (HAVO:Hoger Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs); and

13%oftherespondentswasfollowingacademicsecondaryschool,preparingforacademic

learning(VWOorGymnasium:VoorbereidendWetenschappelijkOnderwijs),whichmatches

byandlargethedistributionofschooltracksinthecountry.

Theresearchquestions

Thefollowinginterestsandresearchquestionsmotivatedthedesignofthesurvey:

1 Theusercontext

Howisinternetuseshapedbythesocialenvironment?Whatarelimitingandstimulating

factorsthatinfluenceinternetaccess,andhowdothesefactorsdefinetheintensityofinter-

netuse?Whatroledoyoungpeoplesattitudestowardstheinternetplay?Whatdidour


8/30


9/30

7

Howdoes migrant youth differ in the nature and the use of their networks from non-

migrantyouth?

Thenextsectionswilldiscusssomeofthecorefindingspertainingtothesefiveresearch

themes.Wewilldrawsomelinesbetweenthedifferentfindingsfocusingonthespecificin-

terestsandquestionswehavepresented.Wewillnotbeabletodojusticetothemanydif-

ferentaspectsofourfindingswhichcan,asdiscussed,befoundintheresearchreport.In-

stead,wewillespeciallyfocusonhowmediauseofmigrantyouthcanbedescribedasdif-

ferentfromthatofnon-migrantyouthinregardtoanumberofdifferentthemesrelatedto

thequestionsmentioned.


10/30

8

1 Theusercontext

Howisinternetuseshapedbythesocialenvironment?Whatarelimitingandstimulatingfac-

torsthatinfluenceinternetaccess,andhowdothesefactorsdefinetheintensityofinternet

use?Whatroledoyoungpeoplesattitudestowardstheinternetplay?Whatdidourfindings

tellusabouthowmigrantyoutharedifferentlyshapedbythesefactorsandhowtheyimpact

upontheirinternetuse?

Howoftenandwheredoyouthusetheinternet?

Wefoundthatyouthaccesstheinternetmostoftenonadailybasisintheirownhouse(in

theirbedroomsandelsewhereintheirhouse),ascanbeseenintable1andfigure1.

Thebalancebetweenprivateuseversuspublicuseseemstobemoreunevenwithageas

olderyoutharemoreprivateinternetusers.Withageyouthstarttousetheinternetmorein

theirownbedrooms,andlessinotherplacesinthehouse(wheretheaccessisnotexclu-

sive).Althoughthispatternalsoholdsformigrantyouth,theyaremorepublicusersofthe

internet ascompared tonative youth.Migrant youth use the internet significantlymore

thannativesinthehouseoftheirfriendsorfamily,inalibraryorinternetcafeorstillother

places,butsignificantlylessatschool.

Table1:Extentofinternetuseatdifferentlocations

Never

Adayperweek

2or3daysperweek

4or5daysperweek

Onceaday

Morethanonceaday

Inmybedroom 28.3 6.0 8.2 8.2 15.8 33.5Elsewhereinmyhouse 18.8 14.8 13.4 10.4 15.2 27.3Atfriendsorfamily 34.3 39.5 14.8 3.7 2.8 4.9Inlibraryoraninternetcaf 76.1 14.1 4.5 2.4 1.0 2.0Atschool 7.6 28.3 27.1 16.5 9.6 10.9Elsewhere 44.8 18.7 11.4 6.2 6.5 12.4


11/30

9

Figure1:Extentofinternetuseatdifferentlocations

Freedomandsupervisionofinternetuse

Overall,youthreportthattheyfeelfreetodowhattheywantontheinternet,ascanbeseen

fromfigure2.Thisperceivedfreedomaugmentswithage,andishigherforthehigheredu-

cationaltracksandforboys.Formigrantyouth,wealsofoundthispatternforage,butnot

foreducationallevelandgender.

Theoverallperceivedfreedomtodowhattheywantontheinternetisconsistentwithour

findingthatmostyouthreportnottobesupervisedbythepotentialsupervisorswedistin-

guished,asshowninfigure3.

Supervisionpatternsofinternetuseinthehomearespecifictomigrantyouth,however,in

thesensethattheyreporttobemoresupervisedbysiblingsascomparedtotheirmother,

whichisreportedtobethemainsupervisorbyDutchyouth.

