A Cross-cultural Study of the Paradoxes of Mobile Technology A Preliminary Finding from Taiwanese and British Focus Groups

Transcription

1 A Cross-cultural Study of the Paradoxes of Mobile Technology A Preliminary Finding from Taiwanese and British Focus Groups 1. Introduction Mobile phones are not new in the market for mobile technology, but they have been a profitable and highly competitive product since the 1990s. People s demand on mobility has urged the development of more advanced technologies, enabling communication to become ubiquitous anytime and anywhere. Mobile phones particularly, are the major player in mobile technology market despite the economic recession (EDN magazine, 2005). The mobile phone market is predicted to have a continuously growth in an emerging and growth market. Paradoxes of Technology - a study shows the contradictory impacts on people from using technological products, was first introduced by Mick and Fournier (1998 p.56). The research has been extended to a mobile technology context, and a set of eight paradoxes is identified by Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005). By understanding the paradoxical impacts from mobile phone users with both benefits and consequences, Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005) have provided a sound finding in knowing different experiences consumers have encountered. Research in trying to understand the paradoxical impacts from using mobile technology, e.g. in consumer behaviour context (e.g. Arnold, 2003) and in organisational behaviour context (e.g.middleton, 2007; Middleton & Cukier, 2006) - is limited in number and context. Nickerson and his colleagues (2008) have conducted a multi-national research, and pointed out the social settings and the countries the users are located influence how consumers perceive the impact on mobile phone usage. However, there should be some underpinning characteristics of people from different nations that make the difference, and it is worth a further investigation. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to extend Jarvenpaa and Lang s (2005) research in paradoxes of mobile technology into a cross-cultural study, by testing if cultural characteristics influence people s perceptions in paradoxical impacts. The current research also tries to echo Mick and Fournier s (1998) call in the extension of studying the paradox construct in a quantitative, and cross-cultural context. The research design in data collection contains two stages the first stage is to conduct focus groups for testing Jarvenpaa and Lang s (2005) eight paradoxes of mobile technology and to inform the questionnaire, which is the second stage of data collection for cultural comparison. The first stage of data collection has completed, and few focus groups have been conducted in two countries Taiwan and UK. The present paper is to present the findings of the focus group results, which are beyond the original purposes of collecting the qualitative data. The paper is structured as follows firstly, the extant literature related to this research is presented as the background of the research. Secondly, the research methods are delineated. Thirdly, the findings of the focus group results are presented, and finally, the implications and limitations from the results of this stage of the research are addressed. 1. Theoretical Background 2.1 Paradoxes of Mobile Technology 1

2 Paradoxes of Technology was first introduced by Mick and Fournier (1998), who were aware of the importance of a post-adoption behaviour in the use of technological products. The post-adoption behaviour is about knowing what consumers real feelings after purchasing/ using products, because consumers experiences of using products affects their product / service evaluation and influences their next purchase (Schiffman, Hansen, & Kanuk, 2008), and possibly influences other people s purchasing through word-of-mouth (Jiang, 2009). The concept of a paradox is defined by Handy (1994, p.56):.many things contain its own contradiction, many good intentions have unintended consequences. How people interact with technology has been the topic of various consumer behaviour studies, but they are still limited in number and focus (Mick & Fournier, 1998). The majority of studies in consumer behaviour in technological products have focused mainly on who and why people adopt / accept technology and the factors that influence acceptance/adoption and the rate of diffusion (Rogers, 2003). Mick and Fournier (1998) found that the post-adoption behaviour of technological products was largely overlooked, hence their research in this context, and a significant outcome is a set of eight paradoxes of technology and their coping strategies. Jarvenpaa and Lang (2005) applied this paradox construct to mobile technology, taking mobile phones as a proxy, and the result has largely supported Mick and Fournier s (1998) research. The paradoxes of mobile technology from (Jarvenppa and Lang, 2005) are: 1. empowerment vs. enslavement, 2. independence vs. dependence, 3. fulfils needs vs. creates needs, 4. competence vs. incompetence, 5. planning vs. improvisation, 6. engaging vs. disengaging, 7. public vs. private, and 8. illusion vs. disillusion. As an example to illustrate one of the paradoxes, take empowerment vs. enslavement mobile technology empowers consumers to be able to connect to others 24/7, but, at the same time, consumers are expected to be reached 24/7, which prevents users from creating and maintaining distance from others (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005). It seems like mobile technology forces consumers to interact with other people through the devices, hence people have feelings of enslavement. The current research aims at understanding if consumers perceptions towards the paradoxical impact are influenced by their cultural background, which is discussed below. 2.2 Cultural Dimensions Hofstede's (1991, 2001) cultural studies demonstrate that national and regional culture influences people s behaviour. He concluded and developed a framework consisting of five cultural dimensions (later expanded to six dimensions) (low/high) power distance, individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long / short term orientation, and the newly derived dimension from Hofstede et al s (2010) latest work - the sixth dimension - is called indulgence vs. restraint. The current study will not include all dimensions, as not all of them would have influence on people s perceptions of paradoxical impacts when using mobile phones. The following three dimensions are considered as the most likely ones: individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, as they are suggested to have influence on consumer behaviour in technological products (e.g. Ishii & Wu, 2006; Park & Jun, 2003). And, the new dimension indulgence vs. restraint - relating to happiness and life control, is also considered to have influence on people s perceived paradoxes of using mobile phones. From Hofstede s studies, relatively Taiwan s culture is more collectivistic, feminine and restraint, so UK s culture is more individualistic, masculine and indulgent (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Hofstede et al, 2010). Several studies have adopted Hofstede s cultural dimensions theory and conducted the adoption/acceptance behaviour in technological products under a cross-cultural approach, such as Ishii and Wu (2006) and Su (2006). Ishii and Wu's (2006) research regarding Taiwan 2

