social activities and mobile internet diffusion: a search for the holy grail?
TRANSCRIPT
1
Social activities and mobile Internet
diffusion: A search for the Holy Grail? 1. Manuel José Damásio
1. Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias (ULHT)/CICANT – Research Centre for Applied Communication and Culture, Lisbon, Portugal
2. Sara Henriques
1. Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias (ULHT)/CICANT – Research Centre for Applied Communication and Culture, Lisbon, Portugal
3. Inês Teixeira-Botelho
1. Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias (ULHT)/CICANT – Research Centre for Applied Communication and Culture, Lisbon, Portugal
4. Patrícia Dias 1. Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias (ULHT)/CICANT –
Research Centre for Applied Communication and Culture, Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract
Any technology adoption is shaped by a myriad of factors that sometimes conflict in their ultimate goals and outcomes. So is the case with mobile Internet (m-Internet) adoption and diffusion. This paper discusses this process from the stakeholders’ and users’ perspectives and confronts their understanding and attitudes towards this technology with three complementary theoretical models: network theory, activity theory, and the technology acceptance model (TAM).The study presents results for the use of m-Internet in a southern European country and frames those in light of the activities, here understood as effects of the network, undertaken by the users. We seek to assess whether individuals perform a different set of activities when using m-Internet and how different forms of access result in different network effects, adoption processes, and distinct forms of interaction. The depicted study involved a qualitative stage, consisting of a set of interviews to stakeholders of the mobile communications industry and a quantitative study that involved the survey of a nationally representative sample of individual users. The findings of these studies provide several contributions to the understanding of m-Internet adoption and diffusion and the role network effects play in them.
This Article
1. doi: 10.1177/2050157913495690Mobile Media & CommunicationSeptember 2013 vol. 1 no. 3 335-355
***********************************************************************************************************************
Social activities and mobile internet: A search for the Holy Grail?
Manuel José Damásio, Sara Henriques, Inês Teixeira-Botelho, Patrícia Dias
[email protected]; [email protected], [email protected],
CICANT – Centre for Research in Applied Communication, Culture and New
Technologies
Lusófona University - Portugal
2
Abstract
Any technology adoption is shaped by a myriad of factors that sometimes conflict in their ultimate goals
and outcomes. So is the case with mobile internet (m-internet) adoption. This paper discusses this process
from the stakeholders and users perspectives and confronts their understanding and attitudes towards the
technology with three complementary theoretical models: network theory, activity theory and the
technology acceptance model (TAM). The study presents results for the use of m-internet in a southern
European country – Portugal, and frames those in light of the activities undertaken by the users, here understood as effects of the network. We seek to assess whether individuals perform a different set of
activities when using m-internet if compared with other technologies that perform similarly, and how
different forms of access result in different network effects and adoption processes. The depicted study
involved a qualitative stage, consisting of a set of interviews to stakeholders of the mobile communications
industry and a quantitative study that involved the survey of a nationally representative sample of
individual users. The findings of this study provide several contributions to the understanding of the
adoption process underlying m-internet and indicate that stakeholders’ comprehension of the process is
highly influenced by the consideration of adoption factors that are not relevant for the individual users and
that ultimately conflict with its desirable use of the technology.
Keywords: m-internet; activity; mediated communication; social interaction; technology adoption.
INTRODUCTION: MOBILE INTERNET, TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND
NETWORK EFFECTS
Mobile internet (m-internet) entails access to value-add applications and multimedia
content via a device with mobile communication capacities that allows for physical
displacement during the use activity. The concept is still a debatable one, far from a clear
and delimited description. Some authors agree that m-internet refers to the use of internet
on mobile devices (Gerpott, 2010; Wang & Wang, 2010) but the understanding of what a
mobile device exactly is in our days is something of a riddle. Given the general nature of
this definition, several questions have arisen, particularly in what concerns the
conceptualization and operationalization of this term. Some consider m-internet a
synonymous of wireless internet that includes both going online with a laptop using a wi-
fi connection or broadband card or going online via a mobile phone (Smith, 2010). For
others, mobile devices are considered mobile phones, with two broad categories:
smartphones and feature phones, notebooks and tablets. These latter merge both mobile
features and pc features, since they are mobile but they work as a pc (Townsend & Rios,
2011). To some extent, going online via wirelessly connectivity is one of the agreed
features of m-internet. Wireless connectivity enables internet access wherever whenever
(Wellman, Quan-Haase, Boase, & Chen, 2002), an important aspect being to perform
activities on the go. Gerpott (2010) mentions that m-internet involves packet-switched
3
and internet protocol-based access to a vast assortment of data-applications via mobile
communication networks, such as e-mail, web browser, video streaming. Wang and
Wang (2010) relate m-internet to accessing wireless internet anytime and anywhere via
palm-sized mobile devices, such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDA) or
smartphones. According to these authors, mobile activities are activities, performed in a
wireless environment through a mobile device, via the internet, the major difference
between mobile and fixed internet being the mobility and accessibility the network and
the platform allow. We understand m-internet as internet access and consumption
performed via wireless, 3G or 4G platforms using mobile devices that allow for physical
displacement during use operations, which means, to perform activities on the move,
anywhere and at any time. On contrary, fixed internet refers to the access to internet via a
laptop or desktop in a steady and fixed space, whether one uses wired or wireless
connectivity.
Our research deals with emerging adoption patterns of m-internet and the understanding
of the interdependencies between the socio-economic environment surrounding the
technology deployment and individual interactions that occur via or with the support of
such technologies in the context of social networks where the adoption process occurs.
We posit that m-internet adoption and use depicts structural conditions that entail
indirect network effects dependable from users’ activities as the key driver of adoption
and use, and that the direct effects materialized in the presupposition of the “benefit of
having access to” constitute a network externality that proves that industry and market
stakeholders fail to internalize the impact social interactions and social capital have for
the adoption process.
Our research postulates that the differences in the nature of the social interactions and
activities allowed by m-internet, namely when compared with other technologies with
similar functionalities (e.g. fixed internet), are key adoption drivers as a replacement for
access or other technological determinants. This hypotheses states that network indirect
effects are more relevant than direct effects, the first being a consequence of individual
and social processes of use and the second a consequence of the adoption process.
We argue that social activities are an integrative part of m-internet service adoption and
that only a more holistic view of network effects can disclose interdependencies between
individual adoption, market derived determinants and the socio-cultural environment
where the phenomena actually happens. In doing so, we seek to bridge the individual
4
level – adoption – with the macro level – network effects – and establish social
interactions and activities as a common framework linking the users’ and the providers’
perspectives that go from adoption to technology diffusion.
Our research provides information on the adoption process and use intensities in a
specific European country – Portugal – and seeks to construct a framework for m-
internet adoption and use based at this stage on the identification of the key drivers of
adoption, the role social and communicative interactions have at that level and the actual
relevance access to the platform has for the process.
Our research looks at the consequences of the adoption and use process and not at the
users’ attitudes or social determinants. In this we distinct our work from previous studies
that indicate for instance an inverted variation between age and the adoption and use of
the mobile phones (Fortunati and Magnanelli, 2002) or point to the importance gender
has as a differentiating factor, since boys tend to use the mobile phone in a more
instrumental manner, whereas girls stress social and emotional interactions (Hoflich and
Rossler, 2002; Kasesniemi and Rautiainen, 2002; Ling, 2004).
