Photo courtesy of David Sasaki (Flickr user "oso")

The last few posts based on the User Profiles working paper considered the “access” dimensions of public access venues – where people access computers and the Internet and why they go to public access venues. The next few posts, including this one, will uncover who comprises the “public” component of public access venues, that is, who are the users of public access venues?

This post will focus on two primary demographics of public access venue users: age and gender. Does the stereotypical public access venue user, young and male, hold up? Let’s find out.

Are public access venue users young?

Public access venue users under the age of 25; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

In all of the countries surveyed, it is clear that a significant proportion of public access venue users are young, under the age of 25. Even in Bangladesh and Chile, with the lowest percentages of users in this age group, over half of the users are younger than 25. This finding does align with much of the literature on public access venues. However, as demonstrated in the table below, there are other age groups significantly represented among public access venue users, particularly young adults between the ages of 25 and 34. Public access venues in Bangladesh and Chile seem to serve populations older than 34 as well.

Public access venue users by age; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

Do males constitute the majority of public access venue users?

While many users of public access venues are indeed young, it should not be overlooked that these venues also serve other age groups. What about gender? Are the bulk of these users males?

The survey sampling strategy aimed for 50% stratification by gender, so it is difficult to tell the whole story about gender with the table below. It is worth noting, however, that in three countries, Brazil, Chile, and the Philippines, the sampling objective was nearly met. Female public access venue users are clearly present and active. Cultural norms may account for the lower proportions in Bangladesh, as the survey enumerators noted it was difficult to find female users outside of major cities, where such activity would be less accepted.

Percentage of female users; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

While there is some justification to the stereotype that public access venue users are young males, there are clearly other populations using public access venues. The story of public access venue users being young and male is far from complete and exhaustive. These findings call for more in-depth exploration of age, gender, and other characteristics of public access venue users, which the Global Impact Study will do in the final report.

The next post will discuss the education and income levels of public access venue users.

For a more detailed description of the user survey findings on age and gender, please refer to pages 5-14 of the User Profiles working paper.

Given the rates of Internet access at home, which are mostly above the respective country averages, it begs the question of why users who have Internet access at home frequent public access ICT venues. While we know that for many users, it is their only option for access, but what drives users that have access at home to use computers and ICT at public access venues? For many it is because public access venues offer better equipment than at home, which could also mean a faster Internet connection. Another significant reason is to see friends or be with other people in the venue. In Brazil, where users enjoy the highest percentage of Internet access at home, these are the two main reasons users visit public access venues.

As the chart shows below, there are significant percentages in the “other” response, particularly for Chile and Brazil. Some of these “other” reasons include free access, not having to compete with their family members for computer and Internet use at home, software and services provided at the venue, and the convenient location of the venue.

Main reason for venue use; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

As our data shows, many users who do have access at home still frequent public access venues. Qualities and characteristics of public access venues, outside of just providing access, encourage the use of these venues and add value for the users. To some, this may mean a faster connection or a place to use Microsoft Word, to others it is a convenient stop along their daily path where they can socialize and meet other people in the community. Regardless of the reason, it is clear from our survey data that people use public access venues even when they have Internet access at home, which suggests that public access venues have more to offer than just access alone.

In upcoming posts based on findings in the User Profile paper, we’ll explore more about public access venue users. Is it true that most public access venue users young males playing games? Are public access venue users the “poorest of the poor”? How far will users travel to visit a public access venue? All of these questions and more in upcoming posts!

A few fast and easy ways to stay up-to-date with the Global Impact Study and findings:

• Follow @ictimpact on Twitter
• Subscribe to the RSS feed
• Only interested in findings? A feed just for that – RSS feed: findings
• Subscribe to the study’s quarterly newsletter

Source: Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012). Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.

