new media & society - looooker.com · ict into consideration. digital divide studies have long...

http://nms.sagepub.com/New Media & Society

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/16/8/1214The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1461444813504264

2014 16: 1214 originally published online 25 September 2013New Media SocietyOzge Dilaver

mobile phonesMaking sense of innovations: A comparison of personal computers and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:New Media & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Sep 25, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 17, 2014Version of Record >>

at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on November 20, 2014nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on November 20, 2014nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://nms.sagepub.com/

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/16/8/1214

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://nms.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/16/8/1214.full.pdf

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/24/1461444813504264.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



new media & society2014, Vol. 16(8) 1214 –1232

© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1461444813504264

nms.sagepub.com

Making sense of innovations: A comparison of personal computers and mobile phones

Ozge DilaverBritish Institute at Ankara, Turkey

AbstractDespite revolutionary expectations about information and communication technologies (ICT), the academic understanding of what exactly these technologies bring to individual lives remains incomplete. We know very little about how individuals perceive the value of ICT products, and even less about the process by which these value perspectives are built. This paper contributes to addressing these gaps. It presents an empirical study comparing the perceived use-value of personal computers and mobile phones. The findings show that the day-to-day value of innovations is deeply embedded in the existing and newly emerging social contexts. Thus, societal transformations, such as becoming an information society, cannot be reduced to matters of technological possibilities. The paper also builds a construct for the sense-making process that clarifies that compared to mobile phones, computers are more difficult to position in mind, purchase and use, require more support from social contacts and are only meaningful in selective contexts.

KeywordsDiffusion of innovations, grounded theory, information and communication technologies, means-end chain model, schema theory, use-value

Introduction

It is now mostly taken for granted that information and communication technologies (ICT) are creating a new type of society, whether it is called the information, or the net-work, society. Individuals are expected to be connected to others, as well as to other

Corresponding author:Ozge Dilaver, British Institute at Ankara, Tahran Caddesi 24, 06700 Ankara, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

504264 NMS0010.1177/1461444813504264Dilavernew media & society2013

Article

at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on November 20, 2014nms.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Dilaver 1215

information sources via ICT and the constant flows of information through these connec-tions are expected to become the fundamental bases of their social, economic and politi-cal functioning.

Given these revolutionary expectations, the importance of understanding what exactly these technologies bring to individual lives is evident. Yet, the academic knowledge in this area remains patchy. Popular visions of the new society often take technological possibilities (what users can do with the technologies) as the bases of the value of ICT. These visions lead to research approaches that work inwards from a priori definitions of digital literacy, usership or interactivity to ICT-related activities, rather than working outwards, taking individuals’ perspectives and experiences as the starting point (Facer et al., 2001).

Technological possibilities, however, can be misleading without taking access to ICT into consideration. Digital divide studies have long been challenging the expecta-tion that the new society will become more egalitarian than previous social organisa-tions by revealing the scale of inequalities in access to ICT (Hargittai, 2004; Selwyn, 2004). Taking technological possibilities as the starting point is problematic also because human actions are not necessarily space filling in a given possibility space (we do not do everything we can) and we are subjective and creative in understanding possibility spaces (we see and come up with different possibilities). New technologies often involve interpretive flexibility (Bakardjieva and Smith, 2001; Pinch and Bijker, 1987); individuals make sense of them in different contexts and can use them in numerous ways.

Thus, if ICT enable unprecedented societal changes, these occur in the form of co-evolutions of the day-to-day experiences of ICT and broader socioeconomic contexts. It is, therefore, imperative to investigate the value of ICT starting from individual perspec-tives. Yet, relatively few studies (Bakardjieva and Smith, 2001; Facer et al., 2001; Kanayama, 2003; McMillan and Morrison, 2006; Quiring, 2009; Selwyn, 2003, 2006) investigated the perspectives of individuals on ICT. Hence, we know very little about how diffusion of ICT is experienced at the individual level and what individuals make out of ICT products.

This paper makes contributions towards addressing this gap. It attempts to answer the following questions by comparing individuals’ perspectives and experiences on a rapidly diffused ICT product (the mobile phone) and a relatively slowly diffusing one (the per-sonal computer).

(1) How do individuals construct the value of innovations and make sense of ICT?(2) How similar or different are these perceived values and sense-making processes

for different innovations such as personal computers and mobile phones?

The paper starts the inquiry at the individual level, without assuming ICT are suffi-ciently accessible, good or bad for people. Through the accounts of a mixed group of participants, the paper presents different anatomies of ICT and explores the process by which individuals make sense of these technologies. The paper also attempts to bridge knowledge accumulated in different disciplines and proposes a relatively more complete construct of the sense-making process for innovations.



1216 new media & society 16(8)

Theoretical background

This section first presents a brief review of the major themes in the diffusion of innova-tions literature. It then introduces constructs in other fields that can enhance the way innovations are approached in the diffusion literature by addressing the value of innova-tions (or products) more directly and from different angles.

