Final Report

Responsible: Dr. Leslie Haddon, University of Essex, UK

Participants: Chantal de Gournay (France Telecom R&D), Frank Thomas (FTR), Peter Heinzmann (Hochschule Rapperswil/cnlab AG), Rosemarie Gilligan (University College Dublin)

After the workgroup on Mobility had completed its report, and it was felt that we had achieved ours goals reviewing that subject, a review process of the Cost269’s objectives led us to consider exploring the issues of ICTs and cultural differences. It was decided to establish a workgroup to examine this topic (Leidschendam, April 2002). The topic was a potentially huge area of interest given the moves to International level research in the study of ICTs. After exploring several possibilities that could have culminated in enough material for a book, the workgroup decided to limit its focus because of the remaining time left in this cost action. The main goal was to produce a review of relevant literature and reflect on this through a number of worked examples.


Cultural Differences

The main report of the cultural differences group (Thomas et al, 2004. Cultural Factors Shaping the Experience of ICTs: An Exploratory Review ) is a systematic attempt to reflect upon what counts as cultural factors, and in what ways might they shape adoption and usage of ICTs, with examples.

One paper (Gilligan, 2003. Understanding Material Culture and Digital Media: A Case Study of Cultural Factors Shaping Rural Adoption and Use of ICTs) focuses specifically on the material culture discussed in the main report — its influence of spatial settlement, forms of housing and the symbolic significance of artefacts. In particular, the paper looks at differences between rural and urban areas, taking the example of Ireland. It examines how, and on what basis, and if at all, these differences could be described as ‘cultural’ and how they might contribute to explaining differences in ICT adoption and use.

A second paper (Gilligan and Heinzmann, 2004a. Exploring how Cultural Factors Could potentially Influence ICT Use: An analysis of Swiss TV and Radio Use) takes statistics concerning TV and radio use in different language communities and Switzerland. A third paper (Gilligan and Heinzmann, 2004b. Exploring how Cultural Factors Could potentially Influence ICT Use) considers SMS and MMS use in different European countries. Both these papers explore the types of factors that might in principle have caused or will cause emerging patterns of use. The reports note the non-cultural (e.g. supply side) factors that may be significant in each case, but also what potentially cultural factors may be at work.

One conclusion is that ‘culture’ is recognised as being one of the most contested words in the social sciences. For the purposes of this review, it is possible to have a working definition that many could agree with. In this paper we have understood ‘culture’ as a set of commonly shared symbols, values, beliefs, and attitudes, and their translation into everyday social perceptions, behaviour and material artefacts. ‘Cultures’ can exist at numerous levels, both larger and smaller than the nation state.

However, while this lays down some broad principles, the review acknowledges early on that the boundaries of culture, and what counts as cultural, are open to different interpretations. The review proceeded knowing that there are grey areas, and ones where there might be disagreement over using this label. Indeed, the report has sometimes pointed out where this might happen. At one level, working on this report has itself been an exercise for thinking about this issue of what counts as ‘cultural’ and where to draw boundaries (e.g. to what extent and at what levels is the educational system cultural, and to what extent does it reflect the history of particular political administrations).

There are many factors that produce differences in national statistics on ICT use that may well not be considered cultural — e.g. the particular history of ICT introduction in different countries, in part reflecting the decisions of suppliers.

Finally the review provides a checklist for analysts to think about issues they might consider when exploring cultural influences, with examples. It proposes dividing cultural influences into a number of domains:

- Social structure (e.g. degree of homogeneity, degree of egalitarianism, temporal structures, patterns of gender and ethnicity, history of religious influences, language),
- Temporal structures (e.g. the subjective experience of time, time use structures and expectations),
- Values (e.g. openness to technological innovation, degree of individualism)
- Patterns of communication (e.g. low context vs high context cultures)
- Material culture (e.g. spatial layout of settlements, housing forms, artefacts and cultural tastes)
- The examples illustrate how cultural influences can have a bearing upon adoption of ICTs (e.g. as indicated in discussions of the take-up of I-MODE in Japan). We also considered various historical examples of the more general diffusion of ICTs within and between societies (e.g. telephone diffusion in the rural US).

While the workgroup has made a start in systematically ordering the material in this field, during the course of this work and in deciding which themes to follow up its members felt that there was scope for a continuation of this work. Hence, within a proposal for a further action, that will be discussed in the self-evaluation section, a group looking at ‘The Multiple Cultures of the European Information Society’ could generate valuable knowledge. The aim of such a new workgroup would be to apply the insights gained so far to the field of the broadband society in Europe, both to provide a methodological and theoretical opportunity to develop the framework above and also to arrive at substantive conclusions that can inform current policy and commercial interests in this area.