Photo courtesy of Sara Vannini

After providing an overview of the Global Impact Study, survey instruments, and open research and open data, we divided the participants into three groups (the public/users, researchers, and sponsors/funders) to hear perspectives from different types of stakeholders. Each group discussed five questions regarding open data and open research:

1. When does data sharing begin?
2. How do you determine conditions of use (of the data)?
3. What data are open? Are some data not?
4. How can value be added to open data?
5. How can people add data to the existing open database?

After discussing the questions, we came back together as a group to share what each “audience” of open data discussed. Even though it is challenging to talk about the multitude of issues surrounding open data in a short session, we received a considerable amount of relevant and useful feedback. It was interesting to see similarities, as well as glaring differences, among the three different stakeholder groups. Below is a synopsis of how each group responded to the questions:

• The public (users): Data should be released as soon as possible. More than data, however, they want findings in a usable way, such as summaries. They also want the data too, but in a format and platform that is easy to use. The data should be shared with the least-restrictive Creative Commons license, and all data should be open. Value can be added by offering summaries, snapshots of findings, and examples of how to use the data. The public would likely not be adding much data to the database, so this was not a top issue in their discussion.

• Researchers: Data should not be open until the researchers have released their initial findings, unless the sponsor/funder of the research requires something else. The data should fall under a non-commercial Creative Commons license that requires attribution and citation of the original research. Some data should not be open due to confidentiality issues and the potential of mis-use. Value can be added to the data by providing rigorous data cleaning, clear methodology notes, definitions of terms, overview of the research process, and discussion of the limitations of the research and data. A tool for data analysis and visualization, like GapMinder, would also be appreciated.

• Sponsors/funders: Data should be open as quickly as possible. There is a debate about whether or not open data should be available for non-commercial use only or commercial use as well, especially with public funding, as commercial entities should not make money off of it, but it also depends on the type of data. All data should be made available to researchers, with a subset of data made available to the public. No data should only be available to the sponsors/donors. Value can be added to the data by providing subsets of data based on particular variables, along with descriptions and analysis. Some analysis needs to be done in order for the data to be useful. Perhaps the open database could be community-owned and run so people can add other data in the future.

As evident in the summaries above, the public, researchers, and sponsors/funders all have different considerations, priorities, and ideals of an open data approach. There are many factors, from a variety of viewpoints, that go into an open research approach and opening up data to the public. In our experience so far, we have learned a lot about open research and open data, and we are sure to learn more. We hope to share some of our lessons learned as we move forward. As always, we encourage you to share your comments, ideas, and relevant resources with us.

One potential, and logical, reason is that they do not have access to a computer and the Internet at home. Findings from our public access user survey reveal that while many people have computers in their homes, especially in Brazil, Chile, and Ghana, Internet access at home is lacking. Even in Chile, where overall connectivity is high, only 33% of the users surveyed have access to the Internet at home. Brazil users enjoy the highest percentage of Internet access at home, but at 40%, it is less than half of the users we surveyed. Only a quarter of  users in Ghana and the Philippines have Internet, and not even 15% of users in Bangladesh have access at home.

Computer & Internet penetration in user households; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

With more and more services, like searching for jobs, accessing government programs, and communicating with others, going online, people have more needs that can only be met by having access to computers and the Internet. As the data from our user survey illustrates above, not everyone has access to computers, and particularly the Internet, at home. This data also supports the previous post about where people first access computers and the Internet. If access at home is not available, people need to find an alternative for this access, and for many, that is found at a public access venue.

In our next post on findings from the user survey, we will explore the reasons why those people who do have computer and Internet access at home frequent public access venues. Is it a faster connection? Better equipment? To be with friends? Stay tuned to find out why even those with home access come to public access venues!

Source: Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012). Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.

Do you remember where you first used a computer? Where you first used the Internet? School, work, maybe even at home? Findings from our user survey indicate that, with the exception of Brazil, around half of public access ICT users first used a computer at a public access venue, such as a cybercafe, telecenter, or library. More impressive is that between 55%-75% of users first used the Internet in a public access venue, even in Chile, where connectivity is high. In Brazil, with the lowest percentages, over a third of users first used a computer and the Internet at a public access venue.