With every new wave of technology comes a discussion on the consequences of the use
of such technology, but also on the predictors of its possible level of dissemination
amongst individuals and society. Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
and Rogers’ (1985) Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) framework have garnered the most
attention in technology adoption studies, with considerable research devoted to
integrating new and modified variables into the applicable frameworks. While limited to
predicting voluntary use, both frameworks are intended to capture the individual
acceptance of a technology as a first-order effect in a causal chain that eventually
characterizes adoption behaviours. Ease of use, usefulness, and compatibility (Gallivan,
2001) are some of the key drivers of the individual/organizational adoption decision
presented by these frameworks. Individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours regarding
the attributes of a technology are clearly established as key drivers, but these factors may
be influenced and even confounded by social structural influences, a fact that makes it
difficult to distinguish in TAM based studies between what is a cause and what is an
effect, what is a predictor or what is a consequence. The isolation of predictors of use is a
goal for many studies, but also something that all companies in a given industry intend to
grasp, a fact that might explain why such methodologies are so well accepted amongst
industrial stakeholders in a more or less disclosed fashion (Gao & Damsgaard, 2007).
5
Our study posits that the social interactions and activities that might influence adoption
processes are not adequately represented in traditional adoption frameworks and that
individual technology adoption, namely on what concerns m-internet, is highly driven by
network effects steaming from the social activities users perform via these technologies.
In fact, adoption research has largely ignored the dynamic impact of network effects on
technology adoption and diffusion, namely the direct effects that lead to additional
benefits for users in a given social network, or the indirect network effects related with
the independencies between individual adoption and the availability of complementary
services.
At the same time, network theory as often neglected the specific interactions between
adopters and their social settings or the verification of its projected assumptions on
specific services, like for instance m-internet.
The term network is mostly used to describe a network of users of a given technology
(e.g. m-internet) but also the arrangements surrounding that use (e.g. sharing of
information). Network effects theory associates the emergence of positive network
effects with user preferences for compatibility and makes the success of a given
technology dependable positively on the total number of users choosing that same
technology (Beck, Beimborn, Weitzel, Konig, 2008). Direct network effects have been
defined as those benefits that are generated through a direct physical effect of the number
of users of a technology. Indirect network effects are "social mediated effects" such as
cases where complementary goods are more readily available (i.e. number of apps
available in a given online store for a given platform).
The core aspect of the argument regarding network effects is that demand curves are
more elastic when consumers derive positive value from increases in the size of the
network, this implies that a network effect and a network externality lie in whether the
impact of an additional user on other users is somehow internalized, or in other words,
how are individual choices to adopt influenced by prior choices by other members of the
user’s social network (DiMaggio&Garip, 2011). The effects result in network
externalities that are defined as a change in the benefit, or surplus, that an agent derives
from a good when the number of other agents consuming the same kind of good changes.
Although the individual users that adopt a product or service are not likely to internalize
the effect of their joining a network on other members of a network, the owner of a
network may very well internalize such effects. Today’s dynamic of information and
6
communication technologies results not only in different types of effects but also depicts
proprieties that entail social outcomes as a core explanatory element.
Our research intends to bridge network theory and adoption models such as TAM with a
broader adoption perspective that entails users’ activities as a core element of the process
and resorts to social interactions specific users have with their socio-cultural
environment as a connexion between the individual and the macro level on what
concerns m-internet adoption and diffusion.
This paper presents findings from two complementary studies that entail precisely the
providers’ perspective and the individual user perspective as components of a macro
environment that characterizes the dynamics of m-internet technologies.
Our approach is consistent with the view that social explanations can be advanced by
identifying the mechanisms that entail (a) goal-directed individual activities (i.e
adoption) and (b) consequent social interactions that (c) yield higher-level outcomes
(diffusion) and that (i) are emergent (i.e., that cannot be recovered simply by
aggregating individual actions that combine to produce them) and that (ii) vary
depending upon the initial social structure (ordinarily depicted in terms of social
networks in this case dependent on access) (Tilly 2006). Our research contributes to
knowledge in this area by integrated in this explanatory social structure the user and the
provider and by developing a holistic framework that integrates adoption models with a
general network theory approach under a theoretical perspective framed by activity
theory.
ANALYSING MOBILE INTERNET ACTIVITIES: THE ROLE OF ACTIVITY
THEORY
The relevance of the relations between modes of access and interaction provided by
communication technologies and changes within society, is particularly noticed when it
affects existing social contexts and contributes to different forms of interaction and
participation (Dutta-Bergamn, 2005; Blanchard, 2007; Castells, 2008, Katz 2008). The
consequences of internet use may vary in accordance with the type of connectivity users
have and also with the type of activities users perform online (Ling, 2008).
The term activity is central in this context, offering a basis to examine human
relationship with technology in a social and cultural context. The activities performed via
7
the internet, whether via mobile or fixed access, represent mediated relationships
involving subjects in a particular environment in a dynamic and active way. In
understanding how access, either from an individual or from a provider’s point of view,
may influence adoption and how this results at a macro level in different network effects,
performed activities arouse as an element that incorporates network dynamics and
effects. In this context, Activity Theory emerges as valuable framework to analyse and
operationalize this problem. Activity theory framework presents a dialectical view of the
collective practices in which the activity transforms social practices and mediated
objects, undergoing a collective process of change. Activity theory is grounded on the
cultural-historical theory of activity and socio-cultural psychology, originally developed
on Soviet Union in the 1920s among psychologist as Vygotsky, Leontiev and Luria. This
theory focuses not on the individual but rather on the interaction between the individual,
a system of artefacts and other individuals, arguing that the concept of culture and
activity are central to the understanding of human nature (Holzman, 2006, Vianna &
Stetsenko, 2006). This theory envisions human development as social and cultural-
historical activities that are taken collectively via symbolic cultural tools (mediational)
and that have an impact on development, and thus, on society. These cultural tools are
conceptualized as embodiments of certain cultural practices, patterns of actions or
schematic representations of ways of doing things social and culturally accepted. The use
of internet to conduct social activities online can be understood as the use of a cultural
mediated tool directed to a main purpose – the individual social and cultural adaptation
to his environment in a collaborative process, where not only the subject adapts to the
environment and the mediated tool, but also transforms it and himself in an adaptation
process. Social activities performed via a mediated tool are in a constant multidirectional
flow of transformation, influencing the subject’ practices and actions and the uses he
makes of that cultural tool. Activities are oriented and shaped according to the features of
the mediated tool and according to the subjects’ goals in that action. Kaptelinin and
Nardi (2006) introduced activity theory to analyse the relationship between technology
usage and the user social and cultural context. This theory assumes a valuable interest
since it offers an approach to envision local activities performed via mediated tools (e.g.
the internet, or even, m-internet access), arguing dialectical transformation of both by
their evolution and circulation through different generations and stating a value for the
activity and interaction involved in that activity.