3 (collectivistic culture) and Japan (individualistic culture) in the usage of mobile phones and the Internet has confirmed that national cultures influence communication behaviour. As to masculinity vs. femininity dimension, it is suggested that technologies have impacts on quality of life (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Zakour, 2004), which might be a factor to influence consumers perception on this particular research. Also, in order to explore more about the new dimension, which has not been studied widely, the current research will also include it, because indulgence vs. restraint dimension presumably would relate to the behaviour in using mobile technology as it relates to life control (Hofstede, et al., 2010), of which is one of the attributes that mobile technology possesses. 2. Research Methods The present research employs a survey strategy, and a questionnaire will be used as the main data collection instrument to collect quantitative data from the targeted two cultures Taiwanese and British. But before collecting data for culture comparison, focus groups are employed to make the present research more rigorous. Focus groups are good in gathering information, knowing how people feel and think for particular issues or topics (Krueger & Casey, 2009), and it can stimulate new ideas and concepts (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Therefore, focus groups are designed in the present research to serve for two purposes and one sub-purpose: 1. to test the theory of paradoxes of mobile technology, that if they exist in these two cultures; 2. to inform the questionnaire, by gathering statements/scenarios for the questionnaire questions. The sub-purpose is to find out if any new paradox emerges based on the qualitative data gathered in this research. Therefore, it can be summarised that the first stage of data collection, which is conducted by focus group interviews, is to test the paradoxes of mobile technology, and the second stage, of which the data are collected by a questionnaire, is to test if cultural characteristics influence how people perceive the paradoxes. As the main purposes of focus groups interviews are not trying to find out any different or new paradox from Jarvenppa and Lang s (2005) research, it was planned to have three groups from each countries. A total of five focus groups three groups in Taiwan with Taiwanese participants were conducted first, and then, two groups in the UK with British participants were conducted. Each group consists of 6 participants, who are between 16 and 60 years old, and have used mobile phones for a few years. The reason of having only two British groups is that the data have come to a saturation point where no different idea emerged out of the previous British group, and the three Taiwanese groups. The analysis is conducted based on pattern matching, a deductive approach of data analysis for qualitative data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). In order to perform pattern matching from the focus group data, the eight paradoxes have to be re-defined, as Jarvenppa and Lang did not define them clearly. So, the definitions of the eight paradoxes of mobile technology are the themes to be matched from the focus group data. 3. Focus Groups Findings The results of the analysis of the focus groups data confirm that the eight paradoxes of mobile technology all exist in Taiwan and UK, and no any new paradox emerged. Therefore, the focus groups have completed the tasks of testing and validating the theory, and informing the questionnaire. However, a finding has come to the researcher s attention, which is unexpected That is - although participants from both countries have proven the existing of the eight paradoxes, the paradoxes are perceived in different ways. A further analysis of the data has 3