15.8 15.2

2.81

9.6 6.5

33.527.3

4.92

10.912.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

In my

bedroom

Elsewhere

in my house

At friends

or family

In the

library or

an internet

caf

At school Elsewhere

More than once a

dayOnce a day


12/30

10

Figure2:Extentofinternetfreedom

Figure3:Extentofinternetsupervision

20.5 24.4 23.4 20.9 22.4 22.3

39.144.3

55.6

42.3

5647.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Do whateverI want

Decide what Ido online

Decide withwhom I chat

Decide what Idownload

Decide what Iput on profile

In total

Totally agree

Agree

10.6

8.5

22.2 22.9

11.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Supervised by brother

(s)

Supervised by sister

(s)

Supervised by father Supervised by mother Supervised by teacher

(s)


13/30

11

Protectingprivacyonline

Oneprivacymeasureisreallypopularamongyouth:keepingpasswordsasecret.Deleting

browserhistoryisalsoapopularmeasure,ascanbeseenfromfigure4.Further,migrant

youthprotecttheirprivacymorethannon-immigrantyouthbynotusingrealnamesand

photosonline,whilenativeDutchyouthmoreoftendonottellotherswhattheydoonline.

Figure4:Extentofuseofinternetprivacymeasures

Perceptionsofwhattheinternetisfor

Youththinkthatthewebcanbebestusedforlookingupinformationandleastforcontact-

ingpeopleforhelp,asfigure5shows.MigrantsdonotdifferintheserespectsfromDutch

youth,buttheyfindthattheinternetislessusefulforbuyingthings.Further,withagemore

functionsoftheinternetarevalued,andhighereducatedyouthvaluetheinternetmorefor

itspossibilitytosearchforinformationandcontactorganizations.Girlsvaluetheinternetmorethanboysforlookingupinformationandlessfordiscussingpersonalissues.

However,whenyouthareaskedwhatthemestheyprefertodiscussonlineratherthanoff-

line,theresults,showninfigure6,indicatethatfriendship(namedby38%ofrespondents),

87.6

24.9 13.437.4

16.1 23.50

20

40

60

80100

I keep my

password a

secret

I regularly

change my

password

I make sure I am

alone when I am

online

I delete my

browsers

history

I dont tell

others what I do

online

I dont use my

real name and

photos online


14/30

12

love(38%),romance(38%)andparticularlyhomework(44%)aremostoftenpreferredto

discussonline,andthatreligion,art,literatureandtheatre(all7%)areleastoftenpreferred.

Figure5:Extentofusabilityoftheinternet

Figure6:Preferencetodiscussparticulartopicsontheinternetratherthanoffline

Showingpercentagesofrespondentswhoprefertodiscussthedifferenttopicsonline.

15.330.6 22.4 19.5

11.1

7.7

50.5

13.69.8

8.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Discuss

personal issues

Look up

information

Buy things Contact

organizations

Contact people

for help

Very usable

Quite

usable


15/30

13

Access,freedomandlocationversusinternetuseintensity

Towhatextentdothesecircumstances(supervisionathome,placeofaccess)andattitudes

(thewaytheyperceivetheirfreedomtodowhattheywantonline)alsodefinetheintensityoftheirinternetuse?Andisthisrelationshipthesamefornativesandmigrants?Although

the analyses in this report cannotgive a finalanswer tohow eachofthe factorsdistin-

guishedcontributestotheintensityoftheirinternetuse,wefoundasetofpatternsthat,

whentakentogether,providethefollowingpicture.Asexpected,withage,lesssupervision

occurs,morefreedomisexperienced,internetusebecomesmoreprivateandtheinternetis

usedmoreintensively.Migrantyouthdifferfromnativeyouthinanumberofwaysregard-

ingthesegeneralpatterns.Wheremoresupervisionbysiblingsleadstolessinternetfree-

domformigrantyouth,nosimilarpatternwasfoundfornativeyouth.And,whereasolder

migrantsusetheinternetmoreintensivelythanyoungermigrants,thereisnosuchdiffer-

encefornativeyouth.Furthermore,whileaccessathomedoesnotseemtodefinetheinter-

netuseofDutchyouth,itdoesdefinetheinternetintensityofmigrantyouth.

