Yong-Chan Kim & Ji Min ParkUrban Communication Lab

Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Urban Commons/Bologna, Italy/November 7, 2015

Community Storytelling

Community Engagement[ ]

Communication infrastructure theory (Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006)

Community Storytelling as Urban Commons

Community Storytelling as Urban Commons

ICTs for Community Storytelling

The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the experiences and intentions of Seoul residents with regard to their localized use of ICTs and (2) to identify the factors in those experiences and intentions.

Our research context

Cases of Localized information and communication technologies (ICTs)

Communication infrastructure theory

Factors in localized use of ICTs for community storytelling

Some thoughts about community storytelling (through localized ICTs) as urban commons

I will talk about…

Rapid/radical industrialization, modernization, & urbanization

Disappearance of neighborhoods

Where are “the ends of the earth”?

Geographically close, socially distant Geographically and socially close

Small Changes

What factors have made these changes?

Political: “Maeul” community revitalization programs led by the current mayor of Seoul, Won Soon Park

Social: resident-led grassroots movements and activities

Technological: advancement of ICTs (Localized use of ICTs)

Localized ICTs?

Localized ICTs: Websites

Localized ICTs: Smartphone Applications

- KakaoPlace

- (IPhone, Android)- Town Talk

- (Android)

Localized ICTs: Online News Sites

-Street-H

-(http://street-h.com/)

-DNA Info

-(http://www.dnainfo.com/)

Localized ICTs: Facebook

Localized ICTs: Online Cafes

Localized ICTs: Mobile Instant Messengers

- KakaoTalk Plus Friend : City of Seoul

- Band:

- Yangchon Maeul-net

- Band:

- Dobong’s Police Supporters

Localized ICTs: Online video services

Localized ICTs: Twitter

Localized ICTs: Podcast Audio

Localized ICTs as channels for community storytelling?

Different views have been competing to one another providing different explanations about the impacts of communication technologies on urban communities.

“[T]hrough the automobile and improved roads, rural social contacts have multiplied many fold, and are based in increasing measure upon age, sex, and common interests rather than upon kinship and common residence, as was formerly the case”

( Palo Alto Times in 1933) cited in Fischer, C. (1994). America calling: A social history of telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (p. 110)

SharingSharing Economy

Open source

Crowdsourcing

Wiki

Connectedness

Sharable goods

Commons

SocialCollaboration

Collective intelligence

PULL effect or PUSH effect?PULL EFFECT or PUSH EFFECT?

“We found a few modest changes in localism. The net trend was in the direction of greater attention to the outside world. Yet, rather than indicating a displacement of local interest, these changes suggest a simultaneous augmentation of local and extralocal activities.”

Fischer, C. (1994). America calling: A social history of telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (pp. 220-221)

…differentiates local communities which have (or not have) acommunication infrastructure that can be activated to construct community, thereby enabling collective actions for common purposes.

Communication Infrastructure Theory

a neighborhood storytelling network set in its communication action context

What is a communication infrastructure?

Communication Infrastructure

Integrated Connectedness to Storytelling Network (ICSN)

Community Effects of ICSN

Community Media

Residents

Community Organizations

+

+

+Sense of Belonging

Collective efficacy

Community participation

• New media technology must be part of the communicationinfrastructure of a community to function as a facilitator of communityinvolvement (Hampton et al., 2011; Y. C. Kim, Jung, & Ball-Rokeach, 2007; Matei &Ball-Rokeach, 2003)

• If new media technology does not work as part of the communication infrastructure of a community, it can be a detracting factor (Y. C. Kim,2012; Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2001)

• Whether new media technology will be incorporated into the communication infrastructure of local civic engagement depends on the existing quality and strength of the community storytelling network (Chen, Dong,Ball-Rokeach, Parks, & Huang, 2012; Hayden & Ball-Rokeach, 2007; Jung, Kim, Lin, & Cheong, 2005; Katz, Matsaganis, & Ball-Rokeach, 2012)

• At the individual level, the use of new media by residents will have positive effects on local community engagement when the residents have high-level ICSN (Jung, Toriumi, & Mizukosh, 2013; Katz, 2010; Y. C. Kim, 2003, 2012; W. Lin, Cheong, Kim, & Jung, 2010)

CIT’s propositions on:communication technology and local community

The purpose of this study was (1) to assess the experiences and intentions of Seoul residents with regard to their localized use of ICTs and (2) to identify the factors in those experiences and intentions.

• Theory of Planned Behavior- Attitudes- Subjective Norm- Perceived Behavioral Control

• Communication Infrastructure Theory- Integrated Connectedness to Storytelling Network (ICSN)- Community Engagement

(Neighborhood Belonging, Community Cohesion, Informal Social Control, Community Activities Participation)

Factors affecting Localized ICT uses

• Online Survey data collected in August, 2013• Quota sampling: considering gender, age group

(from 20s to 50s) and city district (25)• Sample Size: 901 smartphone owners

Data collection

-n = 901

Factors in having used localized ICTs

• Attitude: significant (+) for all ICTs

• Subjective Norm: significant (+) on FBs, online cafés, online News, online video services

• Perceived Behavioral Control: non-significant for all ICTs

• ICSN: significant (+) on all ICTs

• Neighborhood Belonging: non-significant for all ICTs

• Community Cohesion: non-significant for all ICTs

• Informal Social Control: non-significant for all ICTs

• Participation in Community Activities: significant (+) for all ICTs (except online cafés, online news, podcasts)

※ Analyses Hierarchical OLS Regression Analysis

Factors in having intention to use localized ICTs (non-localized ICT users)

※ Analyses Hierarchical OLS Regression Analysis

Attitude: significant (+) for all ICTs

Subjective Norm: significant (+) for all ICTs (except for podcast and online video services)

Perceived Behavioral Control: non-significant for all ICTs

ICSN : significant (+) for all ICTs

Neighborhood Belonging: non-significant for all ICTs

Community Cohesion: significant (+) for podcasts

Informal Social Control: significant (+) for blogs, Websites, online cafes, and online video services

Participation in Community Activities: non-significant for all ICTs

What these results imply:

1. ICTs have a potential to facilitate neighborhood engagements 54% of respondents have either experience

or intention to use localized websites.

2. ICSN are positively related to both intention and experiences of all channels of localized ICTs There is a need for strong community-level

communication infrastructures to enable the ICTs fortify local neighborhoods

Attitude

Norm

Resource

Experience

Localized ICTs as channels for community storytelling (as urban commons)

Community Storytelling Through Localized ICTs

as Urban Commons

Thank you