First use of computers and the internet in public access venues; Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012)

These data illustrate that public access venues provide many people with their first opportunity to enter the digital age and gain experience with computers and the Internet. The percentages in the chart are higher than we expected as we had hypothesized that schools would be a point of first touch for the majority of new users. This finding has implications for the types of experiences these people have since public access venues are places where people typically engage in multiple, unstructured, and informal activities, not formal classroom learning.

In the coming posts, we will explore where else people use the Internet and computers, what they do in public access venues, their demographic profiles, and more. Stay tuned!

Source: Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012). Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.

The user, venue, and non-user survey instruments and codebooks are available for download in our web library. Free registration and sign-in is required for instrument and codebook downloads. The methodology report can also be found in the web library.

Download (with registration)

User survey: instrument & codebook

Venue survey: instrument & codebook

Non-user survey: instrument & codebook

Methodology report: Global Impact Study surveys: Methodologies and implementation

Mobile telecentre; photo courtesy of CDI Chile

Yesterday, on the two year anniversary, a webinar was held (download presentation) with over 60 participants, led by María Angélica Celedón, Executive Director of the Assocacion de Telecentros Activos de Chile (ATACH). The webinar shared the main findings of the Global Impact Study’s related research project conducted by the Technology & Social Change Group (TASCHA) and ATACH on the role of libraries and telecenters in the aftermath of the February 2010 earthquake and tsunami in Chile. The research underscores the importance of access to information during emergency situations, when its access can determine the ability and capacity of individuals and organizations to react.

Publications from the study were also released yesterday, including a full report in Spanish, a two-page brief in Spanish, and a two-page brief in English. Produced in partnership with ATACH, TASCHA’s latest series of publications — Disaster response in Chile: The critical role of libraries and telecenters — examines post-disaster information and communication needs, services provided by libraries and telecenters, response times, and factors contributing to successes and shortfalls. It also provides recommendations to improve emergency planning efforts.

Snapshots of findings:

• The post-emergency response of library & telecenter staff was based on improvisation and local initiative
• The ability of the libraries and telecenters to mount an effective post-disaster response depended on infrastructure, individual initiative, and community relationships
• Libraries and telecenters provided communication and information access that fulfilled crucial emergency functions
• In addition to providing communications access, many libraries and telecenters served as relief stations, offering space for people needing refuge and providing other emergency assistance
• Emergency communications were established even in some locations where library and telecenter infrastructure was damage
• Social media — Facebook and Twitter — were essential communication tools for staff
• The services provided by libraries and telecenters in the aftermath of the 2010 Chilean earthquake shifted people’s perceptions of these venues from “places where kids go to do homework” to “invaluable community assets”

Snapshot of recommendations:

• Governments at all levels should incorporate libraries and telecenters into emergency planning and response efforts
• Create tools and provide training to make it easier to organize and communicate in emergency situations
• Library and telecenter networks should coordinate response plans, as well as advocate to be included in government planning processes

Downloads:

• A full report in Spanish: El Rol de los Telecentros y las Bibliotecas en Situación de Catástrofe: El Caso Chileno
• A two-page Spanish policy brief
• A two-page English policy brief
• An online webinar held on Monday, February 27, 2012 (download presentation; access webinar recording)

This work was conducted under the Libraries, Telecenters, and the 2010 Chile Earthquake project, part of TASCHA’s Crisis Informatics research area.

This research was made possible by Microsoft and the Global Impact Study, a project co-funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Our methodology report presents the context and the methodologies used for each of the three surveys. In addition to providing details about the survey implementation in each of the five countries, the report also covers the challenges we faced with these surveys and our mitigation strategies for these challenges.