All inall, ourdata suggestthat although thereweredifferences inaccessand perceived

freedom,themajoritydoesnotfeelrestrictedbytheirsocialenvironmenttoaccessthein-

ternet.Itseemsthatformigrantyouthinternetuseandperceivedfreedomtousetheinter-

netinthewaytheywantaremorecriticallyimpactedbytheirsocialenvironment,suchas

bythesupervisionofsiblingsandinternetaccessathome.


16/30

14

2 Mediauserprofiles

Whatarespecificpatternsofmediauseandattachmentamongyoungpeople?Isitpossibleto

deduceparticularmediauserprofilesformigrantyouth?

Attachmenttomedia

Withrespecttospecificmediaprofiles,wehavedistinguishedbetweenpatternsbasedon

youthsattachmentwiththesemediaandpatternsbasedontheiractualmediause.Withre-

specttotheirattachmenttomedia,wefoundthat,overall,youthareattachedtomediathat

theyfrequentlyuse.Forinstance,twitterandweblogs,lessfrequentlyusedatthetimethis

surveywastaken,willbemissedleastamongourparticipants,whileMSNMessengersand

watchingvideosonline,activitiestheyfrequentlydo,willbemissedmost.

Basedonattachmentwefoundfourclearmediacomponents,calledherenetworking,in-

forming,publicdiscussion,andgaming.Watchingvideosonlineanddownloadingwere

frequentmediaapplicationsthatdidnotclusterintooneofthesefour(theywerea-typical

forthese4components).Migrantyouthdifferedfromnativeyouthintheirattachmenttoonlyoneoftheseclusters,namely(public)discussion,plustheyaremoreattachedtoone

ofthea-typicalmedia,namely,watchingvideosascomparedtoDutchyouth.

Useofmedia

Inregardtoactualuse,andwhilealsotakingintoaccountnon-internetrelatedmedia,we

foundthatusinginstantmessenger,watchingTVorDVDs,watchingvideosonline,and

usingMP3/Ipodwerethe4mostpopularactivitiesamongyoungpeoplegenerally.Seefor

adetailedoverviewfigure7.


17/30

15

Whenlookingatcertainclustersofactualmediause,wefoundsixdimensions.Thesewere

gaming(1),discussiononline(2),networkingonline(3),mobilephoning(4),reading

offline(5),andmusicandmovies(6).Wefoundthatmigrantyouthareremarkablyactive

intermsofmostofthesefactorsandthattheyparticipatemorethannativeDutchrespon-

dents in discussion online, reading offline, music and movies, watching TV/DVDs,

watchingvideosonline, searching for information online, and e-mail.Native Dutch re-

spondentsareonlymoreactivewithphoningviaalandlinethannon-nativeDutchrespon-

dents,althoughotherdemographicfactorssuchasgenderandeducationallevelhadmore

impactonhowthesemediadimensionsweredividedover thepopulation.For instance,

girlswerelessactivewithgamingthanboysandmoreactivewithnetworkingonlineand

readingoffline,andhighereducatedyouthwas lessactivewithnetworkingonlinethan

lowereducatedyouthandmoreactivewithreadingofflineande-mailing.

Figure7:Extentofmediause

Figureshowsmeansona6-pointsscale.

4.61 4.78

43.48

4.35

2.16

3.37

2.251.78

1.44

4.67

2.45 2.39

4.08

2.87

1.37

1.6 1.73

2.94

2.2 2.08

3.37

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Watchingvideosonline

Messenger

Visitingorupdatingprofilesite

accounts

Downloading

UsingMP3player/IPod

Multi-playergamingonline

Playinggamesonconsole

Single-playergamingonline

Visitingorwritingonforums

Visitingorwritingblogs

WatchingTVorDVD

Readingmagazines/newspaper

Readingbooks

Lookingupinformation

Onlinephoning

Twitter

Chattinginchatrooms

Phoningviaalandline

Textingmessageswithmobilephone

Callingpeopleonmobilephone

Webcamming

E-mail


18/30

16

3 Onlineidentityprofilingandlearning

Howdoyouthusemediafortheiridentitypractices?Whatdothey(preferto)reveal?Whatre-

sourcesdo theyusefor identityprofilingonline?Howdoyouthusemediafor theirlearning

practices?Whatresourcesdotheyuseforonlinelearning?And,whatcanbesaidabouthow

youthsuseofonlineresourcesrelatestotheiruseofofflineones?Howdomigrantyouthdiffer

intheserespectsfromnon-migrantyouth?