Diffusion of innovations is an interdisciplinary research field studying how the use and users of a novelty increase in time. The knowledge accumulated in the field highlight three properties of diffusion. Firstly, it is both empirically and theoretically unambiguous that diffusion is a process; it consists of a sequence of related events rather than, for example, a set of unconnected market equilibria at different points in time (De Wolff, 1938; Griliches, 1957). Secondly, diffusion studies showed that diffusion is often asym-metric with respect to characteristics of potential adopters. As exemplified in the digital divide literature mentioned above, early adopters of innovations often have different demographic characteristics compared with late adopters and non-adopters. Thirdly, dif-fusion also entails spatial patterns (Griliches, 1957; Thwaites, 1982), which is associated with the spread of novelties through social networks (Czepiel, 1975; Midgley et al., 1992).

In terms of explaining how diffusion occurs, three general approaches can be identi-fied. The first follows studies in rural sociology (Rogers, 1995 [1962]; Ryan and Gross, 1943) and conceptualises diffusion as a communication and imitation process (see, for example Bass, 1969). The second has its roots in economics, and regards diffusion as the cumulative result of rational decisions of individuals where costs and benefits of technol-ogy adoption improve in time (see the probit approach in Stoneman, 2002). Finally, in more recent studies, diffusion is seen as a complex process in which costs and/or benefits of adoption improve with the number of existing adopters. This effect, which is called increasing returns to adoption (Arthur, 1989), occurs due to technological improvements and network effects (e.g. having more people to call). While the first approach is criti-cised for paying little attention to the active agency of individuals, the second approach does not address the social aspects of the process. The third approach is more holistic as it connects individual decisions to the society-level process, even though this connection is built through theorised mathematical properties of diffusion rather than detailed empirical investigations.

A major drawback of developing such generic models has been a general negligence of the innovation-related determinants of diffusion. Existing constructs are not very detailed. Rogers (1995 [1962]), for example, argues that the speed of diffusion depends on five characteristics of the innovation: relative advantage, complexity, trialability, observability and compatibility with existing social patterns (see also Fliegel and Kivlin, 1966 for an empirical application and Davis, 1989 for a similar construct). This construct refers to information-related factors (trialability and observability), the role of social conformity (compatibility), and the value evaluations of potential adopters (relative advantage and complexity).

There are also some common assumptions in the field on the value of innovations. For instance, it is frequently claimed in the literature that diffusion can be surprisingly slow (see, for example, Geroski, 2000; Rogers, 1995 [1962]; Rosenberg, 1972), implying that



Dilaver 1217

diffusion delays have explanations other than the inadequate use-value of the innovation. This echoes some well-known concerns in the field about the pro-innovation and individ-ual-blame biases. The former refers to the belief that innovations should be adopted by everyone. The latter is the tendency to relate non-adoption to alleged characteristics of individuals without taking social and systemic conditions into account (Haider and Kreps, 2004).

In terms of empirical orientations, diffusion studies have almost disappeared in soci-ology in the recent decades (see, for example, Ruttan, 1996 for rural sociology) and in other disciplines such as marketing science and health studies, quantitative and compu-tational approaches have become mainstream.

In the rest of this section, an interdisciplinary review of theoretical constructs of value of innovations is presented. This brief review covers four research streams in three fields: communication research, marketing and cognitive psychology. The first two streams describe the perceived value of innovations as composites of various elements and the other two inquire into the sense-making process of new products.

In communication research, uses and gratifications approach holds that audience members actively seek satisfaction of their needs and investigates their motivations and behaviour (Eighmey and McCord, 1998; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000), mostly through quantitative studies. This literature identified various human motivations as influential and the distinctions between social (intrinsic) versus instrumental gratifications for inter-personal communication devices such as the telephone (Keller, 1977) or mobile phone (Leung and Wei, 2000), and content-related versus process-related gratifications for mass media communications (Stafford et al., 2004) have emerged from these studies.

In the marketing literature, one stream of studies investigates what makes consumers assign an exchange value to products (Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). These studies argue that the exchange value is an aggregate of different elements including perceived cost of the physical and tangible product, the value of its practical uses and the social and personal meanings attributed to the product (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The practical uses can be separated into further dimensions, such as core versus tangential features (Griffith, 1999), and concrete versus abstract features (Johnson et al., 1992).

Another stream in marketing, namely the means-end chain model (MEC) focuses on the use-value of products and everyday processes through which consumers construct this value. In the MEC, means are objects (e.g. the internet) or activities (e.g. surfing) that consumers are involved in and ends are intended outcomes of this involvement (e.g. having fun, feeling accomplishment). The model assumes consumers see certain product attributes as relevant to themselves because these are instruments to achieve meaningful outcomes. The MEC enables identification of causal chains between specific product attributes, their functional and psychosocial consequences and the values that consumers associate with these consequences (Reynolds and Olson, 2000).

Schema and categorisation theories in cognitive psychology also refer to the sense-making process, focusing more specifically on perceptions of new products (see Quiring, 2009 for an ICT-related study). These theories argue that, at first glance, consumers attempt to assign a new product to a better-known product category, an existing mental schema. They then go through a more piecemeal, attribute-by-attribute evaluation




process (Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Olshavsky and Spreng, 1996). When an innovation opens a new product category and it cannot be assigned to an existing schema, consum-ers can make sense of it by transferring knowledge from a more familiar domain (anal-ogy) or imagining they are using the product in different contexts (mental stimulation) (Feiereisen et al., 2008). The level of congruity between the innovation and the existing schema can affect diffusion in various ways. Innovations with high congruity are appre-ciated relatively more easily, while those with low congruity can capture greater interest (Rindova and Petkova, 2007).