8
According to this theory, the usage of a mediated tool, its features and the action goals,
can explain changes in social and cultural practices. Therefore, the issue of access can be
determinant here to understand the influence of mobile and fixed access to internet on
the nature of activities performed online. If activities are shaped and transformed
according to the mediated tool particularities and the possibilities it offers to users, as
well as according to users’ individual and collective features, does mobile access
promote different kind of activities online when compared with fixed access to the
internet? Does mobile access have any consequences in terms of the activities people
perform online? Do those activities result in different indirect network effects? Is access
a steamer of direct network effects? Are social activities and interactions the central
driver of m-internet adoption and network dynamics and effects or a consequence of an
adoption process supported on direct network effects resulting from access provision?
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
The present research intends to contribute to the understanding and analysis of the
problem discussed in the previous sections, which questions what are the stakeholders
and users perspectives of m-internet adoption, how far apart are their understandings and
how do their attitudes are related, and also what is the influence of the type of access in
regards with the type of activities conducted online and the different network effects
produced. In a general way, this paper presents two complementary studies that analyze
stakeholders and users’ perspectives of m-internet adoption and activities, as part of a
macro view of mobile technology usage.
This research project is characterized by a longitudinal nature, beginning with a
descriptive approach of mobile consumption in Portugal and worldwide, in order to
examine the existent data and to scrutinize and re-define the problem to be addressed.
After this initial stage, two complementary studies were developed, one based on
qualitative techniques that intend to analyze stakeholders ‘ view of m-internet adoption
and dissemination, the other based on quantitative techniques that intend to examine
user’s view of m-internet adoption and usage. The paper discusses the results obtained
so far, though the global research design project also intends to developed, after these
stages, an empirical stage where a mobile platform will be developed and tested in
9
regards to adoption patterns, network effects, benefits of using, social interaction and
social capital impact.
The initial descriptive study consisted in analyzing the existing data about internet access
and in particular, m-internet access, intending to characterize this form of access, both at
a national and international level. Data from Netpanel Marktest (2010), Bareme (2010,
2011), Livingston and Haddon - EU Kids Online (2009), Lenhart – Pew Internet Data
(2009), Gresta – Eurovision children & youth experts annual meeting (2010), Internet
World Stats (2011), ComScore (2011), Global mobile statistics – MobiThinking (2011)
was considered. The analysis of these studies and the contributions of this data for the
development of the research problem is described in Damásio, Henriques and Costa
(2011). As mentioned, after the descriptive study, an exploratory approach based on
qualitative techniques of analysis was performed in order to examine the problem
discussed and reach a better comprehension thereof. This qualitative study is based on a
set of interviews with stakeholders from mobile communication Industry, at a national
and international level. Stakeholders were asked their opinion with regard to m-internet
adoption, dissemination and usage in the present and near future. The outcomes from this
qualitative study will be presented in the results section. Each interview consisted of 18
predetermined questions. The questionnaire developed for this study was based on
previous studies that also analyzed stakeholders’ views on technology adoption (Quico,
Damásio, Henriques & Veríssimo, 2010; Araújo, Cardoso & Espanha, 2008; The World
Internet Project, 2012) (Interview questions on appendix 1). The respondents were
offered total freedom of expression and reasoning apart from the questions themselves.
The interviews were performed face-to-face or via e-mail, depending on the respondents’
preference. All interviews were transcribed and analysed with the help of the software
NVIVO. The qualitative analysis was carried out in a sequential manner. In the first
stage, all interviews were read and each question was analysed regarding the relevant
themes approached within. A list of categories/ nodes was created based on this first
qualitative analysis. This list was improved by considering all the content and data
available from the interviews and with contributions from all researchers, undergoing
improvements until the last version was created (to see the list of nodes created, see
appendix 1). Regarding the data, we opted to create tree nodes, nodes organised
hierarchically. Eleven main nodes were created from which multiple others derived. In
10
the results section, we will present the data analysis and the main results achieved in this
study.
Subsequently to this qualitative approach, a quantitative study was based on the
application of an inquiry, with the main goal of analysing user’s perspective of m-
internet services and possibilities, characterizing m-internet access in Portugal,
identifying the factors that contribute to its growth and the activities performed via m-
internet in comparison with fixed access to the internet. The inquiry was developed
based on some international studies previous measures (Zickuh, Kathryn, Smith, Aaron,
2011 – Pew Internet & American Life project; Smith, Aaron, 2010 - Pew Internet &
American Life Project; Lejnieks, Carly, 2008). A pre-test was performed with a
convenience sample of 40 individuals in order to improve the instrument and ensure that
there were no misunderstanding issues. The final version is divided into three main parts:
the first part is concerned with a descriptive analysis of mobile phone and m-internet
usage, the second part is mainly concerned with the type of activities and tasks
performed via m-internet access and the levels of participation and satisfaction of
individuals within communities in that process, finally, the third part is concerned with
sample and demographic characterization. The inquiry has in total 20 questions (see
appendix 2).
RESULTS
Qualitative study
In this section, the results from the qualitative study, based on a set of interviews with
stakeholder from mobile communication industry, will be reported. These results present
the stakeholders’ view of m-internet adoption and dissemination.
The main goal of this study was to explore and to search for relevant research questions
contributing to the understanding of how the industry faces the changing technological
environment in this field and how they perceive m-internet dissemination, key drivers,
social and individual consequences and network effects of access to m-internet.
The following stakeholders of mobile manufacturing companies were interviewed: Sony
Ericsson’s Key Account Manager; Nokia’s Communication Manager; LG’s Marketing
Manager; market research companies, Marktest’s Internet Director; GFK’s Business
Group Director; Netsonda’s partner; mobile marketing companies, TIMWE’s product
11
manager, and mobile network operators, Optimus’ Internet Mobile Multimedia Services
Manager; Internet Services Director at Vodafone; and ZON’s voice product manager.
It is relevant to highlight here that stakeholders understood m-internet as internet on
mobile phones and, or smartphones. This results concern only stakeholders’ view and
opinion.
Interviews show that stakeholders believe that mobile phones’ sales are decreasing in
Portugal and worldwide but, on the other hand, smartphones are having an exponential
growth due to the price being so similar to the ordinary mobile phone. As consequence
of this democratization, stakeholders’ perspective is that m-internet is growing.
According to stakeholders’ view, the age group between 25-34 years is the one that uses
more m-internet in Portugal, from social media and email, to news and meteorology
contents. They are also marked for a peak usage on internet banking. With the lowest
usage rates for m-internet, are the older users, especially those who are over 64.
Stakeholders mentioned that male users stand out on the use of m-internet but, although
female users have proportionally a lower dissemination than male users, they are on the
same level regarding the access of social networks through m-internet.
Stakeholders believe that, although the access to m-internet is becoming more available,
there is a higher range of users in the higher socio-economic classes, urban centers and
with a higher level of education.
Vodafone considers that the use of m-internet will soon exceed the use of internet on a
PC. Vodafone also argues that m-internet is more utilitarian and frequent along the day
but has a shorter duration of access, when compared with a normal internet access on a
computer. They also believe that there is a peak of usage at lunch time, between 6pm and
7pm and a primetime between10pm and 11pm. Friday is believed to be the day with
more traffic.
According to all interviews, m-internet users are becoming multiplatform. This means
that they can access it everywhere, anytime and through different devices. This mobility
allows a better exploitation of the internet and its possibilities, the creation of a more
appealing experience and spending less time on a computer.