Identitypracticesonline

Withrespecttomediauseforidentitypractices,wefirstlookedatwhatidentitymarkers

youthshowonline,askingthemwhattheywouldrevealontheirprofilepagesfromagiven

setofoptions.Theresultcanbefoundintable2.Gender,photosandnicknamesarethe

threemostpopularattributesusedforonlineself-profiling,whileincome,schoolclass,and

religionarethethreeleastpopularones.

Table2:Extentofdifferentformsofself-profiling

No YesPhotosofyourselforothers 27.5 72.5Statusupdates 71.3 28.7Nickname 28.6 72.4Firstname 31.7 68.3Familyname 63.9 36.1Age 33.5 66.5Dateofbirth 55.8 44.2Thecitywhereyoulive 38.6 61.4Yourneighborhood 79.5 20.5Thenameofyourschool 58.3 41.7Theclassofyourschool 87.7 12.3Gender 23.4 76.6Sexualorientation 80.9 19.1Nationality 58.7 41.3Ethnicity 73.5 26.5Countryofbirth 63.3 36.4Income 96.9 3.1Religion 84.4 15.6Thelanguagesyouspeak 66.4 33.6


19/30

17

Overall,wefoundthatmigrantyouthreveallessontheirprofilepagesoftheattributeswe

distinguishedascomparedtoDutchyouth.Thisseemstoreflectanattitudeamongmigrant

youthtoprotecttheironlineidentitymorecomparedtoDutchyouth.Thisispartlycon-

firmedwhenconsideringthekindofattributestheyrevealascomparedtoDutchyouth.

WhileDutchyouthreveal,forinstance,morepictures,firstnames,familynames,andbirth

dates,migrantyouthrevealmoreoftentheirnickname.Inadditiontothis,theprofilingof

migrantyouthseemsformedmorebyaneedforanethnicshapingoftheironlineidentity,

giventhattheyshowmoreoftentheirethnicity(andtheirreligion).

Aswewereinterestedinthekindofidentityresourcesyouthwouldrevealonline,weasked

themfor3differentidentitycategories(cookery,celebritiesandmusic)iftheywoulduse

itemsassociatedwithmigrantcultures,itemsassociatedwiththeDutchcultureoritems

thatcouldbecalledmoreinternational.TheresultisshowninTable3.

Table3:Extentofself-profilingaccordingtoaffiliation

All

respon-dents

NativeDutch

MigrantsDutch Cookery 20.1 36.8 12.6 Celebrities 13.4 22.1 9.2 Music 9.8 19.4 5.3Migrant Cookery 33.6 17.2 41.1 Celebrities 28.6 9.4 37.4 Music 39.8 20.5 48.7International Cookery 35.4 33.3 36.4 Celebrities 37.3 37.5 37.0 Music 66.9 77.5 61.7

Theseresultsshowthat,although1)bothnativesandmigrantyouthuseinternationalre-

sourcesforself-profiling,and2)forbothgroupsself-profilingonownororiginalcultures

ismorepopularthanself-profiling inothercultures,3)thegroupsdiffer inthatmigrant

youthself-profile less in other cultures ascompared toDutchyouth.Thus,whileDutch

youtharemoreeclecticinthekindofresourcestheyuseinthisrespect,migrantyouth

showastrongerpreferenceforprofilinginresourcesassociatedwiththeirownculture.


20/30

18

Learningaboutactivities

We were interested in how the respondentssearch for information and resources both

whentheysearchforinformationoncertainthemesingeneral(suchashealth,religionandmusic)andwhentheylearntobuildcertaininternetcompetencies(suchastextingwitha

mobile phone and downloading things form the internet). Learning things online and

searchingforinformationonlinewerecomparedwithlearningthingsorsearchingforin-

formationoffline,makingitpossibletorevealhowyouthvaluetheonlineasaplacewhere

they can learn and find out thingsascompared tohow theyvaluemore traditional re-

sources and means for learning (books, teachers, et cetera). Furthermore, we assessed

whetherrespondentswereinclinedtousemoresocialresources,bothonlineandoffline,as

comparedtosearchesindatabasesortexts.

