Who are really non-users?

ในทางบรรณารักษศาสตร์ การศึกษาผู้ใช้ ครอบคลุมถึง การศึกษาผู้ไม่ใช้ด้วยเช่นกัน กล่าวคือ นอกจากจะทำให้คนที่ใช้อยู่มีความพึงพอใจสูงสุด เราก็จะต้องศึกษาเช่นเดียวกันว่า ทำไมคนที่ไม่ใช้ถึงไม่ใช้ เพื่อจะทำให้คนเหล่านี้กลายมาเป็นผู้ใช้ ในขณะที่ปัจจุบัน การศึกษาคนที่ไม่ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตและคอมพิวเตอร์ ก็กลายเป็นตัวชี้วัดสำคัญตัวหนึ่งของการช่องว่างทางดิจิตอล

มีรายงานการสำรวจล่าสุดของ Park Associates เกี่ยวกับการใช้คอมพิวเตอร์และอินเตอร์เน็ต ว่า 20% ของหัวหน้าครอบครัวในอเมริกาไม่เคยใช้อีเมล์ เปิดเว็บไซต์และค้นข้อมูลบนอินเตอร์เน็ต ในขณะที่ 30% ของหัวหน้าครอบครัวไม่เคยใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ในการสร้างเอกสาร โดยชี้ว่าเพศและอายุเป็นปัจจัยสำคัญที่ำให้เกิดช่องว่างทางดิจิตอลในลักษณะนี้ [ที่มา: CNET News)

ความรู้สึกแรกที่เห็นข้อมูลก็ค่อนข้างแปลกใจ ประการแรก คือ จำนวนของคนที่ไม่เคยใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ในการสร้างเอกสาร สูงกว่าคนที่ไม่เคยใช้อีเมล์หรือเปิดเว็บไซต์ ซึ่งแตกต่างจากสมมติฐานส่วนตัวที่เห็นกลับกันว่า อัตราส่วนของคนที่ใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ในการสร้างเอกสาร น่าจะมากกว่าอัตราส่วนของคนที่ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ต เนื่องจากเห็นว่า

1. คอมพิวเตอร์ เป็นเครื่องมือพื้นฐาน ที่ใช้ในการเข้าถึงอินเตอร์เน็ต ถึงแม้ว่าโทรศัพท์มือถือ และอุปกรณ์อิเล็กทรอนิกส์รุ่นใหม่ ส่วนมากจะสามารถเข้าถึงอินเตอร์เน็ตได้ก็ตาม แต่คอมพิวเตอร์ก็ยังเป็นเครื่องมือหลักอยู่ดี
2. การสร้างเอกสาร สามารถทำงานได้ off-line ในขณะที่การใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตนั้น จำเป็นต้องใช้เครือข่าย ซึ่งคนที่มีคอมพิวเตอร์ทุกคน ส่วนใหญ่ไม่ต้องมีอินเตอร์เน็ตก็ได้ แต่คนที่ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ต ส่วนใหญ่น่าจะต้องมีคอมพิวเตอร์
3. ระบบประมวลผลคำ ถูกพัฒนาขึ้นก่อน ระบบอินเตอร์เน็ต คนใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ น่าจะมีความคุ้นเคยกับ ระบบประมวลผลคำ มากกว่าเครือข่ายอินเตอร์เน็ต
4. Mental model ของการใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ในการสร้างเอกสาร กับอินเตอร์เน็ต มีความแตกต่างกัน โดยเฉพาะอินเตอร์เน็ตที่มีมิติของเครือข่ายเข้ามาร่วมด้วย ดังนั้นความคุ้นเคยและความซับซ้อนของ mental model น่าจะมีผลต่อการใช้งาน
5. ถ้าตีความอย่างนักจัดการเอกสาร การส่งและรับอีเมล์ ก็ถือเป็น "การสร้างเอกสาร" อย่างหนึ่ง เพราะฉะนั้น เมื่อคน 80% บอกว่าเคยรับส่งอีเมล์ แต่มีเพียง 70% ที่บอกว่าเคยสร้างเอกสารบนคอมพิวเตอร์ ก็ออกจะแปลกไปหน่อย (ผมไม่เชื่อว่า ผลต่าง 10% จะมาจากคนที่ส่งอีเมล์ผ่านอุปกรณ์รับส่งประเภทอื่น เช่น PDA โทรศัพท์มือถือ โดยที่ไม่เคยใช้คอมพิวเตอร์เลย) ดัง Venn diagram แบบง่าย ๆ ข้างล่างนี้
   

อย่างไรก็ตาม เมื่อข้อมูลออกมาในลักษณะนี้ และหากเชื่อว่าข้อมูลที่ออกมา สามารถนำมาใช้กล่าวสรุป (Generalize) ถึงคนอเมริกันได้จริง ก็ต้องลองกลับสมการ และดูว่ามีปัจจัยอะไรบ้างที่น่าจะทำให้อัตราส่วนของคนใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตมีมากกว่าคนใช้คอมพิวเตอร์สร้างเอกสาร ซึ่งเท่าที่ผมพอจะนึกออกได้ ก็มีอยู่ 2 ประการสำคัญ ๆ คือ utility กับ usability

ประเด็นเรื่อง utility ก็เห็นว่าสามารถแตกออกได้เป็นอีก 2 มิติ มิติแรก คือ เมื่ิอเปรียบเทียบความมีประโยชน์ระหว่างการใช้คอมพิวเตอร์เพื่อการสร้างเอกสาร และการใช้อินเตอร์เน็ตนั้น ดูเหมือนว่าจะอยู่กันคนละสเกลกัน กล่าวคือ การสร้างเอกสาร เป็นเพียง"วัตถุประสงค์" หนึ่งของการใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ ในขณะที่อินเตอร์เน็ตในที่นี้ ถูกจำกัดความให้เป็น "เครื่องมือ" หรือ "พื้นที่" ซึ่งเทียบเท่าได้กับคอมพิวเตอร์ ที่สามารถตอบสนอง "วัตถุประสงค์" ได้มากกว่าการสร้างเอกสาร ดังนั้น หากจะมาเปรียบเทียบ ก็คงไม่สามารถเปรียบเทียบกันโดยตรงได้ (มิตินี้ อาจจะอ่อนไปหน่อย เพราะจริง ๆ แล้วในแบบสอบถามก็จำแนกวัตถุประสงค์การใช้งานอยู่แล้ว แต่ถึงกระนั้นก็ดูเหมือนว่าจะเป็นคนละขั้นอยู่ดี นอกจากนี้ตัวเลข 21% ที่เหมือนกันทั้งหมด ก็ดูจะน่าสงสัยอยู่เหมือนกัน)

มิติที่สองนั้น มีส่วนสืบเนื่องจากมิติแรก กล่าวคือ วัตถุประสงค์และความจำเป็นของ "เอกสาร" เอกสาร นั้นมีขอบเขตแคบกว่า "อินเตอร์เน็ต" คำว่า "เอกสาร" คำเดียว ก็มีความหมายในหลายนัยยะ (แนะนำอ่านเพิ่มเติม What is a document? โดย Micheal Buckland) แต่ในบริบทนี้ การสร้างเอกสาร ค่อนข้างจะมีความหมายไปในเชิงจริงจังเพียงด้านเดียว ยกตัวอย่างเช่น การสร้างเอกสารติดต่อทางราชการ เอกสารทางธุรกิจ เอกสารทางกฏหมาย หรือแม้กระทั่งเอกสารส่วนบุคคล ซึ่งถึงแม้ว่าเอกสารจะมีความสำคัญในเชิงหลักฐานก็จริง แต่กิจกรรม "การสร้างเอกสาร" หาใช่เป็นสิ่งจำเป็นที่ทุกคนจะต้องทำ ยกตัวอย่างที่ชัดที่สุด ก็คงจะเป็น ผู้บริหารกับเลขานุการ เป็นต้น

ในขณะที่วัตถุประสงค์ของการใช้อินเตอร์เน็ต นั้นขอบเขตกว้างขวาง ตั้งแต่เพื่อความบันเทิง การเรียน การทำงาน การติดต่อสื่อสาร และแน่นอนรวมไปถึง "การสร้างเอกสาร" ด้วยเช่นกัน ดังนั้นความครอบคลุมของอินเตอร์เน็ต จึงมีมากกว่าอย่างหลีกเลี่ยงมิได้