Abstract

This working paper describes the methodology for the Global Impact Study’s five-country surveys of public access ICT venue operators, users and non-users. The surveys collected detailed information about the conditions of public access to ICTs, characteristics of public access users, patterns of usage, as well as information on non-users. Local research teams in Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, and the Philippines implemented the surveys through personal interviews in and around public access ICT venues. The paper describes the overall approaches followed and the methodologies employed as well as useful contextual information regarding the implementation of these surveys in each country.

Download

Full report: Global Impact Study surveys: Methodologies and implementation

Recommended Citation

Survey Working Group (2012). Global Impact Study surveys: Methodologies and implementation. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.

Keywords

public access, users, cybercafés, internet cafes, libraries, telecenters, internet, ICT, ICTD, survey, open research, open data, methodology, sampling, research design

The web library offers browsing, as well as search capabilities where users search by attributes such as keyword, author, document type, and research activity.

Below is a link to the Global Impact Study web library. Please note that while abstracts and metadata are available for all documents, some may require free registration and sign-in for access.

Global Impact Study web library

Logo courtesy of ICTD 2012, Georgia Tech

Many of the Global Impact Study research partners will be attending the upcoming ICTD 2012 conference in Atlanta, Georgia March 12-15, 2012. In addition to TASCHA researchers, representatives from our survey implementation teams in Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, and the Philippines will attend, as will some of the principal investigators of our in-depth studies. Components of the Global Impact Study will be highlighted in two open sessions and one presentation. We hope that any of you attending ICTD 2012 will consider participating in one or more of the sessions and presentation.

Open session: Want open research? Deep dive into data with the Global Impact Study

Technology and Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School

This session will bring together individuals interested in survey data analysis, for an intensive day of exploring user survey data from the Global Impact Study. As a core component of the project we carried out surveys of public access ICT venue operators, users, and non-users in five countries – Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, and the Philippines. The data with accompanying meta-documentation will be made publicly available upon completion of the project.

Session participants will have the opportunity to review and work with the user survey dataset representing approximately 5,000 users. The data cover a wide range of topics including user demographics, usage patterns, and perceived impacts. Opportunities abound for participants to pursue diverse lines of interest.

This session will be facilitated by the project’s management team with support from staff of the University of Washington’s Center for Statistical Consulting.

Open session: Distant fields, common findings? Identifying the challenges and benefits of multi-country qualitative research

Jenna Burrell, UC Berkeley; Janet Kwami, Furman University; Elisa Oreglia, UC Berkeley; Ricardo Ramirez, Independent, Canada; Andy Gordon, University of Washington; Balaji Parthasarathy, IIITB – Bangalore, India

The goal of this workshop is to discuss experiences in multi-country ethnographic/qualitative field work, an area that has been mostly the domain of quantitative studies. We build on the two separate multi-country projects carried out by the organizers, in order to identify what are the advantages and the risks of such research, how to coordinate research questions and hypothesis-making with the need to keep open to discoveries, and what role can this type of research play in the field of ICTD.

The first project is a 3-country (Ghana, Uganda, and China) study employing an ethnographic research to look at the adoption and use of ICT among ‘marginalized populations,’ focusing on market women in Ghana, farmers in rural China, and slum dwellers in Uganda, and comparing their practices and the information processes that exist around their businesses.  The second project combined several qualitative data collection tools, including ethnographies, with country-wide surveys to study ‘infomediaries’ (persons who combine a set of technological resources and coaching to meet users’ information needs and communication capabilities) in Lithuania, Chile, and Bangladesh. It focused on libraries, telecenters, and cybercafés to investigate and generate evidence on the scale, character, and impact of public access to ICT. Part of a larger project entitled Global Impact Study of Public Access to Information & Communication Technology, it investigates the impact of ICT in a number of areas, including communication and leisure, culture and language, education, employment and income, governance, and health.