Methods of data collection and analysis

The objective of this study was to investigate individuals’ perspectives of computers and mobile phones and the way these perspectives are built. These products are selected because in spite of some similarities (as well as differences) between underlying tech-nologies and functions, there is an important gap in the diffusion outcomes. Both are electronic devices with microprocessors, illuminated screens and keyboards. They have acquired increasingly similar functions in terms of accessing the internet and supporting textual and voice communication. Yet, as of 2006, when the data was collected, there were only 6 personal computers but 71 mobile phone subscribers per 100 inhabitants in Turkey (International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2008). As of 2007, about 60% of the urban population and 82% of the rural population had never used a computer. The same figures for 2012 are 42% and 72% for urban and rural populations, respectively (Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), 2012; see also Wolcott and Goodman, 2000). Thus, this study aimed to compare perspectives on a rapidly diffusing innovation and a relatively slow-diffusing one.

The study employed the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The data were collected with in-depth interviews that allow the participants to provide a more complete description of their perspectives (Patton, 1990) and the researcher to explore unexpected findings. The maximum-variation sampling technique (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994; Patton, 1990) was chosen to select participants. This well-established sampling strategy involves selecting persons or settings that represent the greatest differ-ences in relevant characteristics in order to obtain the broadest range of information. In this study, achieving a heterogeneous sample in terms of gender, income, age and educa-tion was aimed for. For achieving variation in the research settings, the interviews took place in three different locations (two urban and one rural) without aiming for a formal representativeness of geographical regions or urban-rural settings of Turkey. The recruit-ment of participants was done using the snowball technique. The first participants were asked if they could suggest others who would participate in the study. As the number of participants increased, individuals who were different from the earlier participants were prioritised. Saturation with regards to the content of responses was reached after inter-viewing 48 participants. The resulting sample includes participants who vary between ages of 16 and 85, and 26 of the participants were female. More information on partici-pants is provided in the Appendix.

Data analysis is done inductively starting with open coding. All the narratives con-cerning what the two innovations mean for the participants were broken into units of



Dilaver 1219

meaning (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), which were then grouped under themes, constantly comparing different themes with each other and the case of computers with the case of mobile phones. In line with the guidelines of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Patton, 1990), the literature review, which is presented above, was not done before the fieldwork in order not to impose pre-defined structures during the collection of the data. Instead it was undertaken simultaneously whilst analysing the data, guided by the initial findings. In later stages of analysis, data categories were related to each other and to existing theoretical constructs, and specific findings were compared to empirical find-ings of communication and new media studies. These analyses led to the emergence of an integrated construct of consumers’ sense-making process.

Findings

Mobile phones

For most participants, mobile phones mean communication. Hence, there is a strong and straightforward association between the product and its core function. There are, how-ever, two different words that participants use: haberleşme and iletişim. The strict mean-ing of the former is exchanging news and generally it is more specific to the practical aspects of communication. The latter, on the other hand, is more or less equivalent to communication in English and it includes more emotional and social exchanges as well.

The participants’ choices between these two words do not seem to be random. When their descriptions are analysed together with their chosen word, a key duality, which is in line with Keller’s (1977) distinction between intrinsic (social) and instrumental gratifica-tions, emerges. For those who refer to communications in the broad sense (iletişim), mobile phones are the highest state of communication enabling people to reach for oth-ers, wherever they are. These narratives reflect a cultural story (Richardson, 1990) on limitless and space-free connections between people.

The participants, who refer to practical communications (haberleşme), on the other hand, referred to a collective story (Richardson, 1990) departing from the abovemen-tioned cultural one. They strictly distinguished themselves from the extensive use of mobile phones by making clear that they only use their phone for passing on a particular message. One young participant (female, 19, student) mocked herself for her extensive use in the past, saying she used to ‘walk around with a phone fixed to her ear 24 hours a day’. Ever since she realised that there are some health-related harms of extensive usage, she has been limiting herself to practical communications. Others complained that mobile phones introduced a new form of excessive consumption in the form of chatting, feeling strongly enough on the subject to say this was ‘harmful for the country’ (male, 32, teacher). Some participants disapproved of the contents of the communications, pointing out that ‘some people feel free to talk about their private issues on a bus or right at the city centre’ (male, 58, education executive). These narratives reveal a common perspec-tive of the inappropriate uses of mobile phones based on the purpose, length and privacy of the conversations.

Further to distinguishing between the practical and other communications, participants divided the practical communications into parts and attached an even higher importance




to communications during emergencies. Most participants saw this very specific and arguably infrequent use as highly important. So much so that, a few participants, who had said that mobile phones were not that important at an earlier point, revised their conclu-sions after considering these needs. Others noted that they feel frustrated, uncomfortable and unsafe without their phones. These findings are in compliance with uses and gratifica-tion studies on the reassurance value of phones (Keller, 1977; Leung and Wei, 2000).

Participants mentioned three different kinds of such needs. The first is straightfor-ward: the need of asking for help during an emergency, whether it is a road accident, a natural disaster (with frequent references to the Marmara earthquake in 1999) or a crimi-nal event. The second kind of need is precautionary for times away from one’s usual environment. Mobile phones provide some comfort in such times. The third kind is also precautionary, this time relating to people with vulnerabilities. Checking on children (see also Oksman and Turtiainen, 2004) or elderly was mentioned in connection to broader social contexts.