คิดนอกกรอบ

แต่ถึงกระนั้น ผมก็ยังคิดว่า คนเราทุกคนอย่างน้อย ต้องเคยสร้างเอกสารในชีวิตนี้ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการเขียนจดหมาย การทำบัญชีรายรับรายจ่ายประจำวัน ด้วยเหตุนี้ ก็เลยสงสัยต่อว่า แล้ว 30% ที่บอกว่าไม่เคยใช้คอมพิวเตอร์ในการสร้างเอกสารนั้น เคยสร้างเอกสารหรือไม่ ถ้าสร้าง ใช้อะไร (เช่น มือ พิมพ์ดีด เป็นต้น)

ถ้าใครสนใจ คำถามงานทำนองนี้ ให้ลองหางานวิจัยด้าน Personal Information Management (PIM) มาอ่านดูครับ ว่าแล้ว เดี๋ยวก็คงจะไปลองหามาอ่านดูบ้าง

ปล. เอกสารที่นี้ ผมหมายถึง textual document นะครับ ไม่รวมรูป ภาพ เพลง ภาพเคลื่อนไหว สื่อประสมอื่น ๆ

ประการที่สอง มีผมคิดว่าน่าจะมีส่วน คือ ความง่ายในการใช้งาน (usability) ถึงแม้ว่าคนจะดูคุ้นเคยกับการใช้ระบบประมวลผลคำมากกว่า (เพราะเกิดก่อน? -_-") แต่การใช้งานอินเตอร์เน็ตนั้นดูง่ายกว่าการสร้างเอกสารมาก ทั้งนี้อาจจะเป็นเพราะการออกแบบ interface ที่ไม่จำเป็นต้องใช้ cognitive load มาก จะเห็นได้ว่า email application กับ browser มีปุ่มทำงานน้อยกว่า ในขณะที่ word processor นั้นมีสิ่งที่ต้องกำหนดมากมาย และต้องอาศัยความละเอียดรอบคอบ

อย่างไรก็ตาม ทั้งหลายทั้งปวง ข้อมูลชุดนี้ ก็อาจจะต้องฟังหูไว้หู (อาจจะต้องไปดูรายงานฉบับเต็มอีกที) เนื่องจากกลุ่มตัวอย่างที่ได้จากการสำรวจทางโทรศัพท์นั้น มาจากหัวหน้าครอบครัวเพียงอย่างเดียว

สำหรับคนที่สนใจเรื่องผู้ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ต แนะนำให้ลองหาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมจาก Pew Internet [ตัวอย่าง] และ Interconnections ซึ่งอันหลังนี้เป็นรายงานผลการวิจัยเกี่ยวกับผู้ใช้อินเตอร์เน็ต และแหล่งข้อมูลอื่น ๆ สำรวจเมื่อปี 2006 ที่เพิ่งเขียนเสร็จสิ้นไปเมื่อเร็ว ๆ นี้

Making Sense of Statistics in Court

I talked about making sense of statistical data in general a while back.  Recently, the latest issue of Nature ( vol.  445, no. 7125, p. 254-255 [electronic version requires subscription]) features a story of how statistics has been used and interpreted in court house.  I guess the author, Mark Buchanan, intended to remind to beware of the use of statistics outside scientific arena.  In social setting, nothing can be controlled as in an experiment room.  Context is crucially needed.  He introduced two particular cases.  The first one is suspected nurse who may have killed her patients.  The second one is a mother who has been suspected of killing her two daughters.  Both cases involved the probability of the chances that suspects could have committed murders.

Two points mentioned in the paper are standing out.  For the nurse’s case, the statistician told that “the chance that her presence was mere coincidence was only 1 to 342 million”.  Well that seems very impossible, right?  But the mathematician said by brining additional independent variable – include more factors – the chance could be as small as 1 in 48 or 1 in 5.  My question is which number seems possible for most of us then.  At what level of chance that you can say that could not be coincidence anymore?

Another point is from the quote below.

[L]awyers have an incentive, and even a duty, to select the evidence that makes their case stronger.  “What the judge ends up hearing often comes from the two extreme ends of the distribution,” he (David Kaye) said.

I think the use of statistics is very outstanding example of how people make sense of “number” is very influential and does affect the way we live.

Note:

Inside this issue of Nature (p.249), there is a article about Apple Inc. has been sued by its shareholder about backdating stock options.  They already confessed and Jobs knows about it.

Undergraduates and IT: 2006 ECAR Study

The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) released a report of a longitudinal study on the undergraduate students and information technology. The report is based on the national survey of undergraduate students. The data collection includes literature review, web-based survey of freshmen and seniors, open-ended questionaire survey, and focus group. The study gives a very nice overview of IT use in academic environment.

Here are some of the key findings from the report.

• Nearly 98% of undergraduates have PC; about 66.4% own laptop. However, the most owned electronic device is digital camera (72.3%).
• The use of IT highly depends on academic major and class status.
• “Convenience” is the primary benefit of technology in classroom.
• Most students prefer “moderate” amount of technology in classroom.
• 64.4% point out that technology help them to improve their learning. [Note: self-evaluation, not outcome-based]
• 40.3% say they are more engaged in courses that use technology.

However, I would like to highlight some other detail findings in the full report that would be helpful.

Time

• On average, students spend 23 hours a week using technology. (About 3 hours a day)
• More than 25% of male respondents use technology more than 30 hours a week.
• Engineering majors spend more time on technology the most (30.3 hours a week). Interestingly enough, Education majors least spend time on technology than others (18.8 hours a week).

Activities

• Nearly all (99.9%) use email.
• 81.5% use IM, mostly on daily basis. Younger undergradates and those who live on-campus tend to use more than others.
• 94% access library website.
• 70.6% say they use social network sites, preferred by younger students and those who live on-campus. About two-third use them several time a week.
• 28.6% have weblog, prefered by younger and Fine Art majors. The majority blogs on “monthly” basis. [I wonder how many of them use for course purposes and others.]

Note that the top two factors of using IM and social network sites are the same. On-campus younger students tends to use IM and social network sites.

Another figure that might be interesting for virtual reference folks is the preference on first choice of institutional communication. Only 3% prefer IM to be first choice for institutional communication. About 6% of those who use IM daily prefer IM to be the first choice for institutional communication. However, the term “institutional communication” is quite broad. I wonder if the questionaire is more specific to VR, the figure might be higher. However, if IM is most prefered by younger, the preference of using IM for institutional communication would be increasing.

Skill

I would like to highlight the minimal or no skill group instead of basic and advance users. The study found 9.4% has perceived minimal or no skill of online library resources which the majority could fall into freshmen obviously. However, it seems like academic major is also the important factor. Social science seems to be the most library-oriented major. My further thought go to which major has least skill.

Another interesting figure is 34.3% say they have minimal or no skill course management system. This is a large number. I think this is not just a problem of IT department. Library folks should not oversee this issue as well since the connection between CMS and library collection is very high. I would think that libraries, in addition to IT , might have to take the role of improving CMS skill. Anyway, this figure might come from the fact that not all courses use online. Note that 75% says they have been engaged in using CMS, preferred by senior in 4-year institutions.

Social Software in Courses

• 30.9% of freshmen and 15.5% of seniors used social network site in courses (12.3% for community college).
• 11.8% of freshmen and 18.0% of seniors says they use IM in courses.
• 6.1% of freshme and 7.9% of seniors use blogs in class. [I would assume read and write combined.] Interesting students in community colleges use blogs slightly more than those in 4-year institution (8.2%). Again, Fine arts majors tends to use more than others.
• Less than 4% use webcast and/or podcast during courses.

In terms of perceived benefits of the technology, students think podcast help them improve learning the most (23%). Significantly enough, CMS is perceivably least improved their learning (12.4%). However, the majority thinks CMS is the most convenient technology (55%). Here are the percieved benefits of other social technology.

IM

• 45.7% says it is convenient.
• 21.6% says it improves their learning.
• 19.2% says it helps manage course activitiy.
• 11.1% says it helps them communicate.
• 2.4% says it has no benefits.

Blog

• 47.8% says it is convenient.
• 19.1% says it improves their learning.
• 19.4% says it helps manage course activitiy.
• 11.2% says it helps them communicate.
• 2.6% says it has no benefits.

Social networking software

• 47.9% says it is convenient.
• 17.9% says it improves their learning.
• 20.7% says it helps manage course activitiy.
• 11.1% says it helps them communicate.
• 2.4% says it has no benefits.

The paper cited one of interesting studies done by Student Monitor (Carney, 2006 cited on p. 24). They cited that iPods was more “in” (73% of respondents) than beer or Facebook (both 71%).