Presentation: Sharing in public: Working with others in Ghanaian cybercafés

Michael Best, Bence Kollanyi, Sunil Garg, all of Georgia Tech

This paper explores the different ways in which people collaborate and share knowledge in public internet venues, or cybercafés, in Ghana, West Africa. Based on 150 survey interviews conducted in two different cybercafés, one urban and business-oriented and the other peri-urban and family-oriented, the authors find that most cybercafé customers, largely regardless of their demographic, would like to engage in collaborative work in public internet venues and that a large percentage already are. This paper is based on the Collaborative Knowledge Sharing in-depth study of the Global Impact Study.

Contrary to the belief of resource constraints driving shared use, those participants who reported already working together in the cybercafés generally did not cite economic motivations for their collaboration but instead identified enhanced productivity as the main reason. These collaborating respondents also reported performing more instrumental activities in the café and were more likely to have learned critical computing skills there when compared to those who were not already collaborating. Furthermore, they report being more social in their activities at the venue. Finally, the paper notes that collaboration and peer learning is not always planned or made public; voyeuristic forms of knowledge sharing, such as when someone glances at a stranger’s computer screen, are also cited by the survey participants as a learning opportunity in these public venues.

For more information about ICTD 2012, please visit http://ictd2012.org/.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user mlibrarianus

This paper presents various characteristics of public access ICT users. While earlier research suggests that public access ICT users are young, male, and only play games, the Global Impact Study has found that a myriad of user profiles exist. Looking at a variety of variables, from gender to income and education to age, this working paper highlights the diversity found among public access ICT users.

Abstract

Based on a survey of public access ICT users in five countries, this working paper outlines some basic characteristics of users – their demographics, history of using ICTs and reasons for using public access ICTs. This preliminary analysis indicates that while a large proportion of public access ICT users are young (40% under 20 years old), male (65%), students (44%), and have at least secondary education (82%), there is a fair amount of diversity in user characteristics. The significance of public access ICTs is demonstrated in the finding that most users’ first contact with computers (50%) and the internet (62%) was in a public access venue, and even those who have access at home patronize venues for other reasons, such as better equipment, faster connections, being with friends, or having access to help from venue staff.

Download

Full report: Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users

Recommended Citation

Sciadas, G., with Lyons, H., Rothschild, C., & Sey, A. (2012). Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.

Keywords

public access, users, cybercafés, internet cafes, libraries, telecenters, internet, ICT, ICTD

Tyler Davis, PI for the Benefit Cost Analysis in-depth study, describes the three methods:

1. Travel Cost Survey: The travel cost method of conducting benefit cost analysis is a measure of “use value.” Use value is the value that individuals who use a resource place upon that resource. For resources that are not traded in the open market the use value is difficult to estimate because there is no observable price that individuals pay to access the good (for example, the price of access to the internet at a public library). In these cases the researcher must use non-market valuation methods. The travel cost method is a means to estimate the minimum value an individual places on a good or service by observing their travel time and travel cost expended to reach the resource. By estimating the opportunity cost of their time spend in travel to the resource and the transportation costs incurred, we identify the minimum value the individual places on access to the ICT resource. The travel cost method is being implemented in five countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana and the Philippines) through questions in the Global Impact Study’s user survey.
2. Contingent Valuation Survey: For the Benefit Cost Analysis in-depth study in Chile, we are using a contingent valuation (dichotomous choice) survey that relies upon stated preference. We are not measuring a market good so we again rely on non-market valuation methods. For the contingent valuation study we are conducting a random sample of individuals and presenting them with a hypothetical referendum to prevent the reduction of hours of service of a public access ICT venue. The respondent is asked to consider the value they place on the public access venue even if they do not use it themselves. The contingent valuation method captures use value from people who use public access venues, and non-use values by identifying non-users’ willingness to pay for the public to have access to ICT venues. The non-use value is almost always higher than the use value for public goods, as the number of non-users is usually greater than the number of users. This study will complement the travel cost data from the user survey in Chile to present a more complete picture of the value of public access to ICT by presenting both a high and low value of public access ICT benefits. The contingent valuation survey is being implemented in Chile through one of the Global Impact Study’s in-depth studies.
3. Stated Preference Survey: The third study relies upon a survey where individuals are asked to state their willingness to pay to prevent public access ICT venues from closing. This method has greater error than the contingent valuation method, but uses dissonance minimization methods to diminish these sources of error. Methods to reduce error include allowing individuals to share their preferences for payment vehicles, and acknowledging that some services should be provided to everyone. The non-user survey captures only non-use value by definition. We expect the stated willingness to pay to prevent closure of public access venues will result in a higher valuation than the travel cost method because it includes non-use values, which are usually higher than use values. In conjunction with the travel cost study, we will present a range of values for each of the five countries in the Global Impact Study’s non-user survey.