Whenwefocusedonthelearningofinternet-relatedskills,suchaslearningtomakeaweb-

siteorsettingupaprofilepage,wefoundthatmostyouthindicatethattheyhavelearned

thismorethroughtrialanderrorthanthroughconsultingspecifictextsorotherpeople.

However,asanextpopularstrategy,youthconsultotherssuchasfriends,familyorteachers

offlineinsteadofreachingoutforothersonline,ascanbeseenintable4.

Table4:Meansoflearningperactivity

Havenotdonethis

Instructiononpaper

Ahelpappli-cation

Itrieditmy-selfwith-outhelp

Offline,withthe

helpoffriends,familyora

teacher

Online,withthe

helpoffriends,familyora

teacher

Downloadingoruploadingmusic 16.62.3(2.8)

4.5(5.4)

46.6(55.6)

25.4(30.5)

13.6(16.4)

Makingapersonalblogorwebsite 29.03.3(4.6)

4.7(6.6)

42.5(59.9)

16.9(23.8)

9.2(13.0)

Playingacomputergame 13.42.5(2.9)

4.8(5.5)

64.6(74.7)

11.1(12.8)

9.1(10.5)

Makingapuppetinagame 32.2 2.6 5.3 46.7 10.0 7.7


21/30

19

(3.9) (7.9) (68.9) (14.8) (11.3)

Textingwithamobilephone 7.02.3(2.4)

3.0(3.2)

74.1(79.7)

11.1(11.9)

7.7(8.3)

Makinganaccountonaprofilesites 13.21.2(1.4)

5.0(5.7)

55.6(64.1)

21.3(24.5)

9.7(11.2)

Makingoruploadingphotos 15.11.9(2.3)

4.5(5.4)

59.6(70.2)

15.9(18.7)

7.8(9.2)

Makingoruploadingvideos 25.41.8(2.4)

4.8(6.5)

52.2(70.0)

12.4(16.7)

8.2(11.0)

Total 19.0 2.2 4.6 55.2 15.5 9.1Therespondentswereenabledtoindicatemultiplemeansoflearningperactivity.Mostoftherowsumsofpercentages,therefore,exceed100.Thelastrowwiththetotalsindicatestherelationshipbetweentheaggregatedpresenceresponsesandalltheresponsesintotal.

The respondents learning histories vary along socio-demographic lines. For instance,

younger people learnmostly through social channels (throughonline oroffline helpoffriendsandfamily),andmigrantyouthlearnrelativelymoreoftenindividuallythroughpa-

perinstructions.

Learningabouttopics

Ifwefocusonhowyouthsearchforinformationingeneral(leavingitopenwhetherthey

wouldprefertheinternetormoretraditional(social)resources),wefoundthatmostre-

spondentsprefertosearchforinformationaboutthedifferenttopicseitherbyselfsearches

online(35.8%)orbycontactingfriendsorolderpeopleoffline(together30.6%).Lesspopu-

lararetraditionalmedia,suchasbooks,orcontactingfriendsonline.Seetable5foramore

detailedoverviewofthefindings.

Further,ourdataindicatethatmigrantyouthuseindividualonlinesearcheslesscompared

tonativeyouth,andthattheyrelyrelativelymoreonsocialresources(bothonlineandoff-line)andontraditionalmediawhentheylookforinformation.


22/30

20

Table5:Meansoflearningpertopic

Idontlook

forin-forma-tionaboutthis

Book,

news-paper,oramaga-zine

Mypar-entsorteach-ers

Offline,amongfriends

Online,amongfriends

Isearchforthisinfor-

mationmyself,ontheinter-net

Homework10.5

10.7(12.0)

38.8(43.4)

12.4(13.8)

17.0(19.0)

41.8(46.7)

Thingsthathappeninyourneighbor-hood

22.116.3(20.9)

13.8(17.8)

29.8(38.2)

15.8(20.3)

23.4(30.1)

Music,celebrities,andmoviestars14.6

18.0(21.1)

3.8(4.5)

13.7(16.1)

15.6(18.3)

54.2(63.2)

Literature,art,theatreandscience43.6

14.9(26.4)

10.2(18.1)

6.5(11.6)

6.7(12.0)

30.3(53.8)