As one may question about self-evaluation aspect of the study, the study team already points out, in executive summary, the ongoing complexity of outcome-based debate. They believe that “students are reasonably reliable evaluators of the educational contribution of IT”.

วัยรุ่น อินเตอร์เน็ต และความรับผิดชอบ ภาค 2

คุณ nujobz เขียน comment ใน post ที่แล้ว ตั้งข้อสังเกตเกี่ยวกับการใช้ MySpace กับ live msn ก็เลยจะขยายความเพิ่มเติมอีกนิดหน่อย เห็นว่ามันยาว ก็เลยเอามาเขียนเป็นหัวข้อใหม่ แทนที่จะเขียนตอบใน comment ละกัน

ข้อมูลที่ได้จากงานวิจัยด้าน social networking site หลายชิ้น ชี้ให้เห็นตรงกันว่า คนใช้เว็บไซต์พวกนี้ก็เพื่อรักษาความสัมพันธ์กับเพื่อนเก่าเป็นหลัก มากกว่าการหาเพื่อนใหม่ ซึ่งนั่นก็อธิบายได้ว่า ปัจจัยสำคัญของการกระจายตัวของของคนใช้ social networking อยู่ที่ ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างเพื่อนของตนเอง มากกว่าจะมุ่งไปที่เว็บไซต์ที่มีคนมาก ดังนั้นจึงไม่แปลกที่คนไทยจะใช้ hi5 หรือ Windows Live Spaces มากกว่า เพราะมีเพื่อนอยู่ในนั้น มากกว่าที่จะมุ่งไปที่เว็บไซต์ที่มีฝูงชน (crowd) หรือได้รับความนิยมมากกว่าอย่าง MySpace  อย่างไรก็ตาม ก็ยังคงต้องจับตามองกันต่อไป เพราะเริ่มมีเสียงเรียกร้องให้ merge profile ของ site ต่าง ๆ เข้าด้วยกัน (อ่านเพิ่มเติม OpenID) ถ้าเป็นแบบนั้นก็อาจจะต้องมองกันอีกมุมหนึ่ง

ถึงแม้จำนวนคนที่ใช้เว็บไซต์พวกนี้เพื่อหาเพื่อนใหม่ จะมีจำนวนไม่น้อย แต่เชื่อได้ว่าในจำนวนนั้นก็มีคนที่หาเพื่อนใหม่ แบบตกกระไดพลอยโจน กล่าวคือ ไม่ได้ตั้งใจหา แต่ “บังเอิญ” ผ่านตา เห็น profile น่าสนใจก็ add ไว้ดีกว่า ในขณะที่ interface กับ connection speed น่าจะเป็นปัจจัยลำดับรอง ๆ ลงมา

ทำให้นึกถึงทฤษฎี Chatman’s Life in a Round ที่กล่าวถึง ชีวิตในโลกใบเล็ก (small world) ที่กิจกรรมที่ทำนั้นเป็นสิ่งที่ทำเป็นประจำ และสามารถที่จะคาดเดาเอาได้ ขออนุญาตเอา proposition ของ small world มาลง เผื่อใครจะสนใจเพิ่มเติม

A small world is a society in which mutual opinions and concerns are reflected by its members, a world in which language and customs bind its participants to a worldview. Resources (both intellectual and material) are known and easily accessible. It is a world in which there is a collective awareness about who is important and who is not; which ideas are relevant and which are trivial; whom to trust and whom to avoid. In its truest form, a small world is a community of like-minded individuals who share coownership of social reality (p. 213, para. 2).

ทฤษฎีนี้ ถูกนำเอามาใช้อ้างอิงหลายครั้ง โดยในงานวิจัยด้านพฤติกรรมการค้นหาสารสนเทศ ซึ่งถ้ามองในบริบทของ social networking site เราก็จะเห็นในลักษณะเดียวกันว่า คนเรามีโลกส่วนตัวที่อยากจะสร้างขึ้นมา โดยเอาคนที่มี social norms, มุมมองและทัศนคติต่อโลก, และ social type ที่คล้าย ๆ กัน social networking site ก็เป็น “เครื่องมือ”​และ “สถานที่” ที่เอื้อต่อการสื่อสารภายในโลกใบเล็ก มากกว่าการสื่อสารกับโลกใบใหญ่ (ถึงแม้จะเป็นการสื่อสารในที่สาธารณะก็ตาม)

ทฤษฏีดังกล่าว ก็ยังสามารถเอาไปตอบคำถาม เรื่องพฤติกรรมการอ่านและใช้บล๊อกด้วยของคุณ nujobz ได้ด้วยเช่นกัน คุณ nujobz ให้ข้อสังเกตว่า “คนไทยเราไม่ค่อยมีวัฒนธรรมการอ่านบล๊อก และ คอมเม้นในบล๊อกของคนแปลกหน้า…ไม่รู้ทำไม”

ก็เพราะคนเราเลือกที่จะสร้างโลกใบเล็กขึ้นมา โดยเฉพาะในโลกที่มี information overload เต็มไปหมด การสร้างโลกใบเล็ก ทำให้เรารู้สึกเข้าใจสังคมและตัวเองมากขึ้น ดังนั้นการเลือกอ่าน blog (ที่เป็นแบบขาประจำ) ก็จะต้องเลือกคนที่เรารู้จัก หรือไม่ก็มี small world ร่วมกัน หรือมีความสนใจคล้าย ๆ กัน ดังนั้น อาจจะมีไม่กี่ blog ที่อ่านเป็นประจำและรู้สึกมีส่วนร่วม ไม่ใช่กับคนเขียน blog อย่างเดียว แต่กับคนที่มี comment ด้วยเช่นกัน sense of community ก็ทำให้มีความรู้สึกว่า เราไม่ใช่คนแปลกหน้าบน blog นั้นอีกต่อไป ส่วนที่จะไปอ่าน blog ของคนแปลกหน้า อาจจะเห็นเป็นเรื่องของเหตุบังเอิญเสียเป็นส่วนใหญ่ เช่น link ของ link ต่อไป มากกว่าจะจงใจหา blog ใหม่ ๆ เพื่อหามาอ่านประจำ

ก็เหมือนกับคนค้นบน Technorati ส่วนใหญ่ก็เพื่อหา post ที่เขียนเกี่ยวกับเรื่องที่ตนเองสนใจ มากกว่าหาคนที่ตนเองสนใจ ซึ่งแน่นอนว่า volume การค้นอย่างหลังมันน้อยกว่า แล้วพอค้นเสร็จ อ่านแล้วก็แล้วกัน มากกว่าการอ่านแล้วก็ติดตามอ่าน เป็นขาประจำ

ในขณะที่อีกแนวคิดหนึ่งจากสาย sociology ที่พอจะอธิบายได้ ก็คือ การมองชุมชนออนไลน์ในเชิง “สถานที่” มากกว่า การเป็น “เครื่องมือ” ในการสื่อสาร กล่าวคือ โดยปรกติชุมชนออนไลน์ โดยเฉพาะเว็บบอร์ด มักถูกตีความให้เหมือนกับพื้นที่พบปะสาธารณะ ซึ่งคล้าย ๆ กับบาร์ ร้านน้ำชาอะไรทำนองนี้ ใครจะทำอะไรก็ได้ ในขณะที่บล๊อกมันมีลักษณะเป็นบ้านมากกว่า ถ้าเป็นบ้านของคนแปลกหน้า ถึงแม้ว่าประตูบ้านจะเปิดอยู่ตลอดเวลา แต่โดยมารยาททั่วไป ก็ไม่มีใครรุ่มร่าม เดินเข้าไปบ้านคนนั้นโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาต คุณอาจจะแค่โฉบไป เฉี่ยวมาอยู่หน้าบ้าน ก็ไม่ถึงกับเข้าไปดูในบ้าน (ก็คือ พวก lurker นั่นเอง) อีกทั้งถ้าได้เข้าไปแล้วก็ไม่ทำเสียงเอะอะ โวยวาย แต่บางคน ถ้าอยากทำอะไรก็ให้คิดเก็บไว้ แล้วก็มาระบายที่บ้านตัวเอง แต่ถ้าลองเป็นบ้านเพื่อน หรือคนที่คุณรู้จักหล่ะก็ อย่าว่าทำเสียงเอะอะเลย บางทีก็ไปเปิดตู้เย็นเขากินน้ำกันหน้าตาเฉย

