Communication Infrastructure and Urban Commons: Localized Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
Yong-Chan Kim & Ji Min Park
Urban Communication Lab
Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
5. The purpose of this study was (1) to
assess the experiences and intentions of
Seoul residents with regard to their
localized use of ICTs and (2) to identify
the factors in those experiences and
intentions.
6. Our research context
Cases of Localized information and
communication technologies (ICTs)
Communication infrastructure theory
Factors in localized use of ICTs for community
storytelling
Some thoughts about community storytelling
(through localized ICTs) as urban commons
I will talk about…
14. What factors have made these changes?
Political: “Maeul” community revitalization programs
led by the current mayor of Seoul, Won Soon Park
Social: resident-led grassroots movements and
activities
Technological: advancement of ICTs (Localized use of
ICTs)
23. Localized ICTs: Mobile Instant Messengers
- KakaoTalk Plus
Friend : City of Seoul
- Band:
- Yangchon Maeul-net
- Band:
- Dobong’s Police
Supporters
28. Different views have been competing to one
another providing different explanations about
the impacts of communication technologies on
urban communities.
30. “[T]hrough the automobile and improved roads,
rural social contacts have multiplied many fold,
and are based in increasing measure upon
age, sex, and common interests rather than
upon kinship and common residence, as was
formerly the case”
( Palo Alto Times in 1933) cited in Fischer, C. (1994). America
calling: A social history of telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press (p. 110)
33. “We found a few modest changes in
localism. The net trend was in the direction
of greater attention to the outside world. Yet,
rather than indicating a displacement of
local interest, these changes suggest a
simultaneous augmentation of local and
extralocal activities.”
Fischer, C. (1994). America calling: A social history of
telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press (pp. 220-221)
35. …differentiates local communities which have (or not have) a
communication infrastructure that can be activated to construct
community, thereby enabling collective actions for common purposes.
Communication Infrastructure Theory
36. a neighborhood storytelling network set
in its communication action context
What is a communication
infrastructure?
39. Community Effects of ICSN
Community
Media
Residents
Community
Organizations
+
+
+
Sense of Belonging
Collective efficacy
Community
participation
40. • New media technology must be part of the communication
infrastructure of a community to function as a facilitator of community
involvement (Hampton et al., 2011; Y. C. Kim, Jung, & Ball-Rokeach, 2007; Matei &
Ball-Rokeach, 2003)
• If new media technology does not work as part of the
communication infrastructure of a community, it can be a detracting
factor (Y. C. Kim,2012; Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2001)
• Whether new media technology will be incorporated into the
communication infrastructure of local civic engagement depends on
the existing quality and strength of the community storytelling
network (Chen, Dong,Ball-Rokeach, Parks, & Huang, 2012; Hayden & Ball-
Rokeach, 2007; Jung, Kim, Lin, & Cheong, 2005; Katz, Matsaganis, & Ball-Rokeach,
2012)
• At the individual level, the use of new media by residents will have
positive effects on local community engagement when the residents
have high-level ICSN (Jung, Toriumi, & Mizukosh, 2013; Katz, 2010; Y. C. Kim,
2003, 2012; W. Lin, Cheong, Kim, & Jung, 2010)
CIT’s propositions on:
communication technology and local community
41. The purpose of this study was (1) to
assess the experiences and intentions of
Seoul residents with regard to their
localized use of ICTs and (2) to identify
the factors in those experiences and
intentions.
42. • Theory of Planned Behavior
- Attitudes
- Subjective Norm
- Perceived Behavioral Control
• Communication Infrastructure Theory
- Integrated Connectedness to Storytelling Network (ICSN)
- Community Engagement
(Neighborhood Belonging, Community Cohesion,
Informal Social Control, Community Activities Participation)
Factors affecting Localized ICT uses
43. • Online Survey data collected in August, 2013
• Quota sampling: considering gender, age group
(from 20s to 50s) and city district (25)
• Sample Size: 901 smartphone owners
Data collection
46. Factors in having used localized ICTs
• Attitude: significant (+) for all ICTs
• Subjective Norm: significant (+) on FBs, online cafés,
online News, online video services
• Perceived Behavioral Control: non-significant for all ICTs
• ICSN: significant (+) on all ICTs
• Neighborhood Belonging: non-significant for all ICTs
• Community Cohesion: non-significant for all ICTs
• Informal Social Control: non-significant for all ICTs
• Participation in Community Activities: significant (+) for
all ICTs (except online cafés, online news, podcasts)
※ Analyses Hierarchical OLS Regression Analysis
47. Factors in having intention to use localized ICTs (non-localized
ICT users)
※ Analyses Hierarchical OLS Regression Analysis
Attitude: significant (+) for all ICTs
Subjective Norm: significant (+) for all ICTs (except for
podcast and online video services)
Perceived Behavioral Control: non-significant for all
ICTs
ICSN : significant (+) for all ICTs
Neighborhood Belonging: non-significant for all ICTs
Community Cohesion: significant (+) for podcasts
Informal Social Control: significant (+) for blogs,
Websites, online cafes, and online video services
Participation in Community Activities: non-
significant for all ICTs
48. What these results imply:
1. ICTs have a potential to facilitate
neighborhood engagements
54% of respondents have either experience
or intention to use localized websites.
2. ICSN are positively related to both intention
and experiences of all channels of localized ICTs
There is a need for strong community-level
communication infrastructures to enable the
ICTs fortify local neighborhoods