For the majority of the stakeholders, with exception of those from mobile networks
operators, the price plans available are the main obstacle to the expansion of the m-
internet, as they still have high prices and limited traffic. Another obstacle listed were the
quality of the devices regarding the screens, the speed of its browsers and the lack of
12
information and literacy of Portuguese people regarding the existent services.
Stakeholders argued that the majority of users access m-internet through smartphone
devices but there are still some users using featured phones. Smartphone users have a
higher exploitation of data used and minutes spent online every day. They access internet
through browser and/or apps. On the other hand users of ordinary mobile phones prefer
to use the browser, as it is difficult or even impossible for them to use apps.
Although smartphone users are developing new online surfing behaviors based in apps
and less dependent on browsers, stakeholders identified some age differences: older age
groups navigate through browsers and younger people mostly use social apps like chats,
social networks and games.
As main motivations to access m-internet, stakeholders, especially those who represent
mobile network operators, considered that social networks represent a very high share of
internet traffic through mobile phones. This information was established by market
research companies, as they highlighted that a high percentage of young people aged 15-
17 access social networks on mobile phones and half of this value in the following age
groups 18-24 and 25-34.
Stakeholders posited that social networks are more effective to transmit information on
one-to-one, one-for-many, broadcast or guarantee contact, with multimedia support.
According to the LG’s Marketing Manager, it is early to say that internet on mobile
phones will reduce the flux in other communication channels, as SMS or voice calls but
it will certainly slow down their growth. The mobile marketing expert from TIMWE
highlighted that m-internet allows calling and texting, which can turn
telecommunications companies into the role of Dump Pipes.
Mobility is one of the main motives to use internet on mobile phones as it gives access to
new services and possibilities (e.g. geolocation) and new types of consuming, sharing
and communicating. In a near future, it is expected that people will perform the same
tasks via m-internet than we do now via fixed internet, like editing documents and store
data. Social networks and email access are other important reasons to have m-internet
and the main banners in attracting customers to this service. Geo-location is another
motivation mentioned by the stakeholders. According to the data collected, on the top of
the most popular apps are geo-location services. These apps are based on the
convergence between internet and mobility provided by the mobile phone.
Stakeholders referred to an interesting topic about the impact of m-internet on social
practices, as they considered that m-internet access makes it easier to communicate and
13
share information in real time. This fact contributes to social closeness and public life
involvement. Stakeholders remembered some of the social movements that were initiated
via the internet and mobile access e.g. Arab Spring and London riots. Another
motivation mentioned is fun and entertainment (e.g. games, movies and music).
Sony Ericsson’s Key Account Manager highlighted that using m-internet for work
related matters is associated to senior users and young adults and that e-mail access is the
main reason why companies provide smartphones to their employees.
As a relevant consequence of m-internet use are the fact that dead time are turning into
useful time - Mobile Economic Times. The LG representative cited a whitepaper called
MET that shows that internet users are increasingly spending more time surfing on the
internet and on these periods of time, people are more likely to be available to try new
services and analyze new products.
Stakeholders considered that PC replacement or at least the possibility to do the same
tasks on the move is a motivation to access m-internet. Although some stakeholders
believed that this replacement will soon represent the reality, other point out that
smartphones still has some limitations.
According to majority of the interviews, apps are one of the main attractions of the
smartphones’ market. They encourage m-internet use, they create recurrence on use and
ensure an optimized access, which is richer and more dynamic than in a typical mobile
website. Furthermore, they easily integrate themselves in device's features that give a
completely different experience. With a contrasting vision, the mobile marketing
company TIMWE and the market research company Netsonda believe that browser will
be the future multiplatform.
Quantitative Study
In this section, we will present the results achieved in the quantitative study referred to
above, performed with a representative sample of the Portuguese population (n=1107).
The individuals from this sample are aged between 14 and 64 years (mean age=38,69),
49% being male and 51% being female. The vast majority of the sample (81%) has
elementary and high school education, 42,7% frequented elementary school, 38,0%
frequented high school, 9% have a degree, 1,4% have a master, 0,3% have a PhD and
7,1% have less than primary school. The sampling was conducted in a random way in all
14
regions of the country and the inquiry application was performed face-to-face in the
individuals’ households by GFK Company.
Given the length of the questionnaire, it will not be possible to approach and analyze
deeply in this paper all questions posed, being chosen those that are thought to be more
relevant to the objectives proposed in this paper. In order to simplify the data
understanding, the results presentation will follow the order of the questions posed in the
inquiry (see appendix 2). The data indicates that almost all participants have a mobile
phone device (96,6%) (Q.1.1.), however only 19,1% are smartphones (Q.1.2.). When
questioned whether they use m-internet, either by mobile phone or other mobile devices
such as tablets, iPad, or others, only 15,7% answered affirmatively. From those 23%
replied they use it via mobile phone, 7% via tablet devices, 2% via iTouch devices, 4%
via iPad devices, and 6% via Psp (Q.1.3.).
Participants that use m-internet were questioned for how long they it (Q.1.4.). Most
individuals replied they use this type of access for more than one year (73,1%), 15,4%
use it between 6 months to 1 year, and 11,5% use it for less than 6 months. Regarding the
frequency of use (Q.1.6.), most participants (30,5%) use mobile internet two to three
times per week, 32,2% use it sometimes per week, 21,3% replied they use it rarely and
16,1% replied they are always on. Referring to the moment during the day in which
individuals most use m-internet (Q1.7, graphic 5), participants responded they mostly
use m-internet between 12a.m.-4p.m. (43,1%) and between 8p.m.-12p.m. (41,4%).
Graphic 1. Moment during the day in which individuals most use m-internet
2,9% 3,4%
21,3%
43,1%
33,9%
41,4%
10,3%
0h-4h AM 4h-8h AM 8h-12h AM 12h-4h PM 4h-8h PM 8h-12h PM Do not know
15
The inquiry also asked participants about their behaviors in using mobile internet, if they
normally use the browser, apps or near filed communication to surf the web (Q.1.9.),
offering them a scale from 1 to 7 in which 1 meant they never use and 7 they always use
it. Most participants answered they use the browser (mean=4,77, sum=830), when
compared with apps (mean=3,62; sum=630) or near field communication (mean=1,40;
sum=244).
Moreover, 85,1% of the individuals that use m-internet participate in virtual
communities, such as social networking sites, facebook, Hi5, Linkedin, collaborative
games, discussions groups, interest groups, fans groups, among others.
When using social networking sites, participants state that they use it mostly to contact
with someone that is very close or to contact with someone who is part of their regular
contacts. When differentiating between mobile internet access or fixed internet access,
higher values are found on the fixed access whether to contact with someone that is very
close, or to contact with someone that is part of regular contacts, to search for someone
who is not known yet, or even to contact with someone or to search information about
someone with whom they do not contact with for a long time. However, data indicates
that usually participants relate mobile internet with online contacts with people who they
already know and keep regular contact. On the other hand, fixed internet is frequently
used for both situations, both to keep contact with people they already know and
maintain regular ties and also to contact with people they do not know yet but that might
be interesting to know at a personal or professional level (Q.2.).
Participants that replied they do not use m-internet (84%) were asked their reasons
(Q.6.). The following graphic presents the results achieved. As it is possible to see, a
high percentage of our respondents answered they do not use m-internet because they do
not feel the need of using it (42,8%) or because it is very expensive (28,1%).