หลายคนมองว่าการอ่านบล๊อกเป็นในรูปแบบเดียวกัน เพราะฉะนั้น จึงเป็นเรื่องที่ไม่น่าแปลกใจเลยกับข้อสังเกตของคุณ nujobz อย่างไรก็ตาม คำถามต่อว่า แล้วทำไมแต่ละบล๊อกมีคนแปลกหน้ามาตอบจำนวนมากน้อย ไม่เท่ากัน อันนี้มันก็ขึ้นอยู่กับจำนวนคนที่มี small world เดียวกันกับคุณ แล้วก็การที่คุณสร้างบรรยากาศให้บ้าน มันดูยินดีต้องรับคนแปลกหน้ามากน้อยแค่ไหน ก็อย่างที่คุณ nujobz บอก คนไทยเขียนแต่เรื่องส่วนตัว อกหักรักคุด ก็แน่นอน ใครหล่ะจะไปกล้า comment ในบล๊อกนั้น เว้นแต่ว่าเป็นเรื่องอกหักรักคุดของ “คนสาธารณะ” หรือ “คนสาธารณะ wanna be” หรือลองเปลี่ยนใหม่ เอาเรื่องส่วนตัวแบบเดียวกัน ไปพิมพ์ใน Pantip ละก็ จะมีคนแปลกหน้า เข้ามาปลอบ ให้คำแนะนำคุณมากกว่าแน่นอน

ซึ่งแนวคิดข้างต้น มันก็ไปใช้อธิบายปรากฏการณ์ blog-tag ได้บางส่วนด้วย ตอนนี้ กำลังลำดับความคิด เรียบเรียง เขียนเฉพาะปรากฏการณ์ blog-tag โดยเฉพาะ เป็นประสาปะกิต ให้เป็นเรื่องเป็นราวอยู่่ ถ้าไม่ขี้เกียจเสียก่อน คงจะคลอดเร็ว ๆ นี้

Reference

Chatman, E. A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 207-217.

Is User Satisfaction Matter for Information System?

Another paper on a classic debate on the importance of user satisfaction on the success of information system.

Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006). Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants. Management Science, 52(12).

Based on empirical research conducted between 1980 and 2004, the study examines four aspects of information systems (IS) success: system quality, perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, and system use. The authors highlight the importance of system quality, which affects all other aspects of IS success. They also observe that system quality and perceived usefulness but, curiously, not user satisfaction, influence the extent to which the system is used. The study’s results suggest that system developers and managers should concentrate on developing better systems rather than focusing on increased user satisfaction with the system.

The analysis also suggests that four long-term measures related to information systems are particularly important: (1) IS training, (2) improving individuals’ attitudes toward information systems, (3) gaining top-management support for information systems, and (4) developing organizational structures that facilitate use of information systems, such as help desks and online user assistance.

[via EurekAlert]

Learning from America to Thailand: Digital Divides

During my master program at Pitt, one of my favourite classes, Information Policy taught by an excellent professor and policy pioneer, Toni Carbo, inspired me to learn about how Americans anticipate and deal with their domestic digital divide issues. I wrote a paper and just got published by Libri this month (Vol. 56 No. 4). [Note: the full text is electronically available for subscribers with registered IP. Anyway, the article will be free available one year after publication]. Here is the abstract.

Since the emergence of information technology, the gap between information ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ has been broadening: the information rich become richer, while the information poor are poorer. This situation contributes to various issues related to individuals and society. Interestingly enough, although the United States is one of the leading countries in the information and communication technology (ICT) field, according to many studies, the digital divide still exists in many layers and from different perspectives. This paper critically discusses how the US anticipates these issues as well as how national information policy is emerging to close the digital divide.

It’s been a while. Thus, many aspects, in particular those from examples, are out of date. However, some of fundamental in the article remains valid.

What I learned after, particular in Thailand and many developing countries, is digital divide is a persistent issue like any other inequalities. I used to approach the issue as a problem, not a phenomenon. It can be intentional and unintentional phenomena (or artificial and natural). Academic and people “up there” pretty much look at the issue from unintentional perspective or intention from the richers’ side.

The issue still struggles me in the sense of the drive from poorer. Not only they can afford technology, what if they intentionally ignore them because they are appreciate their lives without technology. Why do we have to force them to adopt it? Of course, they potential obtain benefits from accessing the Internet. But.. does benefits from the Internet always contributes to happiness and prosperity?

And what if Thailand is really driving toward self-sufficiency economy, as His Majesty suggested and the government is working on it. Is the divide then matter?

Characterizing a Thai Online Community: Pantip.com Cafe

I did a 9-page paper for JOMC490.004 Blogging, We the Media and Virtual Communities class. The paper is called Characterizing a Thai Online Community: Pantip.com Cafe. It is an introduction and a summary of some communal aspects of Pantip.com Cafe.

Feel free to comment…

[Edit (May 1, 2009): There seems to be a lot of errors in the paper.  So I pulled it off online.  Please contact me if you want to read it.  Apology for any inconvenience.]

Spying 2.0

An article in NYT Magazine by Clive Thompson, entitled Open-Source Spying, intensively discusses about the business of Intelligence in the U.S. and the emerging roles of social software like blog and wiki.

There are a number of interesting points that might need to be highlighted.

• One of the main problems among intelligence agencies is the organization of information overload.

In the ’70s and ’80s, during the cold war, an intelligence analyst would show up for work at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va., or at the National Security Agency compound in Fort Meade, Md., and face a mess of paper.

…

The volume of material online is such that analysts now face a new problem: data overload. Even if they suspect good information might exist on Intelink, it is often impossible to find it. The system is poorly indexed, and its internal search tools perform like the pre-Google search engines of the ’90s.“

• The threats are formed dramatically by the social networking means which should be responded with the same manners.

[D]uring the cold war, threats formed slowly. The Soviet Union was a ponderous bureaucracy that moved at the glacial speed of the five-year plan.

…

Al Qaeda operatives organized their plots in a hivelike fashion, with collaborators from Afghanistan to London using e-mail, instant messaging and Yahoo groups; rarely did a single mastermind run the show.

• The amount of information shared [note: which may or may not imply to the success of spying] depends on the openness vs. security.

The computer systems were designed to be “air gapped.” The F.B.I. terminals were connected to one another — but not to the computers at any other agency, and vice versa. Messages written on the C.I.A.’s network (which they still quaintly called “cables”) were purely internal.

…

Mike Scheuer, an adviser to the C.I.A.’s bin Laden unit until 2004, told me he had been frustrated by the inability of the systems to interpenetrate. “About 80 percent of C.I.A.-F.B.I. difficulties came from the fact that we couldn’t communicate with one another.”

…

“The 16 intelligence organizations of the U.S. are without peer. They are the best in the world. The trick is, are they collectively the best?”

…

[E]ach agency’s databases, and the messages flowing through their internal pipelines, are not automatically put onto Intelink. Agency supervisors must actively decide what data they will publish on the network — and their levels of openness vary.

…

“[I]f you limit how many people see it, it will be more secure, and you will be able to get more of it. But that’s now appropriate for a small and shrinking percentage of information.”

• And money is not necessarily included in such formula.

[O]verly ambitious projects often result in expensive disasters, the way the F.B.I.’s $170 million attempt to overhaul its case-handling software died in 2005 after the software became so complex that the F.B.I. despaired of ever fixing the bugs and shelved it. In contrast, the blog software took only a day or two to get running.

• Role of blogs and wiki for intelligence with concerns about the possibility of error, and the nature of business to keep secrets.

Blogs and wikis, in contrast, work democratically. Pieces of intel would receive attention merely because other analysts found them interesting. This grass-roots process, Andrus argued, suited the modern intelligence challenge of sifting through thousands of disparate clues: if a fact or observation struck a chord with enough analysts, it would snowball into popularity, no matter what their supervisors thought.

…

[B]logs and wikis are unlikely to thrive in an environment where people are guarded about sharing information. Social software doesn’t work if people aren’t social.

…

The whole reason the center works, they said, is that experts have a top-down view that is essential to picking the important information out of the surrounding chatter. The grass roots, they’ve found, are good at collecting threats but not necessarily at analyzing them. If a lot of low-level analysts are pointing to the same inaccurate posting, that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

• Role of Google’s Page Rank and the benefits to spying business

This, Burton pointed out, is precisely the problem with Intelink. It has no links, no social information to help sort out which intel is significant and which isn’t. When an analyst’s report is posted online, it does not include links to other reports, even ones it cites. There’s no easy way for agents to link to a report or post a comment about it. Searching Intelink thus resembles searching the Internet before blogs and Google came along — a lot of disconnected information, hard to sort through. If spies were encouraged to blog on Intelink, Burton reasoned, their profuse linking could mend that situation.