Times have changed and the conditions of life have changed. If, in the past, something happened to you, there would surely be someone around who could contact your family. But today it is not like that … Mobile phone has become an obligatory need. (Participant 4, male, 58, education executive)

When a person lives in a rural area, mobile phones are not needed because neighbours follow your kids too, know your elderly relative … But since we live in a big city now a mobile phone is very necessary. (Participant 24, female, 51, civil officer)

Another collective story departing from the theme of limitless connections was about the additional features of mobile phones being unattractive and unnecessary. One partici-pant (male, 31, self-employed) said that although mobile phones have gained numerous functions, he still sees them as equivalent to a line phone. According him, those features ‘exceeded the aim of the phone’ and this is ‘weird’. Another participant (male, 50, teacher) said he disliked the additional features so much that if it was possible, he would make mobile phones simpler again. Few other participants felt positively, or at least less negatively, about the integrated camera.

These findings suggest that the perceived use-value of mobile phones is not a single, unitary entity. It consists of a multitude of varying and even contrasting piecemeal assessments. Figure 1 summarises the way participants distinguished between the core function and other features. The core function is further divided to practical and other communications. These distinctions refer as much to the context of communication, as to what and how is being communicated. While practical communications are clearly per-ceived to be useful, participants have reservations with respect to other communications. Excessive use of mobile phones, for example, is regarded as wasteful and harmful. This is in complete contrast with the use of mobile phones during emergencies, which is regarded as an absolute necessity.

Participants were also asked how they perceived the mobile phone users. Not surpris-ingly, they do not attach a special meaning to mobile phone usership, explaining that since almost everyone has a mobile phone, a distinction between users and non-users could no longer be made.



Dilaver 1221

Regarding their purchasing experiences, many participants explained that they do some research before deciding which phone they will buy. Salespeople were the major sources of product-related information and the participants described the purchasing pro-cess as a personal evaluation of the brand, looks, price and payment conditions. Although most of the participants collected information before they went to the store for the actual purchase, some spontaneous purchases were also reported.

Almost all participants thought that learning how to use mobile phones is easy, defin-ing being able to use as follows: finding names from the contact list, making and receiv-ing calls and sending text messages. The only concern was about the elderly; not being used to technology, the difficulty of remembering the menus and seeing small buttons were thought to create learning barriers for them.

Computers

The findings on computers and the internet (computer hereafter) were much more diverse than those on mobile phones. Computers were ‘scary’ (male, 54, actor) for participants who have limited or no experience with them, or in one participant’s (female, 51, house-wife) words, for those who have not ‘figured them out yet’. A number of other partici-pants who had some experience with computers relate them to a much wider concept: technology. These participants have a very positive perception of computers, believing that computers provide endless opportunities. These two groups of perceptions draw a picture of contrasting colours relating early experiences with computers to an initial feel-ing of avoidance followed by a general admiration.

Figure 1. Perceptions of mobile phones.




In the views of participants with some additional ICT experience, a computer was just a device. In terms of its emotional content, this perspective is toned somewhere between the abovementioned ones. One participant (female, 24, accountant) argued that computers only contain a capacity; people can do good or bad things, use them efficiently or waste their time, pointing out the role of user intentions. Another par-ticipant (male, 50, officer) explained that the functions of a computer are limited with the skills of the user. For people who really know how to use them well, com-puters ‘answer all questions’ but for others, they ‘only help to follow the world’. Hence, while stressing the role of user skills, the participant also distinguished between an active capturing and a passive reception of information (see also McMillan and Morrison, 2006). Finally, a keen user, who is a trained programmer (male, 28), refers to the relationship between operating principles of computers and the cognitive abilities and processes of human beings. For him, computers were ‘a vision of the human mind’.

There were also responses explaining what computers provide to users. Some of these were straightforward listings of computers’ functions. Although participants referred to different sets of functions (see Table 1), accessing information was mentioned by all. The rest of the responses were analogies about the impact of computers on the participant’s life. Two themes in particular came up frequently. These were indispensable ease and connection to the world. Regarding the former, participants pointed out that it is no longer possible to take computers out of the routines of daily life, as they have become their ‘hand and feet at the workplace’ (female, 27, occupation left blank), or their ‘life style’ (male, 19, student). Regarding the latter, participants associated computers with ‘reaching the world’ (female, 27, officer), as ‘a gate’ (male, 34, self-employed) or ‘a window to the world’ (female, 51, officer), while the world itself was contracting and ‘becoming a small village’ (male, 32, teacher).

Table 1. Perceptions of computers.

A computer is…

Low involvement ScaryModerate involvement Technology

Just a deviceHigh involvement Vision of human brain

A computer provides…

Instances of functions Access to informationTechnical empowermentTime savingArchivingTransactionCommunicationEntertainment

Its role in life Indispensible helperWindow to the world



Dilaver 1223

Table 1 summarises perspectives presented so far. While referring to a broad range of meanings, the findings reported so far stress the importance of accessing information via computers. A related finding is about the perceived differences between users and non-users of computers. Participants believed that computers have significant influences on people’s personal, intellectual and social lives. One participant (female, 52, artist), for example, said that when she compares herself to users she feels like a ‘mountain person’. A few others said that they do not think they are as good as their children who use com-puters on a regular basis.