Graphic 2. Reasons for not using m-internet
16
Regarding the activities performed via m-internet, the inquiry posted a list of activities
performed online, both via mobile or via fixed access to the internet (the same online
activity was always questioned twice, one regarding the mobile access and one regarding
the fixed access to the internet), and asked participants their agreement with the
sentences on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant “I never do that” and 7 meant “I always
do that”. The data collected shows as activities more frequently conducted via mobile the
following: to read e-mails (mean=4,17; SD=2,264), to access social networking sites
(mean=4,24; SD=2,313), to search information about maps, paths or roads (mean=3,74;
SD=2,352), use chats (mean=3,89; SD=2,293), use geo-location applications
(mean=3,64; SD=2,333). The following graphic presents the data (mean and std.
deviation) for all activities questioned.
Graphic 3. Online activities (means)
33,3%
10,2%
50,8%
12,6%
1,2%
1,6%
1,1%
1,5%
3,1%
2,5%
0,5%
Very expensive
Very complex
Do not feel the need
Mobilephone does not allow
Lack of time
Do not like to use Internet
Do not have interest
Other accesses
Do not know how to use
Other reasons
Do not know
17
Regarding the hypothesis proposed, we questioned whether individuals with mobile
access to the internet perform a different set of activities online, when compared with
individuals with fixed access to the internet. When analysing each activity and
comparing both types of access to the internet, we found that all activities were scored
with higher values (on a scale 1 to 7) in the fixed access to the internet, when compared
with the same activities via mobile access, except for two activity which were “seeking
information about maps, paths or roads” and “using geo-location services”. In order to
analyze whether there were significant differences between mobile and fixed access to
each activity questioned on the inquiry, we used a t-student test, after confirm its
assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance with Shapiro-Wilk test (p>0.05)
and Levéne test (p>0.05). Significant differences were found between the fixed and
mobile access in all activities, except for the two activities described above (for all
activities mentioned: t(173)>3,192, p<0,002).
This data indicates that, even though all subjects considered for this question perform
online activities via mobile access, they use the fixed access more frequently in their
daily lives. These results were expected given that mobile access to the internet is a
0 1 2 3 4 5
Setle a doubt
See who's online
Professional searches
Download music
Watch videos
Weather
Read e-mails
SNS
Search info about roads or streets
Read news
Chats
Online games
Online services
Surf the web
Messenger
Geo-location
Série1 Mean
18
recent possibility and generally works as a complement to the fixed access. Hence, our
goal was not to compare each activity, separately, in regard to fixed or mobile access, but
to analyze the type of activities, as a whole and what they imply, that are most frequently
done through mobile and through fixed access to the internet, intending to understand
which type of access promotes different kind of activities, being our concern centered on
the social activities performed and their consequences in terms of social practices, social
capital, satisfaction and participation within social groups or communities. Therefore, we
performed a multidimensional scaling analysis in order to examine the proximity
(similarity/ dissimilarity) between the activities analyzed in the inquiry, intending to
examine groups or types of activities that are more frequently done via mobile.
The values of proximity were calculated based on the answers to this item in the inquiry
(5.1.), using the algorithm Proxcal with the support of SPSS (v14, SPSS Inc. Chicago,
IL). The selection of the minimum number of dimensions to keep in the model in order
to reproduce parsimoniously the similarities / dissimilarities between the activities (via
mobile and fixed access) was held respecting the scree-plot criteria and the proximity
versus transformed distance graphics criteria. The quality of the model was analyzed
through the STRESS-I index and DAF index, using the reference values defined in
Marôco (2007). According to these assumptions, three dimensions should be retained in
order to reproduce properly the perceived similarities between the activities (STRESS-
I=0,129, DAF=0,983). The following figure illustrates the three-dimensional perceptual
map.
Graphic 7. Online Activities- Three-dimensional perceptual map
(Euclidean distance model: STRESS-I=0,129; DAF=0,983).
19
Regarding the perceptual map, we can see the activities conducted online via fixed or
mobile access to the internet distributed spatially according to its similarities (based on
the respondent’s answers) in a special map with three dimensions to each we will call:
dimension1 - interaction; dimension2 – time; dimension 3 - effort. Examining the
graphic, two main groups of activities emerge, while the remaining activities are
distributed asymmetrically and randomly within the graphic space. The two main groups
are located at the superior left part and at the superior right of the perceptual map. The
superior left part include the following activities: using the e-mail via mobile access,
using social network site via mobile, using geo-location applications via mobile, using
online services via mobile, searching information about maps, paths or roads, using chats
via mobile. If we analyse the values obtained in these activities, we can see that such
type of activities are the ones more conducted via mobile, presenting higher values when
compared with the other possible activities conducted via mobile. Regarding the superior
right part of the perceptual map, we will find another group of online activities, such as:
downloading music, settling a doubt, looking for someone online, performing
professional/ work searches online, watching videos online. Analyzing the scores
obtained in these activities, we can see that these activities achieved higher values in the
20
fixed access to the internet, being the most common activities conducted via fixed
access. Therefore, the perceptual map points to the distinction of two main groups of
activities: one more related to the fixed access and the other one more related to the
mobile access. Interpreting this data and considering the dimensions conceptual
meaning, one can say that the activities more frequently done via mobile access
commonly imply communication and participation, such as using chats, e-mailing, using
social network sites, and activities that need to be done on the go, such as searching
information about streets, roads or maps, used when someone is lost or is trying to find a
new place. Referring to the dimensions mentioned above, this group of activities presents
higher levels in the first dimension – interaction, and lower levels in the time and effort
dimension. The activities more frequently done via fixed access are normally activities
that take more time to be performed, imply higher levels of attention or knowledge.
These activities are characterized with higher levels in the time and effort dimension and
present lower levels for interaction. These results are consistent with our initial
hypothesis indicating that individuals partly perform a different set of activities when
using mobile access or fixed access to the internet. However, considering both types of
access and their features led us to think that nowadays the choice of which mode of
access an individual use is often more dependent on the context and situation in which
the individual is, than on the possibility of choosing between two equal modes of access.
CONCLUSIONS
Mobile technologies are an essential part of communitarian and cultural connectedness’
among human beings. Although mobile technologies are still not the dominant mode of
access to the internet, they represent a central aspect of today’s mediatized society. Our
work as pointed to some of the contradictions between the cultural and technical aspects
of such technologies on what concerns different players perspective on their role in
society. Clearly as an institution, mobile technologies use is understand differently by
those that push the technology towards society and those that within different social
structures create the particularities of use and connectivity that so many times result in
unexpected results that the industry cannot come to grips with. Transformations on the
technological infrastructure that are already in place in Europe, such as LTE – long term
evolution r 4g, will strongly increase m-internet access and offer users similar data rates
and quality of service than those provided by current fixed access. This will not only
21
trigger mobile usage but also promote the transformation of mobile devices from pure
communication devices into data consumption devices with the associated growth in the
nature and type of applications used to perform such tasks.