Blogosphere in Asia

Microsoft released a report on Blogging Asia: A Windows Live Report. The study conducted online of more than 25,000 MSN portal visitors, launched August this year, in seven countries including Hong Kong, India, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Here are the key findings that I found interesting:

• 74% find blogs by friends and family to be most interesting; seconded by work colleagues
• Young people and women dominate (except India where it is overwhelmingly a male domain and Korea where blogging is a part of everyday life for all)
• 50% believe blog content to be as trustworthy as traditional media. A quarter of respondents also believed
  blogs to be the quickest way to learn about news and current affairs.
• 41% spend more than three hours a week blogging
• More than 40% have less than 10 visitors per week
• 53% chose to start a blog to share a diary or photo album with loved ones; seconded by work colleagues.
• Politicians fared poorly across the region with only 14% interested in reading their blogs except in Malaysia where they were quite popular with 20% listing this type of blog as being of interest.
• India stood out with half of all respondents showing a strong interest in business blogs, ranking them as the most interesting.
• Their perception toward a good blog is (1) the one that is updated regularly and, (2) the one that is well written with eye catching pictures.
• For them, the most annoying aspect of blog is they don’t know when the blog is update, boring content, and badly written entries. [Note: Could it assume that many Asian bloggers don't know about web syndication? They might heard but don't know how it works? They may know but don't use it?]

[Via Smart Mobs and PR Newswire]

Asian Brides on the Net

Dr Romyen Kosaikanont, a Thai researcher at Women’s Studies Center at Chiang Mai University, did a study on “Women in Southeast Asia: Internet-order brides“. She did investigate crosscultural matmaking websites and analyzed people’s profiles on those websites. [I could not find the original paper. Thus, I do not know exactly the methodology and sample size.]

Here is what I found very interesting:

Women from Thailand and the Philippines are the most popular among Western men seeking an Asian wife.

…

“The first website told me to reduce my weight by about 10 kilograms and also suggested I retouch my photo.“

…

Most sites offering brides were often [claimed that they are] operated by Thai-women-and-Western-men couples who claimed to have found happiness in cross-cultural marriage and wanted to help others achieve the same.

…

In profiles, male clients would explain what they wanted from a bride while Thai women would discuss what they were like rather than what they wanted from a man

She also found that those matchmakers portray Thai men to be “very promiscuous – often having more than one wife. Not good husband material” and Western women to be “emancipated“.

Therefore, she nicely asserted that “[i]t was a match of lost femininity in the West against an economic and social upgrade for Asian women.“

[via The Nation]

Thai-Westerner Couples Have Less Social Capital

The study done by a researcher team at Faculty of Nursing, Khon Kaen University says that marrying foreigners make Northeastern Thai society change.

Thai-westerner marriage is also a blame for less family participation, community activities and interaction with neighbours due to cultural and language barriers.

[F]oreign son-in-laws had caused the community-oriented Northeasterners to become the more individualistic and give less attention to social interaction.

Interestingly, the marriage affects how people eat and concerns about traditional holidays. It also influences other family members’ views on choosing their partners.

For those foreigners who are interested in Thai girls, this might be interesting figures for you.

[M]ost Northeastern Thai women married to foreigners were over 30, with an average age of 35, and had education below secondary level. More than 70 per cent had previously wed and divorced Thai husbands and most had one child from the first marriage.

…

The average age of farang husbands was 50, and most came from Germany, Britain and Scandinavia. A fourth of those over 60 had brought their retirement funds to settle down with Thai wives who took care of them.

With a special note:

[M]ost of their wives didn’t know their husband’s work or educational background. The wives were mainly interested in whether their husbands had enough money to support the family.

Some women agreed to marry foreigners they had never met before the wedding day as they felt that if the man had money.

Note: “Farang” is a word usually used to call caucasians.

[via The Nation]

We are friends: Thailand and US on Privacy

Privacy International, London-based human rights group, recently released a new VERY comprehensive report on privacy status around the world. Thailand is ranked 31st following closely the United States (30th) on a ranking of 37 countries.

The study ranks countries on various privacy-related issues. These include whether they have a written constitution with specific mention of privacy, the use of identity cards and biometrics, electronic surveillance including closed-circuit TV cameras, interception of communication, access of law-enforcement agencies to private data, surveillance of travel and financial transactions, and global leadership in promoting privacy. [from globeandmail.com]

Here is a highlight part on Thailand.

Wiretapping is prevalent throughout the country. Police recently asked the government to enact a law permitting warrantless, judicially unsupervised wiretaps and searches. The opposition condemned this attempt to override civil liberties and human rights, and the idea did not develop.

Political bugging is no less common. Politicians and human rights activists accused a political party of wiretapping political opponents and journalists.

The government is currently implementing a system of national ID smart cards. It plans to integrate them into an e-government campaign, which would provide access to most of its services through the Internet. Several human rights and privacy advocates criticized the government for pushing an intrusive identification system while the country still lacks a data protection law.

In the country report (page. 694-699), which is more comprehensive, they referred to section 34, 37, and 58 in the 1997 constitution which was just revoked. [Note: Poor thing... They just said it is a "new" constitution in the report. Well, we will get a new one soon.] Also they talk about Official Information Act (OIA) as a frame of data protection and freedom of information. In the Privacy Case Law section, they raise one interesting case of conflict of interests…

In one case, a girl who failed the Entrance examination to a state-run school requested the test scores of herself and other students who were accepted. In a series of decisions by the OIC, the IDT, and even the civil and supreme courts, the right of access to test scores was upheld and enforced. This decision was made amidst the protests and countersuit of parents of other students, who claimed that their privacy rights were
violated by the disclosure of their test scores; the courts held that the results of a “public competition were not personal information” and thus unprotected. (p. 696)

The other sections are already mentioned in the highlighted, including wiretapping and surveillance (see also my earlier post – Do we have a global censorship? I guess so now…), the registration of pre-paid cellphone, and smart national ID cards.

From my personal observation, privacy is kind of opt-out interest in Thailand. No many Thai seems to really care about this much, especially those from grassroots level. [Note: A new Thai government rules a substitutive term apparently for brainwashing. They are now using "glassroots". Sorry, LOL is not allowed.] I guess this might not imply just only in Thailand, because even on Slashdot, there are still some debates on this aspect as well.

[extended from Slashdot]

Failure to Save

“typically, of the order of one loss per person per year”.

Do you think forgetting to save works is just a matter of unfortunate chance? If you think so, you might have to think again.

Two British researchers, Jones from Warwick and Martin from Oxford, conducted an experiment study looking at the relationship between failure to save and general level of “susceptibility to cognitive failure” by using 25 items of Brodbent et al.’s Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (CFQ). The questionnaire is usually used in relation to physical injury and accident.

“It was found that those individuals who are more likely to lose their computing work are also more prone to cognitive failure in general…

[I]t may be inferred that it is systematic individual variation in attentional control processes” (p. 866)

One item is best predicted the number of computer losses which is “Do you find you accidentally throw away the thing you want and keep what you meant to throw away the think you want and keep what you meant to throw away?”

The study also tried to find the relationship between handedness (left-handed vs. right handed) and the failure. However, there are too few left-handed subjects to conclude the hypothesis. Also there is NO substantial relationship with the injury by falling or jumping from a high place.

I think the other items in the questionnaire [download the questionnaire (PDF) from York University's Psychological Tests for Student Use maintained by Professor Ron Okada] to the are also interesting in the sense that they happen in our eveyday life. For example, do you read something and find you haven’t been thinking about it and must read it again? Do you fail to listen to people’s names when you are meeting them? Do you say something and realize afterwards that it might be taken as insulting?

The paper discuss the role of this kind of research with the issue of HCI. However, I could imagine this type of resources helpful to supplement digital preservation studies, especially in everyday life context.

Reference:

Jones, G. V. & Martin, M. (2003). Individual differences in failing to save everyday computing work. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 861-868.

[via Improbable Research and the Guardian]

Social Networking in Dormitory

I have to admit that at first I did not intend to write this post this long. I actually just wanted to keep reference myself about Vanden Boogart’s thesis with my reflective idea. However, after finding evidences to support my thought, I found a couple of related papers about social networking in dormitory, which I think interesting and might supplement to his framework.