Religion38.4

11.1(18.0)

25.8(41.8)

6.8(11.1)

6.3(10.1)

28.2(45.7)

Buyingthings27.6

11.6(16.0)

12.4(17.2)

13.1(18.1)

9.0(12.5)

41.3(57.0)

Makingmoney38.3

8.7(14.0)

13.4(21.6)

11.2(18.2)

8.2(13.2)

32.1(52.0)

Health33.0

11.8(17.6)

25.2(37.6)

7.9(11.8)

6.3(9.3)

34.8(52.0)

Total 28.5 12.9 17.9 12.7 10.6 35.8The respondentswereenabledtoindicatemultiplemeans oflearningper topic.Mostofthe row

sumsofpercentages,therefore,exceed100.Thelastrowwiththetotalsindicatestherelationshipbetweentheaggregatedpresenceresponsesandalltheresponsesintotal.


23/30

21

4 Globalversuslocalorientations

Towhatextentdoesthemediauseofyouthreflectaglobalorientationoraccesstoglobal

networksofpeopleortextsascomparedtoalocalorientation?Thisglobal/localorientation

wasexaminedinparticularwhenaskingfortheiridentityprofilingactivitiesonline,thegeo-

graphicaldispersionoftheirsocialnetworksandthelocationoftheresourcestheyconsulted

online.Howdomigrantyouthdifferintheserespectsfromnon-migrantyouth?

Comparingthedifferentaspectsinwhichtheglobal/localdimensionwassurveyed,thefol-

lowing patterns arise.With respect to their resources for self-profiling both immigrant

youthandnativeyouthmostlyuseculturalresourceswhichcanbelabeledinternationalorglobalroughlytothesameextent.Thiswasespeciallythecaseforwhentheyself-profiled

onmusic, asmentioned in theprevious chapter.However, also local resources and re-

sourcesfromthecultureoforigin(formigrants)orotherculturalresources(fornatives)

werepopular,alsodependingonthespecifictheme.Youthcanbecalledeclecticintheirre-

sourcinginthesensethattheyusemultipleresourcescomingfromorassociatedwithava-

rietyofgeographicalscalesorculturalorigins,eventhoughespeciallymigrantyouthwere

moresystematicinusingtheirownculturalresources.

Whenwelookatthegeographicaldispersionoftheironlinenetworks,wemustconclude

thatbothmigrantyouthandnativeyouthareprimarilylocallyorientedinhowtheybuild

theironlinenetworks,evenifmigrantyouthhaveslightlymore transnationalcontacts in

theirnetworksascomparedtonativeyouthandnativeyouthmorecontactsatthenational

scale.

Looking atthecontent ofthe topicsdiscussed inthesenetworks,weroughlyfound that

globaland interestdriven topicsweremorediscussedwith transnationalconnectionsas

comparedtowithlocalcontacts(i.e.,athome,orwithinonesneighborhoodorcity)while

withlocalcontactsawidevarietyoftopicswasdiscussed,alsoincludingmorelocaltopics.

This finding seems to suggest that larger geographical distances induce a more topic-


24/30

22

specificorientation,althoughfurtheranddifferenttechniquesofanalyseswouldbeneeded

toconfirmthis.

Ifwelookattheoriginofthewebsitestheyconsult,wecanconcludethat,basedonthelan-

guagesinwhichthesewebsitesareconceived,youthdomoveoutoftheirlocalcommunities

tosearchforinformationonline.Likenativeyouth,however,migrantyouthmostoftencon-

sultwebsitesforinformationinthelanguageofthehostcountry.Some65.6%ofourre-

spondentswithamigrantbackgroundshowastrongtendencytosearchforphotos,pic-

tures,videos,stories,musicandotheritemsonwebsitesthatarewritten inDutch.Other

migrantrespondentseithersearchfortheseitemsonlyonwebsitesthatarewritteninthe

languageofthecountryoforigin(8.6%)ordonthaveastrongtendencytosearchforthese

items(25.8%).