Both studies presented here contribute to a deeper understanding of emerging m-internet
adoption patterns and drivers from two distinct perspectives – from stakeholders and
mobile industry professionals and from individual users. Both groups have separate
views of network effects as adoption drivers, though some of their inputs have some
common points regarding activities performed online, age and gender of users, peaks of
usage regarding time, duration of use, devices used to access m-internet
According to stakeholders’ point of view, clearly a more deterministic view where
“access” plays the key role, m-internet is growing and its adoption is increasing due to
the benefits users’ can achieved for accessing it, especially for those aged between 25
and 34 years. Also, male gender is believed to have a higher rate of adoption, though
feminine gender seems to present similar rates when referring to social networking usage
via m-internet. Regarding duration of use, stakeholders consider m-internet as more
utilitarian and frequent along the day, though with a short duration of access. This data
also goes in accordance with the quantitative results from users’ perspectives. People
seem to access frequently m-internet, but within short periods of time. Stakeholders talk
about a peak of usage between lunch time, 6pm-7pm and 0pm – 11pm and. Regarding
the quantitative study, results also pointed out some peaks of usage, with most of
participants (73,1%) stating they use m-internet between midday to 6p.m. and some
(38,5%) saying they use it between 6pm to midnight.
Stakeholders indicate high prices, limited traffic, quality of screens, speed of browsers
and low literacy as the main obstacles for adoption. As main drivers and motivations to
adopt m-internet, stakeholders mentioned mobility access to mobile services, particularly
to e-mail and geolocation apps and some features of SNS, such as sharing information.
Both studies designate complexity of usage and poor usability of platforms as factors that
influence adoption. Complexity of usage regarding de quality of screens, storage
capacities, edition tasks and the use of collaboration tools can have an effect on adoption
rates. Also, according to stakeholders, there are websites which are not optimized for
mobile phones, are of difficult navigation, and use technologies such as flash, which are
not supported for some devices. Also, poor usability is a barrier to usage. There is a
22
considerable difference between the modes of interaction in a computer (desktop or
laptop) and a smartphone or tablet. The latter has a larger screen, a mouse and a physical
keyboard. Naturally, in the case of the tablet the size of screen seems to not be a barrier
to good usability as in the case of smart phone, but the absence of a physical keyboard
slows the typing, which is particularly important in conversational activities and also in
searching activities.
The quantitative results indicate smartphones and tablets as the main m-internet
platforms. An interesting aspect is that stakeholders have not included tablets in the
category of mobile devices, responding to questions only based on mobile phone usage
of m-internet. Results from this study indicate a low dissemination rate of m-internet use
within Portuguese population, which is aligned with the data from the initial descriptive
study, only about 15% of the Portuguese population uses m-internet (Marktest, 2010).
Pew Internet project also shows low rates of adoption within American population, 23%
of Americans use m-internet (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009).
Regarding the activities and comparing both types of access, results indicate that
practically all online activities are mostly conducted via fixed internet, except only for
the case of activities that involve geolocation services. This aspect confirms the idea that
m-internet still works, nowadays, as a complement to fixed internet. This data highlights
the relevance of activities and people’s action goals over technology disposit ions.
Technology and access serve only as a means for achieving a desired outcome,
individual or collective, that is accomplish via the development of specific activities.
Following this assumption, m-internet will be adopted if it offers people original
enhanced ways of completing their activities and social interactions. Access is a
necessary but not sufficient condition to the adoption of m-internet. It is the
improvements in the nature of social interactions and the value-added services for social
linkages and connectedness allowed by m-internet that contribute positively to its
adoption and dissemination, and that might urge the developments that move the
technology up the adoption curve. One agreed aspect regarding these valued-add services
in m-internet being, for sure, mobility – the possibility of performing activities on the go,
at anytime and wherever the subject is. This theory considers the importance of
interdependencies between subjects and their social networks as key factors to promote a
technology’s adoption.
23
The activities that are on the top of the frequently conducted via online mobile are
accessing social networking sites, reading e-mails and using messenger, what is
consistent with the data from the stakeholders, who present internet mobile users as
multiplatform. The following figure summarises the results achieved within this study in
regards to the activities performed via fixed or mobile access to the internet.
Table 2. Activities conducted online: Fixed Access Vs Mobile Access
In fact, the activities most conducted via mobile are also the most conducted via fixed
access, and are personal communication activities, what indicates that people use m-
internet to reinforce the established and strong social network, narrowing the sources of
social capital. Our findings also suggest that for the personal communication activities,
there is an accumulated effect on mediated exchanges, resulting of the mobile access
when combined with fixed. Supporting this idea of accumulation effect are the results for
the participation inquiry. Medial connectedness is clearly the key adoption factor.
24
Another relevant aspect that emerges from this study is related to the reason why people
do not use m-internet. The results showed that 52% of respondents do not use m-internet
because they do not feel the need of using it. This aspect draws attention to the need to
connect both stakeholders’ and users’ world when one intends to promote technology
adoption. This data points to a probably excessive concern of stakeholders and mobile
industry with the so-called physical effects of being able to exchange information and to
“have access to”, not concerning so much with user’s social interactions, activities and
interdependencies as relevant reasons to access m-internet. Regarding users’ view, social
activities and interdependencies between subjects should be considered as value-add
adoption drivers of m-internet replacing some technological determinants industry
values, calling for a deeper and more integrative analysis and the bridging of both
collective market and individual user’s worlds in order to consider the socio-cultural
dimension of the issue of adoption and use of a particular technology.
Results of our work show that while stakeholders look at the technology from a more
deterministic view that regards direct effects as the key adoption drivers, actual users are
more concern with the practices and rituals associated with the activities m-internet
affords though regarding mobile technology more as cultural mediator that via its
mediational potential allows for the extension of specific social activities.
REFERENCES
Araújo, V., Cardoso, G. and Espanha, R. (2008). Perspectivas de Implementação da
Televisão Digital em Portugal: Conhecimento e Compreensão. Report. Obercom.
Barley, S. (1990). The Alignment of Technology and Structure Through Roles and
Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly (35:1), pp. 61-103.
Blanchard, A. (2007) Testing a model of sense of virtual community. Computers in
Human Behaviour, (24), p.2107–2123.
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The Strength of Internet
Ties. PEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT. 700 WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson J. (ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education. New York: Grennwood press.
25
Burt, R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In Sutton, R. and Staw, B.
(Eds), Research in Organizationl Behaviour, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Castells, M., Fernan (2008). The Mobile Communication Society: A cross-cultural
analysis of available evidence on the social uses of wireless communication
technology. A research report prepared for the International Workshop on
Wireless Communication Policies and Prospects: A Global
Perspective.Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, October 8th and 9th 2004
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action. The
American Journal of Sociology, 6 (91), 1309-1335. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Damásio, M.J., Henriques, S. & Costa, C. (2011). Mobile access to the internet: the
Portuguese case. Transforming Audiences 3. Online and mobile media, everyday
creativity and DIY culture – International Conference. 1-2 September, 2011.
University of Westminster, London, UK.
Davis, F.(1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly (13:3), pp. 319-339.
Rogers, E. (1985). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY, 1985.
De Gournay, C. (2002). Pretense of Intimacy in France , in Katz, J. and Aakhus, M.,
(eds.) Perpetual Contact, Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public
Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-205.
DiMaggio, P. & Garip, F. (2011). How Network Externalities Can Exacerbate Intergroup
Inequality. American Journal of Sociology 116(6).