Matthew Vanden Boogart sent out a link to his master thesis at Kansas State University on Facebook and residence hall via air-l listserv. There are a lot of interesting points to discuss about this fine work, entitled “Uncovering the Social Impacts of Facebook on a College Campus“. He investigates social impacts of Facebook on dorm life by using web-based survey asking on-campus students from four universities: Kansas State University, Samford University, University of Florida, and University of Kansas.

About 95% of them are on Facebook. 32% have their own blogs. The demographics shows that women, students of color, students with lower GPAs, first year undergraduates, and those living in co-ed environment tends to engage on Facebook more frequently. About 30% said they “feel” addicted to Facebook. About 17% of sample spend more than 1 hour a day on Facebook. The study reconfirms the notion that students use Facebook for keeping connected to high school friends and checking what friends are doing rather than making new friends (p. 36) (see also Fred’s study). However, non-heterosexual, students of color, and those who have lower GPAs tend to use Facebook to make social connection that could not find in person more than other groups.

Weak ties

“The average respondent had 145 friends at their institution and 127 friends at other institutions. The range of these responses were as low as 0 and as high as 1800 for one individual”. (p. 32)

I still “wow” by the maximum number of 1800 friends which one could figure out easily that those are primarily weak tie. Also it is not that too hard to have “friends” that many, even they are first year undergraduates as Fred already pointed out.

However, one evidence that would be helpful to support, but does not appear, in his study is the combination between online and physical relationship; whether students maintain neighboring friends on Facebook or not. If so, how? What kinds of activity/interaction they do to maintain the relationship with their dorm neighbors on Facebook? These questions could also portray how SNS facilitate physical relationship (e.g. strengthening weaker social ties).

To do so, one of variables that may need to be controlled is the size of residence halls and campus. The assumptions of the greater role of Facebook on on-campus life could possibly favor the larger unit of social connection, whether larger floor, building, or campus, hypothetically due to the large number of weak ties. Well, that may not be the case. Why?

Micro-localization

I Trust What I found: American Online Health Information

Pew just released another report on Online Health Search 2006. The study points out a number of interesting points.

• About 80% of American use Internet seeking health information.
• 66% of health seekers began their last online health inquiry at a search engine; 27% began at a health-related website.
  Note: How many do they consult the physicians or health professional prior to going online?
• About 48% is proxy searching, on behalf of someone else while 36% search for their own sake. 8% for both reasons.
  Note: What proportion of those who are in healthcare professionals (those who have background knowledge and have authority) and medical library workforce (those who have to search by their profession and have some degree of authority)?
  
• 53% says what they found on the Internet had some sort of impact, especially those who had received a serious diagnosis or experienced a health crisis.
• More than 50% felt reassured, confident, relieved, comforted, and eager to share information they found; some (about 20%) still felt overwhelmed, frustrated, confused, and frightened with that they found online.
• Less-educated Americans are less likely to look online for health information and less likely to check the quality of information.
• Health seekers’ success may bolster their sense of confidence about what they find online.
  Note: I’m not quite sure what do they mean by “success”. Is it just success of searching? How about success of treatment based on what they found online.? If it is just about search success/satisfaction, that could be scary. Then the study of how people make relevance judgment of online health information would be necessary.

Here comes the most interesting part:

• about one-quarter consistently check the source and date of information they found.
• The report cited Healthy People 2010 project which found that…

Of the 102 websites reviewed for the report, none met all six of the disclosure criteria and only six complied with more than three criteria. Just 4% of “frequently visited” health websites disclosed the source of the information on their pages and 2% disclosed how the content is updated. Less-popular health sites fared even worse: 0.3% of these sites listed their content’s source and only 0.1% disclosed how the content is updated.

• They also referred to September 2006 Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive online survey indicating that people check food label more often (about 34% says they check “very often”) than checking source and date of online information.

It seems likely that people pretty much trust online health information regardless of the quality of information. Hopefully those, who don’t care much about the quality of information, brought up what they found to their doctors (about 50% seems to do so) or share with their peers.

[PDF for the full report]

Neutral Look To Be Official

In addition to fingerprint, traveler’s photo is also important for identification. For verification, only human is the most reliable I guess. However, governments looks like trusting computer systems rather than human due to transparency and financial affordability.

Reliability is the major concern for the electronic verification. Hence, the British government recently bans happy face on passport photos.

“[t]oothy, open mouthed grins are being outlawed from the tiny 35mm by 45mm photographs because they will throw off scanners used at airports“, according to BBC.

The facial recognition will counter the problem with open-mouth photo! Therefore, they need a neutral look which could be plotted on scale as the rule says “photographs must show no shadows: your face looking straight at the camera, a neutral expression, with your mouth closed.” So what is it actually, a neutral face? Isn’t it that kind of face we usually do when we do official photo?

Talking about taking official photos, not limited to passport ID, I am sure that you all have more or less memory about it.

Social Capital and Halloween

One of the questions may be used to measure social capital of the kids on the halloween night is “if you were given lots of candy, who would you share your candy to?” The fun facts provided by National Confectioners Association give the answer that for kids ages 6-11 year olds, they would…

• Share some with their family, 66 percent
• Share the candy with their friends, 64 percent
• Give some to their teacher, 26 percent
• Keep it all for themselves, 7 percent
• Don’t know what they would do, 2 percent

Interestingly enough, although 66 percent of kids in the States would like to share their candies to their family, ninety (90%) percent of parents admit to sneaking goodies from their kids’ Halloween trick-or-treat bags.

[Via Reuters and Hamption Union Community News]

Beauty and Professors

The reliability of teaching evaluation has been investigated for a number of years. Researchers have been trying to find out the factors related to the teaching evaluation results. One of those factors includes “attractiveness“.

The article in Journal of General Psychology published in January this year (2006 – Vol. 133, No.1, p. 19-35) written by four professors at Medaille College (led by professor Riniolo) uses ratemyprofessor.com to justify the relationship between hotness and teaching evaluation results. By collecting data from four Universities, including Grand Valley State University, University of Delaware, San Diego State University, James Madison University (the selection was based on the number of rates), they found positive relationship that means the hotter professor, the higher evaluation scores. However, they admit that “[a]lthough this study has all the limitations of naturalistic research, it adds a study with ecological validity to the limited literature.“

The article in Guardian also refers to another study done by Hamermesh and Parker (from UT-Austin) published in Economics of Education Review. (Note: Interestingly, they asked only six (6) students.)

Hamermesh and Parker saw a pattern in the two sets of ratings. The more beautiful the professor, the higher the teaching-quality ratings. Especially the men. Hot men drew higher teaching-quality ratings than did hot women; ugly men drew lower teaching-quality ratings than did ugly women. The report offers no explanation for this male/female disparity.

Internet Addiction Disorders

A study done by researchers at Stanford’s Medical School found that “more than one in eight US residents show signs of ‘problematic internet use.’” The data was collected from 2,513 adults around the US by using telephone survey.

5.9% felt their relationships suffered as a result of excessive Internet use;
8.7% attempted to conceal non-essential Internet use;
3.7% felt preoccupied by the Internet when offline;
13.7% found it hard to stay away from the Internet for several days at a time;
8.2% utilized the Internet as a way to escape problems or relieve negative mood;
12.3% had tried to cut back on Internet use, of whom 93.8% were successful; and,
12.4% stayed online longer than intended very often or often.

After calculating conditional probabilities, preoccupation when offline looks scariest because it is highly associated with other matters. Just for fun, I played with those figures (in Table 2 of the paper) by calculating the average (in parentheses) of these conditional probabilities of each behavior (a chance of people who have one behavior to have another one as well) and ordering them. I think the relationship might somehow tell the order of severity of each category, although it is not necessarily the case.

1. Preoccupied when offline (0.38)
2. Online longer than intended VERY often (0.35)
3. Relationship suffer (0.26)
4. Used to escape (0.24)
5. Tried to cut back (0.23)
6. Conceal use (0.22)
7. Online longer than intended often (0.18)

However, the article in New Scientist point out that the most concern by this research team is hiding internet use which “mirrors the way alcoholics behave”. Then my further question is hiding the use from whom? and when do they usually hide? and why they hide? I think these questions are also interesting to follow up.

“The issue is starting to be recognised as a legitimate object of clinical attention, as well as an economic problem, given that a great deal of non-essential internet use takes place at work,” Aboujaoude says

I think this type of research is very helpful to supplement such a controversial argument whether or not the Internet has effects to individual and social life in terms of clinical and psychological aspects. At the end of the paper, it also points out the important of sociocultural factors.