Like, they (users) are aware of everything. But the non-users are not like that. Let’s not say ignorant but I feel like they are left behind. (Participant 14, female, 37, page designer)

Furthermore, when asked who, in their view, needs a computer most, participants said it would be students, scholars, professionals, those who are more educated, who regu-larly search for information and who are ‘interested in the world’ (male, 34, self-employed) would need computers more than others. One participant (female, 42, occupation left blank) compared herself with students and academics and ‘now I,’ she said ‘no matter what, I don’t know any science, you see’. Her view was that she is so different from a student or an academic that regardless of the effort she puts in using computers, the value she can create will be limited.

What emerges from these responses is the role of specific contexts in making the value of computers meaningful. This theme is closely related to the issue of life-fit (Selwyn, 2006). Participants refer to open and dynamic contexts: constantly requiring inputs in the form of information, artwork, or explorations of other places and lives. The narrative given below clarifies this theme with a pejorative description of its contrast, which the participant calls ‘an infertile life’:

Let’s say life of a person is infertile; it consists of watching TV, you cannot easily make computers attractive for him (or her). The guy doesn’t have an issue like that. (Participant 6, male, 28, mathematician)

Participants also mentioned more specific functions. For example, visual communica-tion with relatives who are far away came up frequently as a meaningful function of computers. The participants in the rural area, where most of the young individuals study or work in cities or abroad, raised this issue more frequently. According to one partici-pant, who manages an internet café in a small town, it is due to visual communications that elderly people from traditional backgrounds, who in her view are not likely to use a computer otherwise, come to her internet café – in their traditional clothes, she notes to stress the contrast – and ask for help to use computers.

Similarly, some relatively older participants have expectations from computers in addressing their needs related to ageing. An 85-year-old (female, retired teacher) partici-pant said the gloom of getting old is starting to forget things and she thinks a computer could substitute for some of these declining skills (see also Kanayama, 2003). Another (male, 61, retired architect) participant said he and his peers should learn to use comput-ers as soon as possible because they will need them for their transactions when they get weaker. Yet another (female, 51, housewife) participant said she feels they are the last




generation that takes care of the elderly and she worries that their generation will be very lonely when they are older (see also Xie, 2008). Hence, in the view of the participants of this study, computers have the potential to partially substitute for inter-generational sepa-ration due to immigration, declining mental and physical skills with age and the changes in social roles.

Participants’ purchasing and learning experiences relating to computers were quite different from those relating to mobile phones. Getting help from trusted people who are knowledgeable about computers was an important part of the participants’ purchasing stories (see also Bakardjieva and Smith, 2001). There was also a connection between computers at home and at the workplace. In a few stories, the computers that became surplus in the workplace were given to employees. Others reported buying a computer in order to be able to work from home. Many participants also refer to the role of children in the purchasing process; having a computer at home was regarded as important for the children’s studies (see also Facer et al., 2001).

Regarding learning how to use computers, participants had very different opinions on how difficult this process is. Despite this variation in experiences, several themes about learning emerge from the narratives. For example, quite a few participants described an initial period of difficulty; a ‘getting used to’ (male, 54, actor), or ‘finding it unfamiliar’ (female, 24, accountant) phase in the words of the participants. The very first challenge in this phase appeared to be controlling the input devices. Some participants pointed out that earlier innovations such as the line phone or tape player had certain buttons to oper-ate. This was simpler as the buttons were there all the time. For using computers, on the other hand, one has to remember particular orders of changing screens and commands and this may be problematic even for more experienced users when they are learning new tasks.

Another source of frustration is not being able to envisage how computers work and so not being able to accommodate their seemingly inconsistent functionings (see also Rice, 2009). One participant, who is an experienced programmer, explained his observa-tions on why many people have difficulties in using computers:

Most people who don’t know much about computers expect them to be like animals. They don’t understand that strange functions are running at the background and even with proper, licensed programs the computer can go nuts … They regard computer like a horse: ‘I ride it and it goes wherever I say’. It isn’t the case, of course, and after a while they get angry. To them, it is an indeterminate, nonsense device that creates silly problems. (Participant 6, male, 28, mathematician)

Participants’ narratives also revealed three major ways of learning: trial and error, attending a course and learning from others. Most participants argued trying different tasks with a lot of determination was essential for learning. Regarding the computer courses, there were mixed views. One participant (male, 50, officer) said ‘There can’t be a course for it. You have to learn it yourself and that’s the difficulty of computers.’ Others felt that it might make sense to attend a course for learning advanced tasks, or for saving time. Learning from others was regarded as important and complementary with trial-and-error-based individual learning. In the stories of most participants, this way of learning follows a trickle-down pattern; the participants learn from those who



Dilaver 1225

are more involved in computers, and later they share the information with the ones who are less involved.

An integrated construct of the sense-making process

This section briefly compares the findings about computers and mobile phones and pre-sents an integrated construct representing the consumer’s sense-making process of inno-vations as an inductive output of this study.

Firstly, it may be useful to provide some information about the names of the two inno-vations in Turkish. The Turkish word for computer is bilgisayar. This is a compound word that consists of bilgi and sayar. The former means information or knowledge and the latter means the one that lists or presents. Together, the two words describe some-thing that presents knowledge. The word group for mobile phone is cep telefonu, which can be translated as pocket telephone.