Dutta-Bergman, M. (2005).Acess to the internet in the context of community
participation and community satisfaction. New Media & Society, 7 (1), pp. 89-
109. Sage Publications: London .
Fortunati, L. (2002). The Mobile Phone: Towards New Categories and Social Relations,
in Information, Communication & Society, 5(4), pp. 513-528, United Kingdom:
Routledge
26
Fortunati, L. and Magnanelli, A. M. (2002). Él Telefono Móvil de los Jóvenes, in Revista
de Estudios de Juventud, nº 57, Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud, pp. 59-78.
Gallivan, M. (2001). Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex
technological Innovations: Development and Application of a New
Framework. Database for Advances in Information Systems (32:3),pp.51 – 70.
Gao & Damsgaard (2007). A Framework for Understanding Mobile
Telecommunications Market Innovation. Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, VOL 8, N3.
Geser, H. (2004). Towards a Sociological Theory of the Mobile Phone, University of
Zurich [online] http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser1.pdf
Hampton, K., Sessions, L. & Her, E. (2011). Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New
Media: How Internet and Mobile Phone Use is Related to Network Size and
Diversity. Information, Communication & Society 14(1).
Haythornthwaite, C (2005). Social networks and internet Connectivity effects,
Information, Communication & Society Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 125–147.
Hoflich, J. and Rossler, P. (2002). Más que un Teléfono: El Teléfono Móvil y el Uso del
SMS por Parte de los Adolescentes Alemanes; Resultados de un Estudio Piloto,
in Revista de Estudios de Juventud, nº 57, pp. 79-100.
Kasesniemi, E. and Rautiainen, P. (2002). Mobile Culture of Children and Teenagers in
Finland, in Katz, J. and Aakhus, M. (eds.) Perpetual Contact, Mobile
Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 170-192.
Katz, J. e Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk,
Public Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J. (2008) Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, cambridge: MA, MIT
press
Kasesniemi, E. and Rautiainen, P. (2002). Mobile Culture of Children and Teenagers in
Finland, in Katz, J. and Aakhus, M. (eds.) Perpetual Contact, Mobile
Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
27
Kobayashi, T., Ikeda, K., & Miyata, K. (2006). SOCIAL CAPITAL ONLINE -
Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy.
Information, Communication & Societ , 9 (5), 582–611.
Lasen, A. (2002). A Comparative Study of Mobile Phones Use in Public Places in
London, Madrid and Paris”, Surrey: Surrey University.
Lasen, A. (2004). Emotions and Digital Devices – Affective Computing and Mobile
Phones, Surrey: Surrey University.
Lejnieks, Carly, A. (2011). Generation Unplugged. Research Report, Harris Interactive,
September 12, 2008,
http://files.ctia.org/pdf/HI_TeenMobileStudy_ResearchReport.pdf, accessed on
July 21, 2011
Levinson, Paul (2004). Cellphone: The Story of the World’s Most Mobile Medium and
How it has Transformed Everything!, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lin, Nan (2001). Social Captital. A theory of Social Struture and Action. Strutural
Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, USA.
Ling, Richard (2004). The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society,
EUA: Morgan Kauffman.
Ling, Richard (2008). New tech, new ties: how mobile communication is reshaping
social cohesion, MIT press.
Lobet-Maris, Claire e Henin, Laurent (2002). Hablar sin comunicar o comunicar sin
hablar: del GSM al SMS, Estudios de Juventud, Instituto de la Juventud, Madrid,
pp. 101 – 114
Marktest. (2010). Bareme-Internet: Estudo de Base para o NETPANEL. Grupo Marktest.
Marktest. (2011). Os Portugueses e as Redes Sociais. Grupo Marktest.
Martin, J. A. (2011). The Top Mobile Trends of 2011. Retrieved from Small Business
Computing.com:
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/news/article.php/3918906/The-Top-
Mobile-Trends-of-2011.htm
Mc Millan & Chavis (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, (14) 1, p. 6-23.
28
Poster (2006). Information Please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines,
Durham: Duke University Press
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2009). Wireless Internet Use. Washington, D.C.
Plant, S. (2001). On the Mobile: The Effects of Mobile Telephones on Social and
Individual Life, Motorola. Retrieved from
http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/0/234_MotDoc.pdf
Quico, Célia; Damásio, Manuel José; Henriques, Sara & Veríssimo, Iolanda (2011).
“Drivers and barriers to digital television adoption in Portugal: the perspectives of
the TV viewers and other main stakeholders”. In Proc. of IAMCR 2011. Kadir
Has University, Istambul 13 - 17 Julho 2011.
The Mobile Life Report 2008: The Connected World, LSE, Retrieved from
http://www.mobilelife2007.co.uk/Mobile_Life_2008.pdf
The World Internet Project (2012).USC Center for the Digital Future Releases Third
Report of the World Internet Project. USC-Annenberg. School for
Communication and Journalism.
Tilly, C.(2006). Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties. Boulder, Colorado:Paradigm
Publishers.
Smith, Aaron (2010). Mobile Access 2011. Pew Internet & American Life Project, July
7, 2010, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-Access-2010.aspx, accessed
on July 21, 2011.
Vincent, J. (2003). Social shaping of UMTS preparing the 3G customer, UMTS Forum
Report 26
Vergeer, M & Pelzer, B (2009). Consequences of media and Internet use for offline and
online network capital and well-being. A causal model approach”, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 15,189–210
Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2002). Examining the Internet in
Everyday Life. Nijmegen. Retrieved from
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/index.html
29
Zickuh, Kathryn, Smith, Aaron (2011). 28% of American adults use mobile and social
locationbased services. Pew Internet & American Life Project
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Location.aspx, accessed on July 21, 2011..
APENDIX 1 – Qualitative exploratory study
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Which are the profiles of m-internet users?
2. According to these profiles, what are the main forms of m-internet access?
3. What do you think are the main obstacles to the widespread usage of m-internet?
4. In your opinion, what are the main motivations to the usage of mobile internet?
5. Do you think these motivations are different from the use of internet on a PC?
6. And the use itself is different? In terms of frequency of access, time duration,
navigation type of applications used?
7. Do you consider that internet access on mobile platforms contributes to a new type
of online experience? What possibilities does that new experience bring?
30
8. Do you think m-internet has any impact on participation or social involvement?
9. In your opinion, m-internet access is creating a new type of digital divide?
10. Is there a new type of internet users?
11. Does m-internet have any impact on users’ interpersonal relationships?
12. Do you consider that the use and need for m-internet access differs in different user
profiles? In what sense does this manifest itself?
13. What do you consider to be the role of mobile applications in m-internet access?
14. What do you consider to be the relevance of social networks on m-internet usage?
15. What, in your opinion, are the major changes that come from m-internet access?
What impact does it have on society?
16. How do you anticipate the future of m-internet access? What new features and uses
do you anticipate?
17. In your opinion, does mobile access to social networks affects other types of
communication on mobile phones?
18. Would you like to do any other comment regarding m-internet access?
APENDIX 2 – Quantitative study
This inquiry was applied in Portuguese and the translation serves only this publication
purpose.
Internet Access - Inquiry
This inquiry was developed in the context of a research project that intends to
characterise the use of internet via fixed and mobile access and to analyse the influence
of these forms of access and the uses people make of it. Responding the inquiry will
take about 10/15 minutes. The data collected via this inquiry is anonymous and
confidential and will only be used in the research project.