Sociocultural factors warrant exploration. Social isolation and the desire for connectedness, the thrill and freedom brought on by online anonymity, and the extreme, unregulated, advertising tools used to lure individuals to Internet venues all likely play a role in promoting problematic Internet use and, as such, deserve attention. (Aboujaoude, 2006)

Also the reference of the paper looks like a very interesting list to follow.

[via New Scientist]

Do we need participation equality in online community?

Jakob Nielsen, one of the web usability experts, wrote in his online newsletter, Alertbox, about online community participation.

User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:

90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don’t contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don’t have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they’re commenting on occurs.

He has some figures to show as evidence, especially on hyperactive users. He also gives some suggestion to better “equalize” it, although there is no way to absolutely overcome as he said.

The question I have for after reading this article is who actually are those “lurkers” in social networking and blogosphere? I think there should be any other things that need to be point out than four types of lurkers listed in Wikipedia which is pretty much based on webboard and chat room users. Also it should be interesting to follow what they do after reading blogs. There might be some hidden actions going on locally. I think those characteristics of these people could lead to the answer why they don’t want to participate?

It is also quite fascinating to me when looking at the group of people in society in hierarchy. First we look at computer owners vs. non-owners, going down to internet users vs. non-users (and could be further down to broadband subscribers vs. non-subscribers). Within the internet user group, we also have active users vs. lurkers. It seems like ever-ending hierarchy.

Talking about hierarchy, I also have a question on what level participation do we have in blogosphere? (searching, reading (critical reading, skim, scan), annotate in a physical book, commenting, tagging, bookmarking, blogging or writing about it somewhere online, forwarding or sharing to friends, etc.) and for social networking like facebook and MySpace? (searching, reading a profile, creating a profile, add someone as friend/acquaint, using features e.g. event and flyer, etc.) And at what level can we call “active” participation in social networking to make it “equally participation”?

Unskilled and Unaware of Information Competency

I had a chance to read a psychology study published in 1999 done by Justin Kruger and David Dunning. The paper won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000, entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments“. Here is what the abstract says.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability.

I think this is a very great exploratory study. It is fascinating to see how people think that we are “above average”. Anyway, I still have a question whether culture has some effects on the finding. I would like to see the replication of this study on other area of the world, especially in Asia where the traditional humbleness highly controls over “self-confidence”. It may also depend on tasks, goals, experiences, and such.

Thinking about information and library science, this study has some extent that could be utilized and led some discussions in ILS area.

1. One of the questions mentioned in the paper is when (and how) do people realize they are unskilled? I think this is a good beginning point of tracking down to the cause of many problems mostly in information literacy area. We might be benefit from the discovery of this type of study. Many people might realize cognitively when they interact with fellows, objects or systems. It could be either passive or active process.
2. On the contrary and further thought, I think about people who are overly humble or have less self-efficacy. The paper also proves that those “in the top quartile tend to underestimate their ability and test performance relative to their peers” (p.1131) which can be explained by a “false consensus effect” (When you did well, you think others did well too). There are many people walking to the library to ask librarians just for making sure whether or not what they have done is appropriate. Again such a question as “when (and how) do people realize they are information skilled?” also need some attention too. The applicability of this type of research can also contribute to information literacy. It could also contribute to human-information interaction area; for example, help system design, system guidance, etc.
3. One of the most interesting parts (for me) is about the “above-average effect” where one believes that s/he is above average. The paper provides nice examples including business managers tend to think they are more than just typical managers or football players think they are savvier in “football sense” than other teammates. Is it the case of librarians? Do they think they are more able to perform searching than their fellows? The “Incompetence and the Failure of Feedback” has excellent explanation about the issue of “failure” which, I think, can be used to investigate search failure, including:
   • people seldom receive negative feedback,
   • “some tasks and settings preclude people from receiving self-correcting information”,
   • people still need to accurately understand why that failure occurred, even if they got negative feedback, (I personally like that explanation that sometimes you need luck.), and
   • “incompetent individuals may be unable to take full advantage of one particular kind of feedback: social comparison.”
4. The challenge if one would conduct the replication in ILS is the measurement, since in many cases, the term “success” cannot be scientifically justified. The success of information retrieval/discovery is quite subjective based on personal satisfaction of having enough relevant information in the proper period of time. Sometimes, the answer is not dichotomous whether is yes or no and right or wrong. By having no measurement, it makes life a bit harder to make a comparison between perceived and actual performance.
5. One of the things that I learn the most out of this paper is the concern about reliability of self-evaluation studies. I never realized that I need to be careful when I am reading those papers that involve self-evaluation as a single method.

It seems like I have a nice frame here. But wait! Am I overly optimistic and holding miscalibrated views? I guess so. :)

[via Improbable Research]

Seeking Information in a Critical Situation: 2006 Thailand coup d’état

After I enjoyed having lunch with my doctoral fellows on Franklin Street, I got a note from a news reporter to contact him back about the attempted coup in Thailand. I was quite shocked because the fact that the group leader was interviewed and told that they would not do this. But they broke their words. Well I am not going to talk about what it is actually going on there politically. But I think it would be important for me to record what happen to me in terms of experience on information seeking and communication aspects. I would think we, as information professional, might learn something from this situation especially the understanding of how people cope with their information needs in a critical incident.

Instant Reaction

Instead of calling the reporter back right away, I turned on the computer and checked on a couple of Thai national newspaper website at least to verify whether his statement was true or not. However, it took a while for the pages to show up. Also they looked malfunctioned. Some of them were even offline. I guessed there would be enormous access at that period of time. So my first attempt to get the information was to answer “true” or “false”. No detail was gathered at that point.

Meanwhile, I signed on my Microsoft Live messenger (or MSN messenger). A bunch (about 10 people) of people in Thailand sent me notes right after I signed on asking me if I heard the news. The message alerts kept annoying my colleagues in the office then I decided to turn the sound off.

My friends asked me if I could watch the CNN, BBC or any international news agency whether TV or radio. They told me that all national television channels have been controlled by those who called themselves “the reform group”. They asked me if I see the tank. So I was really surprised and began panic after realizing that all Thai people cannot access other news sources except the ones controlled by the council. All international television channels were terminated. Only national televisions were running for announcements. The announcements were the only information sources they got at the moment.

A number of friends formed group chats discussing about the issues and kept updating the situations. We were sharing and verifying the news that we got. There were a lot of rumors throwing out into the group. What we all do were checking where the rumors from. For example, we got the rumor about who took control, who will be the next prime minister, the communication that would be cut off since the coup d’état group will take control of the Communication Authority of Thailand (CAT). I believe that the rumors sent from one-to-one connection rather than mass communication.

Then I decided to check out international media websites like CNN and BBC. There I could see the video and read the whole story. I tried not to get the news from any national news websites since the political turmoil, been in this country for a while, made me curious about their standing points whether they are English or Thai newspapers. Therefore, I decided to use the international agencies because they seems to be more neutral and off the issues. (Note: The political tension against Thaksin involved a lot of media engagement. A number of leaders of the mob are from media agencies.)

This was also the case when the coup happened in 1992. The only source of information at that time was BBC news radio (Thai Language). The station was based in London. People would like to know what was going on from the sources that were available and trustworthy. Since then the situation made hero, BBC news radio (Thai) became one of most favorite and reliable radio station. Unfortunately, last year BBC HQ decided to shut off the BBC Thai station due to financial constraint. There were a lot of calls to reconsider the decision from the audiences. However, they did not make it through. I wonder if today the station still operated, it would have been once again the most heroic situation for the station. Anyway, when people do not have any other choice, we had to find the way out… but how?

Among a number of instant messenger windows, there had been a rumor along the discussion that all communication channels, Internet and telephone, which mainly controlled by Communications Authority of Thailand (CAT) would be shut down for a while. At the same time, a friend of mine in Chapel Hill told me that he tried to call his girlfriend in Thailand. The phone call was cut off. I felt overwhelmed by the information and was kind of worried that I would not be able to connect to my family and friends in Thailand. The only way to prove the rumor was to call my mom.

I called my mom. It worked very well. My mom did not sound panic at all. It seemed like she heard and prepared for the rumor of coup before as well as other people I read on BBC opinion section. (I supposed those are people who are against Thaksin) During the talk, the announcement was coming up. My mom put the phone near the TV set so I could hear the announcement. I hardly heard what it said but at least I felt involved in the event. She told me that she was able to call my brother and my aunt who live in Bangkok. The network was not that bad. Then I was relieved emotionally. I figured it out myself that because there would be enormous connection. That was the reason people would have fail connection. Anyway, I still needed to keep watching if all the communication channels were going to cut off as the rumor said.