Inconclusion,thedataseemtosuggestthatbothmigrantandnativeyouthareprimarilylo-

callyorientedwhenitconcernsthecommunitiestheybuildonline,butthatintheresources

forinformationandidentity,theyaremuchmoregloballyoriented.Whatgloballyornon-

locallyorientedmeanseemstodifferforbothgroups.Migrantyouthcombinearelatively

transnationalnetworkwithrelativelymorespecificownculturalresources,whilenative

youthcombinearelativelymorenationalnetworkwithamorevariedresourcestyle,bor-rowingfromresourceswithmultipleorigins.Thesedifferencesbetweenmigrantandnon-

migrantrespondents,then,aregradualratherthanabsoluteandclear-cut.


25/30

23

5 Networkedcommunitiesandlearningecologies

Whatisthesizeoftheonlinesocialnetworksyouthdevelopandtheintensityandthenatureof

theactivitiesthatyouthdevelopthroughtheironlinesocialnetworks?Whatisthecomposition

ofthesenetworksintermsofethnicity,gender,ageandsocialrelationship?Whatistheexten-

sibilityofthesenetworks?Dotheirnetworksreachouttotransnationalcontactsorarethese

networksprimarilylocallyoriented?Whatisthedensityoftheirnetworksenhowhomogene-

ous are theyintermsof age,gender and ethnicity?Can theonline activitiesyouth develop

throughtheironlinenetworksbeconsideredlearningecologies?Howdotheactivitiestheyde-

veloponlinehangtogetherwithothercharacteristicsofthenetworksuchasthegeographical

locationoftheircontacts?Howdoesmigrantyouthdifferinthenatureandtheuseoftheirnet-

worksfromnon-migrantyouth?

Sizeandintensityofnetworking

Youthreporttomaintaincontactwithalargegroupofpeoplethroughtheirprofilepagesor

instantmessengeraccounts(onaveragearound100contacts).Migrantyouthhavelargeractiveonlinenetworksascomparedtonativeyouth.Thesameistrueforyouthfromthe

lowereducationaltracks.

Further,respondentswereaskedtomentionthe5mostfrequentlycontactedpeopleonline

andaskedtoansweracoupleofquestionsabouteachofthesecontacts.Itturnedoutthat

mostcontactswerecontactedonadailybase,andtherewasastrongrelationshipbetween

howoftentheyhadcontactwiththesepeopleonlineandoffline,asshowninfigurefigure8.

Youthlistedonlyafewcontact(3.4%ofallthecontacts)whomtheyhadnevermetoffline.


26/30

24

Figure8:Onlineandofflinemeetingsbetweenegosandtheiralters

Homogeneityofonlinenetworks

Thetablebelowshowsthecompositionofthenetworksintermsoftheage,genderand

ethnicityoftheonlinecontactsofourrespondents.Ascanbeseen,mostpeoplethatare

contactedonlinearepeers,withonlyalimitednumberofpeoplewhoareyoungerorolder.

Table6:Demographiccharacteristicsofalters

PercentagesFemale 55.8Male 44.2Youngerthan12 2.1Between12-18 88.2Olderthan18 9.7Dutch 44.7MoroccanBackground 12.5TurkishBackground 14.1

OtherethnicBackground 28.7

Theonlinenetworksofyouthwereratherhomogeneous:youthconnectonlinemostlywith

peoplewhoarethesameintermsofage,genderandethnicity.Mostcontactsarefriendsof

therespondents(78.6%)andonlyasmallerpercentageisfamilyoranacquaintance.Inter-

estingly,olderyouthconnectupmoreonlinewithpeoplebeyondtheirownage,andDutch


27/30

25

youthconnectrelativelymoreoftenwithpeoplefromtheirownbackgroundascomparedto

migrantyouth.

Densityanddispersion

Itturnedoutthat,accordingtotheyouththemselves,37.4%ofalterskneweachotherwell,

and31.9%kneweachother;theremainder,30.7%ofthealters,didnotknoweachother.

Onaverage,theonlinenetworkdensityofmigrantyouthwashigher,butthiswasalsothe

caseforyoungerandlesseducatedyouth.

Furthermore,ourdataseemtosuggestthatyouthconnectuponlinewithpeoplethatare

primarilylocallybased,withwhomtheyexperienceacloseemotionalbond,whoalsoknow

eachotherforasubstantialpart,andwithwhomtheyalsomeetofflinefrequently.However,

althoughmostonlinecontactslivecloseby(77%livesinthecityofourrespondents),youth

alsoconnectuponlinewithpeoplewholivebeyondtheircity(18%)orabroad(5%).Anda

smallpercentage(3.4%)wascontactedonlinewithoutofflinecontact.