Regarding the findings on the two innovations, the first thing to note is that the find-ings about computers are much more varied than those for mobile phones. This may be related to the even more multi-functional nature of computers and participants’ varying levels of involvement in them. It is also possible that the low incongruity between com-puters and previously existing schema continues to be confusing for consumers. As reviewed in the second section, schema and categorisation theories argue that consumers first try to relate innovations to their existing mental schemas. Assigning mobile phones to an existing schema is quite straightforward. The name, the looks and the function fit nicely into the schema of the telephone: it is a phone that you can carry in your pocket. Linking computers with existing schemas, on the other hand, is quite difficult. They are different from previously existing products in terms of the name, looks, functions and usage. This difficulty is reflected in responses such as ‘computers are scary because I haven’t solved them yet’ (male, 54, actor).

When there is a lack of schema, building analogies is a common method of learning about the instance. In this study, some participants refer to analogies such as the vision of the human mind, the gate to the world and the indispensable helper. Similarly, the partici-pants, who said computers mean technology, might be assigning computers to a broader category due to the lack of a more specific schema. Furthermore, while explaining diffi-culties related to using computers, participants compared the fixed control buttons on previous generations of electrical devices or referred to the analogy of riding a horse. The central tension in these comparisons was in the way computers are thought to depart from existing causal beliefs and familiar understandings of how things work in general.

The proximity between what the word bilgisayar suggests and the way the participants perceive the use-value of computers is worth highlighting. Although they mentioned a variety of different functions, accessing information seemed particularly important. Further (possibly cross-country) research is required, however, to claim a causal effect of the product name on consumer perceptions, since it is also possible that the name bilgisa-yar was coined by successfully identifying the core value of the product.

The schema and categorisation theories are also helpful to make sense of the negative reaction towards the additional features of mobile phones, which may have expanded the newly adjusted schema (the phone you can carry in your pocket) beyond the familiar




uses of the parent schema (the phone). These theories suggest that incongruities between an instance and schema necessitate modifications of the schema. Without these modifi-cations, consumers can perceive the product to be ‘strange or weird, and judge that it is unlikely to be useful’ (Rindova and Petkova, 2007: 220). Although this might be a tem-porary state at the time of data collection, the findings of this study were in line with these predictions. One participant even said the additional features ‘exceeded the aim of the phone’ and this was ‘weird’ (male, 31, self-employed).

Making sense of an innovation often involves formation of new sets of causal beliefs on how the innovation works in general and the effects of its various functions. Participants’ narratives revealed that computers involve a much higher level of complexity and require a higher degree of support during the establishment of new causalities. This necessity for interpersonal interactions brings about the trickle-down of knowledge and experiences from users to their social contacts. In the segments of the society where the number of users is low, this chain of exchanges may involve a lot of waiting. In contrast, consumers are much more self-sufficient when purchasing and learning how to use mobile phones.

There are also differences between mobile phones and computers in terms of who can benefit most from their use-value. Mobile phones do not require a specific context to create value. Everyone can benefit from them to a certain extent provided that they have a list of people to call. In the case of computers, however, participants described specific roles and contexts that make the value of the innovation more meaningful.

The remainder of this section presents an integrated construct of the consumer’s sense-making process of innovations. The theoretical constructs reviewed in the second section were selected during the data analysis, based on the initial categories emerging from open coding. Further analysis of the data and a critical review of the literature revealed that the selected constructs complement each other in explaining the way con-sumers make sense of the use-value of innovations.

More specifically, schema and categorisation theories explain the cognitive processes of consumers and link perceptions of an innovation to the history of earlier products through the existing schema. The MEC describes the connections between perceived product features, functions of these features and the outcomes that are

achieved by those functions. Finally, Roger’s construct refers to a trade-off between perceived benefits and costs of adoption throughout the sense-making process. As an inductive output of this study, these constructs are organised in a way to reflect their complementarities in explaining the sense-making process as a whole, as shown in Figure 2.

The arrows in the figure represent the flow concepts, while the boxes represent the state concepts and possible barriers in the process. From a different angle, the arrows represent different aspects of the innovation and the boxes are different aspects of

Figure 2. Sense-making process for innovations.



Dilaver 1227

individuals’ lives. Together, they provide some insights about the life-fit of innovations. While the flow concepts are from the MEC, the state concept schema is based on the findings of cognitive psychology. The state concepts causalities and contexts are related to complexity and social conformity in Rogers’ construct, but they refer to aspects of individual understandings and lives rather than the properties of the innovation in order to better reflect the findings of the current study.

The first state in the construct is the a priori schemas individuals have with regards to previously existing products. These schemas are likely to influence the way the innovation is initially perceived. In the next stage, more piecemeal evaluations of the innovation start. Consumers develop perceptions of the physical product and how it is useful for what it is used for. The construction of these understandings may involve becoming familiar with new causalities related to the effects or consequences of vari-ous events and mechanisms related to the innovation. If the purchasing process is complicated and learning how to use the innovation is difficult, consumers may fail to experience, observe and make sense of its functions. Furthermore, complicated causalities can increase the needs for social support from existing users (see also Frank et al., 2004) and this may delay diffusion. Once the functions of the innovation are more or less understood, consumers establish connections with these functions and their day-to-day lives. The state concept contexts emerges from the findings of this study and it has similarities with Rogers’ social conformity. Yet, rather than refer-ring broadly to worldviews and social norms, this concept focuses on situations where the functions of the innovation are relevant. Hence, contexts can be personal as well as social. Through connections between functions of the innovation and contexts in their lives, individuals build understandings of the use-value they can create with the innovation.