Throughout the survey, we use two concepts regarding internet access – m-internet and
fixed internet.
Fixed internet refers to the access to internet via a desktop or a laptop.
31
M-internet refers to Internet access via mobile phones or other mobile devices, such as,
tablets, iPhone, iPad, PSP, others.
Thank you for your cooperation.
PART I.
Q1.1 –Do you have a mobile phone? (if not, go to 4.1.)
yes no
Q.1.2. The latest mobile phones are equipped with operating systems and advanced
features like multi-touch interfaces, applications, and large screens. These phones are
called smartphones. Please indicate if you mobile phone is a smartphone.
Is your mobile phone a smartphone?
yes no
Q.1.3. Do you access the internet on the following mobile devices? (you can choose
more than one)
Access Mode
Mobile Phone
Tablet
iTouch
iPad
PsP (playstation portable)
I don’t use m-internet
Q.1.4. If you have answered yes to the previous question, for how long do you access
internet via mobile?
Less than 6 months Between 6 months to 1 year 1 year or more
Q.1.5. What is your most common method used to access internet via mobile? (You can
choose more than one)
Access Mode
Only via wi-fi
Data package
Data package + wi-fi
Without data package
32
Q.1.6. Tell us your frequency in using m-internet? (only one choice possible)
Frequency of use
1. Rarely
2. 2 to 3 times per week
3. Few times in a day
4. I’m always on
Q.1.7. Imagine your day on a timeline (24 hours). From the following periods, in which
do you think you use more m-internet? You can choose more than one option.
From 0am – 4am
From 4am – 8am
From 8am – 12pm (midday)
From 12pm – 4pm
From 4h – 8pm
From 8pm – 12pm (midnight)
Don’t know/ don’t answer
Q1.8. – Where do you access m-internet?
Indicate with a circle on a scale from 1 to 7, in which 1 means “never” and 7 means
“often”, your agreement in what concerns the place where you access m-internet.
At home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
At work / school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outside home/ school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1.9. When you use m-internet how do you normally do it? Indicate with a circle on
a scale from 1 to 7, in which 1 means “never” and 7 means “often”, your agreement in
what concerns the tool you usually use when accessing m-internet.
Browser 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Apps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Near field communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART II
33
Q.2. Try to imagine yourself in the following scenarios and indicate, on a scale from 1 to
7, in which 1 means “never” and 7 means “often”, what you consider to be your
responses to each scenario.
Q2.1 – I’m in a bar near the beach with a group of friends. Your best friend is not
present.You decide to take a picture with your phone and post it on your facebook page
so that he could see what he is missing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q2.2 – You are on the street and receive a notification in your mobile phone saying you
have received a message. You read the e-mail and answer immediately. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q2.3 – Tomorrow you will have a party. You are not sure how the weather will be, and
so you look it up in your mobile phone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q2.4 – You have arrived the place you usually go out. You are alone and you decide to
see who’s there too. You pick up your mobile phone and check a geolocation application
to see if someone is around. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q2.5 – You will have lunch in a new restaurant and you don’t know the way to get there.
You access a GPS service on your mobile phone so that you don’t get lost. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART III
Q3. 1. Do you participate in virtual communities (access social network sites, networked
games, interest groups, online discussion groups, fan groups, others)?
Yes No
Q.3.2. When you access m-internet you usually do it to:
Contact someone who is very
close to me.
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Contact someone who is part of
my regular contacts.
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34
devices)
Find the contact of someone who I don’t know but it might be
interesting to know at a
professional or personal level.
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Contact someone with whom I
don’t contact for a long time (over a year)
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Find information about someone I
don’t contact with for a long time ago (over a year)
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART IV
Q.4.1. - Indicate with a circle on a scale from 1 to 7, in which 1 means “never” and 7
means “often”, your agreement with each sentence.
When I need to search anything
quickly using the internet, I use…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I wake up in the morning on a weekend with nothing to do. I
decide to go online and see who’s
on. I do it via...
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I need to perform online professional searches, I do it via…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If I need to download a music, I do it via…
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To watch movies (on you-tube, Fixed Internet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35
vimeo, others), I use… (desktop/ laptop)
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If I need to check the weather for
tomorrow, I look it up via…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To read and send e-mails, I use…
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To access my social network
groups, I use…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I go to a place I don’t know,
I look up the directions via… …
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I read the news in online newspapers or magazines via…
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I use online chats to talk with my
friends. I do it via….
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To play online individual or
networked games I use…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To access online services, I use… Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To surf the web without a
particular purpose, I use…
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To use the Messenger, I use… Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36
devices)
To use geo-location services or to search paths/ roads, I use…
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART V
Q.5.1. – Indicate with a circle on a scale from 1 to 7, in which 1 means “I disagree
completely” and 7 means “I agree completely”, your agreement with each sentence.
Satisfaction I like to know people on the internet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I like to access SNS on the internet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am satisfied with my internet access 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The internet allows me to take a better
advantage of where I’m going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am satisfied with the content and information
that the Internet offers me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am satisfied with the activities I do online.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I'm glad to be able use my online contacts in
social networks when I need help
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I like to access the internet at anytime anywhere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I like to be in contact with my friends via the internet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Participation
I am more socially active when using m-internet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have more opportunities to interact with my peers when I use m-internet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I use m-internet, I visit more often my
online communities (facebook, Hi5, linkedin,
networked games, groups, etc)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I participate more often in discussions/topics
online when using m-internet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I think I participate more in my social networks
via m-internet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I use m-internet I interact more with my
friends
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
When I use m-internet I have a greater tendency
to search for new things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Using m-internet allows me to have more
people to talk to.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Because of the internet I contribute more to
social causes (e.g. food aid, citizen movements)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P5.2- The connection speed and interface can influence the experience of internet use.
37
Please, indicate with a circle on a scale from 1 to 10, in which 1 means “never” and 10
means “always”, your agreement with each sentence.
1. I consider the
speed of internet access important
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M-internet (mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. I am satisfied
with the speed of
internet access.
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. I consider the
interface of internet
applications
important
Fixed Internet
(desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. I am satisfied with the interface
of internet
applications
Fixed Internet (desktop/ laptop)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
M-internet
(mobilephone//mobile
devices)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PART VI
Q.6. – If you do not access internet via mobile devices, please explain us your reasons by
selecting the following options, you can choose more than one.
I do not use m-internet because:
It is very expensive
I tis very complex/ difficult
I do not feel the need to do it
My mobile phone does not allow it/ I do not have mobile devices with the
possibility of internet access
Others
PART VII
In order to better analyse the data from your inquiry, we would like some information
about yourself.
7.1. Genre: Masculine Feminine
38
7.2. Age: _____
7.3. Education Less than primary
Primary school
High school (secondary school)
Bachelor
Degree
Master
PhD
7.4. Socio-economic level High
Medium-high
Medium
Medium- low
Low
8.3. On a scale from 1 to 7 in which 1 means “I disagree completely” and 7 means “I
agree completely”, indicate us your agreement with the following sentences.
9.3.1.I have a great technological knowledge/ media literacy level
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.3.2. I am independent in what concern technology use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.3.3. I use Internet on a daily basis in my professional life
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9.3.4. I use Internet on a daily basis in my personal life
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for you participation!
39