Topicalorientation

Weaskedourrespondentsifthetopicstheydiscussedwiththeironlinecontactswereself-

oriented(whathappenedwithyou),orientedtowardslocalsettings(whathappenedinthe

neighbourhood or at school), or oriented towards global issues (what happened in the

world).Self-orientedtopicsweremostpopular(33.4%ofthenetworktalkedaboutthese

topicsinoursample),followedby32.2%fortalkaboutschoolissues,22.2%fortalkabout

neighbourhoodissues,andfinallyonlyby12.3%fortalkaboutglobalissues.

Inadditionweaskedourparticipantswhatwasthecontentofthetalkwiththeironlinecon-

tacts,presentingthemwithalistof13concretetopiccategories,includingitemssuchas

health,friendships,andfamilybutalsoarts,literature,theatreandreligion.Thislistwas

testedinourpilotforthemesthataccordingtoourrespondentsoccurredintheirdailyon-


28/30

26

linepractices.Forstatisticalpurposesanddatareductionthe13-itemswereseparatedin

twogroups:socially-orientedandinterest-driven.

Figure9:Topicsdiscussedinthenetworks(in%)

Wehavecheckedifthegeographicallocationofalterswasrelatedtothekindsoftopics

youthtalkabout.Weroughlyfoundthatglobalandinterestdriventopicsweremoredis-

cussedwithtransnationalconnectionsascomparedtowithlocalcontacts(i.e.,contactsliv-

ingattheirhomeorwithintheirneighborhoodorcity)whilewithlocalcontactsawideva-rietyoftopicswasdiscussed,alsoincludingmorelocaltopics.


29/30

27

Onlinenetworksaslearningecologies

Despitewhatwassaidbeforeonthepreferenceyouthseemtohavetosearchforinforma-

tionindividuallythroughinternetsearches,youthreporttobeactivelyengagedwiththeironlinealtersforvariouslearningactivities.Theyareinvolvedwiththeironlinecontactsin

activitiessuchassharinglinks,checkingeachotherout,andproducingtogetheronlineona

regular basis.We found that these activities also correlate strongly and positivelywith

whetherornotyouthexperiencetheseactivitiesasleadingtonewinformationorthedis-

coveryofnewthings,asshownintable7.

Table7:Pearsoncorrelationsbetweennetworkactivities

Checkingeachothersprofilepages

Sharingtextsandlinks

Askingforadvice

Editingormakingnewthings

Givingfeedback

Discoveringnewinfor-mation

Checkingeachotherspro-filepages

1

Sharingtextsandlinks

.764* 1

Askingforadvice

.710* .752* 1

Editingormakingnewthings

.750* .869* .762* 1

Givingfeedback

.627* .726* .678* .787* 1

Discoveringnewinfor-mation

.677* .827* .771* .811* .792*

1

*p


30/30

Conclusions

In conclusion, throughthis surveyresearchwewere able toreportonthemediauseof

youthboththrough1)payingattentiontoparticularprofilesoruserpatternsasrelatedtodemographicbackgroundcharacteristics,asisdoneinmosttraditionalmediaresearch,as

wellasto2)particularissuesandquestionsrelatedtohowmigrantyouthusetheinternet.

However,ratherthanfocussingonmediauseasanactivityinitself,oursurveywasaimedat

unravelling3)howyouthusetheinternetasaresourcefortheirlearningandtheconstruc-

tionoftheironlineidentities.

Theresultsthereforespeaknotonlytoissuesandthemesaroundhowmigrantyouthareparticularmediausers,butmorespecificallyshowhowtheyconstructandresourcetheir

onlineidentities,formtheironlinenetworksanduseonlineresourcesfortheirlearningas

comparedtonon-immigrantyouth.Althoughithasnotbeenourambitionheretointerpret

theseresultswithaparticulartheoreticalperspectivesinmind,thefindingsofthisreportdo

provideinsightsintohowyouthuseresourcesfortheirlearningandidentityformationon-

line, as well ashow they build their online networks, and how these processes can be

framedinalocal-globaldynamicformigrantyouthasdistinguishedfromnativeyouth.

wired up - white paper_new media and migrants

Documents