In the light of the existing literature and data analysed in this study, this integrated construct suggests that the value innovations are more likely to be appreciated by con-sumers if they establish a moderate level of contiguity with existing schemas, if the causal links they bring about are easy to understand and if their uses are not limited to very specific contexts.

Conclusions

This paper inquires into the value of innovations in general and of ICT in particular. This inquiry diverges from the mainstream approaches in diffusion of innovation and infor-mation society literatures by not taking the use-value of innovations, or ICT, for granted. Here, the starting point is not the technological possibilities that ICT provides, but the perspectives and experiences of a mixed group of participants on a rapidly diffused inno-vation (mobile phone) and a relatively slowly diffusing one (personal computers).

The findings of the study reveal multifaceted constructions of ICT value in the form of composites of both positive and negative associations. This complex anatomy is gen-erally in line with findings of marketing and communication studies that are reviewed in the paper, and its major implication for diffusion studies that are vulnerable to pro-innovation bias is that it suggests perceived use-value of an innovation is difficult to assess a priori.




The findings of the study also provide new insights on the process of value construc-tion, indicating that it is a complex individual and social process that cannot be taken for granted. Individuals make sense of innovations by relating them to existing products, as well as their existing and newly emerging socioeconomic contexts, and get help from others in cases of difficulty.

An integrated construct that synthesises existing ideas in the diffusion of innovations, marketing and cognitive psychology literatures and the analyses of the fieldwork data has emerged as an inductive output of the study. Regarding personal computers and mobile phones, the construct clarifies that while both innovations are seen as valuable by most of the participants, mobile phones have several advantages compared to computers with respect to the sense-making process. The availability of the existing schema for landline phones helps consumers to easily make sense of mobile phones, they are relatively simple to purchase and use, their functions are clear, important and relevant for everyone and the value created with these functions increases in parallel to urbanisation.

The construct also provides insights related to the digital divide as causalities and contexts in the construct bring about difficulties that can deter the sense-making process. When understanding functions of an innovation involves formation of numerous and complicated causal beliefs, adoption provides higher value to indi-viduals who are familiar with causal relationships of a similar kind. An innovation that is only relevant in specific contexts, however, would be selective in favour of individuals who are and will be engaging with these contexts. Others, who are closely connected to such individuals in social networks, may also create relatively high value with the innovation.

Although this construct is an inductive output of the study and, therefore, remains to be validated, altered or improved with further empirical research, it is proposed here that it can improve our existing understanding of the sense-making process of innovations. While theorising about the major elements of the innovation sense-making process, the construct also sheds light on the variability of the diffusion process. It suggests that the day-to-day experiences of diffusion would vary depending on factors such as the concep-tual position of the innovation with respect to previously existing products, the difficulty of purchasing and/or using the innovation and the corresponding social support that is required and the level of fit obtained by the perceived functions of the innovation in the existing and newly emerging contexts of life.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal 99(394): 116–131.

Bakardjieva M and Smith R (2001) The Internet in everyday life: computer networking from the standpoint of the domestic user. New Media & Society 3(1): 67–83.

Bass FM (1969) The new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science 15(5): 215–227.



Dilaver 1229

Czepiel JA (1975) Patterns of interorganizational communications and the diffusion of a major technological innovation in a competitive industrial community. Academy of Management Journal 18(1): 6–24.

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340.

De Wolff P (1938) The demand for passenger cars in the United States. Econometrica 6(2): 113–129.

Eighmey J and McCord L (1998) Adding value in the information age: uses and gratifications of sites on the World Wide Web. Journal of Business Research 41(3): 187–194.

Facer K, Sutherland R, Furlong R, et al. (2001) What is the point of using computers? The develop-ment of young people’s computer expertise in the home. New Media & Society 3(2): 199–219.

Feiereisen S, Wong V and Broderick A (2008) Analogies and mental simulations in learning for really new products: the role of visual attention. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(6): 593–607.

Fiske ST and Taylor SE (1991) Social Cognition. New York and London: McGraw-Hill.Fliegel FC and Kivlin JE (1966) Attributes of innovations as factors in diffusion. American Journal

of Sociology 72(3): 235–248.Frank KA, Zhao Y and Borman K (2004) Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within

organizations: the case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education 77(2): 148–171.

Geroski P (2000) Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy 29(4–5): 603–625.Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative

Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Griffith T (1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management

Review 24(3): 472–488.Griliches Z (1957) Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological changes.

Econometrica 25(4): 501–522.Haider M and Kreps G (2004) Forty years of diffusion of innovations: utility and value in public

health. Journal of Health Communication 9(Suppl. 1): 59–69.Hargittai E (2004) Internet access and use in context. New Media & Society 6(1): 137–143.International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2008) Computer and Internet ownership esti-

mates. Available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict (accessed 16 July 2008).Johnson M, Lehmann D, Fornell C, et al. (1992) Attribute abstraction feature dimensionality

and the scaling of product similarities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 9(2): 131–147.