Pursuing three types of benefit cost analysis will allow us to present both use and non-use values for access to information and communication technology, and to show how the values differ across geographic and demographic characteristics. Together these three methods provide a more nuanced view of how individuals value access to ICT, and how that value differs by venue. This nuanced view will inform ICT providers by identifying locations and individuals who place the greatest value on access to ICT and suggest increased efficiencies in choosing between types of venues and locations for siting new venues.

We will share findings as they emerge from the benefit cost analysis components of the Global Impact Study using the costs & benefits tag. As always, we welcome your comments and questions below.

View the poster here.

Technology & Social Change Group (TASCHA) research seminars offer students an opportunity to gain practical research experience with one of our many projects investigating the design, use, and impact of information and communication technologies in communities facing social and economic challenges.

The Winter 2012 section (held at the University of Washington Information School) — course number INFX 571 C/D — focuses on analysis of data from the Global Impact Study. The Global Impact Study comprises a variety of research activities, including a comprehensive set of surveys of public access venue owners/operators, users, and non-users at more than a thousand public access venues in Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, and the Philippines. The result is a rich source of data on demographics, usage needs/behaviors, and services in these countries. The seminar will focus on analysis of the survey data and provide opportunities to participate in different aspects of the project from crunching numbers to reviewing related literature. This is a great opportunity to learn and apply quantitative methods in a real research context with real data. The seminar will be led by George Sciadas (Statistics Canada), Hil Lyons (UW Center for Statistical Consulting), and Araba Sey (TASCHA).

The Global Impact Study’s approach to communications and knowledge sharing has been evolving since the project started in 2007. Initial efforts focused on building a list of people and organizations who might be interested in the project (or who might act as “knowledge multipliers” — spreading the word for us), laying out our research design, and keeping folks up to date about new studies, early research outputs, and where we are in the process. You can download a current snapshot of the strategy.

Now it’s time to start thinking about how we’re going to package and disseminate findings. Specifically what types of formats and products are useful for donors, decision-makers, practitioners, and other researchers. At first glance, there are three broad categories of outputs, all of which will appeal to different people:

1. “Meta” & Process — Updates about how we’re working, why we made the decisions we did, etc. This content often remains invisible but it’s really important because it captures learning about how to design, implement, and get the most out of a project of this scope. And sharing this stuff is a key to doing open research. [This post falls into this category.]
2. Assets — A lot of good tools, instruments, protocols, and methodologies get created when doing research. Again, important to the “how,” to learning, and to building research capacity. These are practical outputs that can be adapted to conduct future research efforts.
3. Findings — These are the research outputs. They come in two flavors: “raw” (data) and “value added” (articles, reports, presentations) — with analysis and recommendations. This is the new knowledge generated over the last five years. Our goal will be to present this in a way that’s useful — for decision-making, for advocacy, as a basis for more research and learning.

We’re going to stop developing our strategy as a document that gets passed around internally. We’re going to open it up and post it live — in a new “Knowledge Sharing” section on this website. We hope that you’ll take a look and provide us with feedback and suggestions. And, as always, we encourage you to use what we’ve created and build on it.

Stay tuned!