Gathering Information

The phenomenon was interesting to reveal the social capitol. I was fascinated by how the groups were formed via instant messenger. Microsoft Live Messenger (or MSN Messenger) is the most popular tool among my Thai community. I got involved into two groups without asking for their permissions. They dragged me in because they wanted me to report as an “outsider”. This reminds me of Chatman’s theory of live in a round. My friends’ and family’s world at the moment were restricted. Unfortunately, I could not access any media in my office except the Internet by that time. I believe if at that time I was able to connect to other live media, I could have been one of the trustworthiest sources among my friends.

There were actually two IM groups on my desktop. One group included my friend in college whom I know and have their contacts on my list. The other group people were those whom I know from my previous work and those whom do not know but they are friends of mine now. Also I got IM messages from other individuals on my list as well including those whom I rarely talked to. I could also have merged this two group together. But I did not because I thought it might be explosion of information for all. The conversations went very fast. I could not keep track both of them. I had to decide which is the main one and then I let the other going on and read the discussion later. As we can see, this situation brought people together to perform “collaborative information seeking” task.

Another source of information that I usually use to update what is going on in Thailand is the most popular and largest national online community named “pantip.com“. Not just the news from the mainstream medias, you can also get the behind-the-scene. There are a number of rooms in the webboard, including, for example, seeking relationships (Siam Square), Entertainment (Chalermthai), and Thais in oversea (Klaiban). One of the most active rooms is obviously political room (Rajdumnern). I checked the Rajdumnern room first. The room was closed (until the time I am writing this post) because they said they cannot control the post. They also asked for attention not to create politic-related posts in other rooms.

However, it is hard to control the enormous waves of thoughts. I went to Chalermthai, the entertainment room. It is hard to control people not to talk anything about their experiences, especially on how they could not get access to mainstream media, e.g. “bring CNN BBC Bloomberg back” (This post may not be stay much longer after this post). Also there have been questions regarding the temporary termination of their usual and special entertainment activities since the group declared today (September 20, Thailand Time) as a holiday for government offices and banks. Also there are a couple of posts calling for respecting the norms of not talking about the politics.

However, at the time, I looked at Chalermthai recently. There were less than 100 posts since the first post about the emergency call by Thaksin (about 10pm on September 19). I actually expected more posts though. However, since the administrator asked for cooperation, I figured that might be the reason that there were less posts than I thought. Among that posts, there were a few posts that do not related to the turmoil.

In Klaiban, Thais in oversea room, there were less than 20 discussions about the situation, at the time of writing. Again, I thought this would be a good spot for people outside to update and share their information they got. It turned out not as I expected, anyway.

Social Networking

When I looked at international mainstream media websites such as BBC and CNN. On their websites, there was options where local people could report what was going on there (e.g. CNN i-report and BBC’s Eyewitnesses: Bangkok turmoil. Although one would imagine and wonder about the filter process, they were ones of the sources that people could collaboratively build the picture about the situation. Actually there seems to be more posts saying that the situation was calm and quiet there. But most of the “identity” on that website seems to be mostly from English-speaking person which frankly I trusted less than the words from Thai people. Anyway, those words made me feel more comfortable with the situation there.

Wikipedia is one of the most updated places. There is a topic called “2006 Thailand coup d’état“. A lot of people have been active in writing the topic. The item has been evolved as time goes by. It is actually interesting that these people do not write only the encyclopedia record, but also the history of the country and the world. However, as the classic enquiry about Wikipedia, it would be nice to know who those people are….

Blog is another space where the update could be harvest. In my blogroll, I have not seen any post regarding to the situation until an hour after the announcement. There is a Thai blog called “revolution” mainly summarizing and citing the news from different mainstream sources. Also 19sep is an English blog updating news from various sources. However, There are not many other blogs I could think or link to. Therefore, I went to Technorati to check English blog. Not surprisingly, “Thailand” and “Bangkok” were among the top search terms, although the first result from “Thailand” search was Lesbian Strippers Sex Games (-_-”).

In addition to keep watching CNN on TV, I also keep refreshing Google news to see the latest news. However, I did not read every single piece. Instead I read only the headlines and the excerpts. Until I found any piece new, I then click to read more detail.

As the time I am writing this post, I keep CNN international on and updating the news to them. I still got IM from Thai folks. I hope the situation will return to normal soon.

In such a critical situation like coup d’état, the world of insider was restricted. However, accessing information is the only one way to cope with people’s stress, uncertainty, and confusion. Only a single official source did not serve those hungers of information. The Internet, especially through social networking tools, has shown its power as the major communication channel to fulfill people’s information need in this critical situation.

Note:

Is it coup d’état of 21st century?

I guess not. Just a couple of minutes ago (as the time of writing), the group leader appeared on national televisions announcing the intentions and his actions. After the announcement, there was an ads saying “This year, there will be just good stories in Thailand”. Is not it the propaganda used in the ancient time? I cannot believe it is still there.

Well overall I blame Talk Like A Pirate Day for igniting the situation. (-_-”)

Me and My Antennas: A Validation of Information Needs

I first read Wiegand’s Mom and Me article published in 1998 a couple of years ago when I was taking “Understanding of Information” at Pitt. I had a chance to read it again for the User Perspectives class recently. The article raised a case where the author as a son helped his mom to buy a car. Although he had gone through all kind of research process, his mom seems neglected the information gained from “should-do” or “best practice” process.

Personal Information Economy of Mom and Me?
Professor Wiegand refers to personal information economy as the way the people value information differently. However, this might not be a case if he realized that his mom already made up her mind for whatever reason. In that case, the issue might fall into communication component rather than the personal information economy. As in library perspective, it could be compared to reference interview. One this that he may need to know is his mom wanted to buy a specific brand name car from a specific dealer rather than wanted to buy a car. Well if his mom wanted a specific car, why did she ask him to help her then?

As he stated when he told his mom that we would bring her to a public library to check out consumer report. She agreed but “seems confused“. Yes, she maybe confused whether she should be consulted by consumer report. Or she maybe confused that why he has to go to public library to get a consumer report. Or the confusion may come from the uncertainly of getting the one in her mind. But… what was it exactly her confusion? and what exactly in her mind?

Maybe she just wanted someone to validate her decision making. In this case, she already made decision and that car was the only one choice in her mind. She might just want him to go help for helping in negotiation and collect information just for that specific car with that specific dealer. As we all know, two is more powerful than one in doing both activities… So maybe he was just a source of validation of his mom’s decision.

Sense Making of Statistical Information

It is interesting to see how statisticians and researchers make sense of the data they collected and analyzed. From today’s statistics class, I made two major points in my notebook.

Firstly, a part of the discussion is about whether Likert scale should be treated as ordinal or interval/ratio scale. Likert scale is intended to measure people attitude ranging from negative to positive attitudes. The degree of agreement is given numeric value for scale. It can be 5, 7, or 10 point scale. Most of the papers I have gone through so far treat those scale as interval/ratio. The obvious practice is they seek the central tendency by mean (average). Then some of them imply the numeric value back to the meaning. For instance, in 5 point likert scale (from 1-most unsatisfied to 5-most satisfied), the average of the response is 2.5326. I am not sure you can imply that it should fall in to just “satisfied” or “neutral”.

For me, it is hard to say because the distance between degrees is hard to be justified and given the meaning, although there is a choice to add granularity of the scale to 10. I still think there is limitation in that scale.

Also, I think it might be interesting to see the reliability testing of the scale. Although the explanation is given to each degree in the instrument, it is hard to say that my “4 rate” is equal to other people’s “4 rate”. Anyway, the scale range might help a lot in this case.

Another interesting point to me, as it is still the unanswered question to me, is about how people make sense of decimal digits. How people decide how many digits they want? When they will and will not use it, whether intentionally or unintentionally? What criterias (variables) involved to define the context of use? For example, you go to the supermarket and you found the number “$54.99″ on the price tag. The decimal digits would help you to think that it is nearly $55. However, it might be worthless to specify the decimal place when someone asked you the price of the product you bought for a fun talk. I wonder too that, in relation to the fractions of the amount of money, people who strick their financial activities would be more serious with decimal than others. Anyway, that is just my assumption. We might be able to use basic communication model to capture the elements roughly which may include background, time, location and such.