Kanayama T (2003) Ethnographic research on the experience of Japanese elderly people online. New Media & Society 5(2): 267–288.

Keller S (1977) The telephone in new and old communities. In: De Sola Pool I (ed.) The Social Impact of the Telephone. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press 281–98.

Leung L and Wei R (2000) More than just talk on the moves: uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(2): 308–320.

Lindgreen A and Wynstra F (2005) Value in business markets: what do we know? Where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management 34(7): 732–748.

McMillan S and Morrison M (2006) Coming of age with the Internet. New Media & Society 8(1): 73–95.

Maykut P and Morehouse R (1994) Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide. London: Falmer Press.

Midgley DF, Morrison PD and Roberts JH (1992) The effect of network structure in industrial diffusion processes. Research Policy 21(5): 533–552.




Oksman V and Turtiainen J (2004) Mobile communication as a social stage: meanings of mobile com-munications in everyday life among teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society 6(3): 319–339.

Olshavsky RW and Spreng RA (1996) An exploratory study of the innovation evaluation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13(6): 512–529.

Papacharissi Z and Rubin AM (2000) Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44(2): 175–196.

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Pinch TJ and Bijker WE (1987) The social construction of facts and artifacts. In: Bijker WE,

Hughes TP and Pinch TJ (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 17–50.

Quiring O (2009) What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user sche-mata. New Media & Society 11(6): 899–920.

Reynolds T and Olson J (2000) Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rice RE (2009) Sociological and technological interdependencies of new media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(3): 714–719.

Richardson L (1990) Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Rindova V and Petkova AP (2007) When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change,

product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science 18(2): 217–232.

Rogers E (1995 [1962]) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Rosenberg N (1972) Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explorations in Economic

History 10(1): 3–33.Ruttan VW (1996) What happened to technology adoption-diffusion research? Sociologia Ruralis

36(1): 51–73.Ryan B and Gross NC (1943) The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural

Sociology 8(1): 15–24.Selwyn N (2003) Apart from technology: understanding peoples’ non-use of information and com-

munication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society 25(1): 99–116.Selwyn N (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New

Media & Society 6(3): 341–362.Selwyn N (2006) Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of com-

puters. Poetics 34(4–5): 273–292.Stafford TF, Stafford MR and Schkade LL (2004) Determining uses and gratifications for the

Internet. Decision Sciences 35(2): 259–288.Stoneman P (2002) The Economics of Technological Diffusion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and

Techniques. Newbury Park, CA and London: SAGE.Sweeney J and Soutar G (2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of multiple item

scale. Journal of Retailing 77(2): 203–220.Thwaites AT (1982) Some evidence of regional variations in the introduction and diffusion of

industrial products and processes within British manufacturing industry. Regional Studies 16(5): 371–381.

Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) (2012) ICT usage in households/individuals. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr

Wolcott P and Goodman S (2000) The Internet in Turkey and Pakistan: a comparative analysis. Paper, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, December 2000.

Xie B (2008) Multimodal computer-mediated communication and social support among older Chinese Internet users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3): 728–750.



Dilaver 1231

Author biography

Ozge Dilaver is research fellow at the British Institute at Ankara and British School at Athens, affiliated with London School of Economics and a visiting research fellow at University of Surrey. Her research is predominantly about economic and social interdependencies between individuals. While investigating issues such as the emergence of markets and value, technology-induced social change and evolution of innovation systems, she aims to accommodate the social construction of reality in social complexity models.

Appendix

Demographic characteristics of participants.

Participant Age Gender Occupation Education Income group

1 19 F Student University student 12 48 M Own account High school 23 34 M Own account University 64 58 M Education executive University 55 31 M Own account University 36 28 M Mathematician University 57 42 F High school 48 85 F Math teacher University 39 39 M Architect University 6

10 27 F High school 211 61 M Architect University 412 32 M Teacher/careers advisor Master’s 513 62 F Worker Primary school 214 37 F Page designer High school 515 60 M Children’s books painter High school 216 16 M Student High school

student5

17 19 M Student University student 318 26 M Student University student 419 51 F Housewife University 420 52 M Mechanical engineer University 321 50 M Government officer University 322 51 F Arts teacher University 323 27 F Officer University 524 51 F Officer University 725 54 M Actor University 726 52 F Artist (painter) University 127 24 F Accountant University 328 23 M Coiffeur Primary school 729 50 M Teacher University 630 53 M Economist (professor/

MP)PhD 7

(continued)




Participant Age Gender Occupation Education Income group

31 71 F Worker Secondary school 232 27 F Math teacher University 633 49 F Housewife Primary school 434 43 F Housewife Primary school 235 46 F Housewife Primary school 336 19 F Student University student 337 26 F Housewife High school 438 21 F Accountant University 639 16 F Student High school 240 45 F Housewife/farmer Primary school 241 50 F Housewife Primary school 242 34 F Café owner/teacher University 243 66 M Accountant Primary school 244 37 F International trade

specialistUniversity 6

45 40 M Advertiser/photographer University 646 58 M Retired lecturer University 647 44 F Arts teacher University 648 48 M Economist/salesperson University 6

Appendix. (Continued)



new media & society - looooker.com · ict into consideration. digital divide studies have long...

Documents