4 drawn out the picture that the different perceptions from these two cultural groups relate to their own cultural dimensions, the most significant dimension is the individualism / collectivism one. There are eight paradoxes of mobile technology, but only few of them are perceived differently based on individualistic and collectivistic characteristics. They are delineated below. Empowerment/Enslavement Participants from both countries show that they are empowered and enslaved by mobile phones at the same time they both feel empowered by being able to reach out, to people they want to reach. But Taiwanese participants also perceive empowerment by being able to be reached, whereas British counterparts do not perceive; British participants feel enslaved by being asked to respond, whereas Taiwanese counterparts do not. This finding reflects to the findings from previous research that people in individualistic culture tend to look after themselves and their immediate families, and the ties between people are loose; whereas people in collectivistic culture tend to look after their in-groups, who are people integrated from birth onwards, in order to exchange loyalty (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Hofstede et al, 2010). It means that British people may only expect to do things for themselves and for a smaller group of people, whereas Taiwanese people may expect to take care of a larger group, which includes their families and people they consider as their in-groups. (I feel) really good because people can reach me whenever, wherever they are, and whenever and wherever I am Taiwanese participant A feels empowered by mobile phones...before, my friends complained that they couldn t find me, I could say I was not at home and didn t get the message. Now I don t have the excuse in not being informed, I always have to respond quickly, it s like a duty! - British participant B feels enslaved by mobile phones. Fulfils needs / Creates needs De Mooij s (1998) research suggests people in individualistic culture tend to be self-sufficient, they do not like to depend on others. This implies that they do not expect other to depend on them. This also reflects to previously mentioned that they expect to take care of themselves and their immediately families only (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Hofstede et al, 2010). Accordingly, they tend to like to think for themselves and do things in the way they prefer, they do not like to be forced to do things. A need is therefore created:..sometimes I really want to be in somewhere without good receptions/signals.i think we all need some time-off from the phone, well, from the people actually.. British participant C feels that she needs to get away with her mobile phone. Illusion / Disillusion ; Dependence/Independence People from individualistic culture are also considered to be more demanding on others than people in collectivistic culture (Furrer et al, 2000; Swanson et al 2011). Therefore, they tend to expect more on their friends that they should respond when they want to reach their friends. It s a default expectation if it is a mobile phone, people should have it by their sides, and they are ganna answer it! British participant E shows his expectation on people who have mobile phones (illusion/disillusion). 4

5 If you don t get your friends to reply your text messages, you feel annoyed British participant D feels annoyed by other s irresponsiveness (dependence/independence). 4. Conclusion The focus group interviews conducted in both UK and Taiwan have confirmed that the eight paradoxes of mobile technology found by Jarvenppa and Lang (2005) do exist in the two countries. The results from the focus groups conducted by the present research have provided a preliminary finding to show that cultural dimensions do influence how people perceived paradoxes. Although the main purpose of conducting focus groups in the present research is not to find out culture s influence on people s behaviour, it does initially support what the present research aims at finding out. Understanding people s perceptions of mobile phones not only helps mobile technology practitioners catch up with others or even step ahead and increase their market shares, it also helps to enrich marketing research. Understanding how people perceive the paradoxes of mobile technology provides a pathway for consumers and product/service providers product/service providers can provide what consumers like and avoid what they do not like. Furthermore, understanding how cultural characteristics influence people s perception in those paradoxes can help mobile technology global players better position their products and better communicate with their consumers. However, only 5 focus groups were conducted, the results so far may not strong enough to claim that culture does influence how people perceive paradoxes of mobile technology. In order to strengthen the findings, more focus groups in two countries should be conducted. As the present research aims at employing statistical analysis to conclude the final findings, this leaves a space for other researchers for further research. 5

6 Reference Arnold, M. (2003). On the phenomenology of technology: the "Janus-faces" of mobile phones. Information and Organization, 13(4), Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, organizations and society., 28(1), 1. Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between cultural and service quality perceptions: Basic for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), Handy, C. B. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind. London; New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's Consequences : Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations : Software of the Mind. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Ishii, K., & Wu, C.-I. (2006). A comparative study of media cultures among Taiwanese and Japanese youth. Telematics and Informatics, 23(2), Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. [Article]. Information Systems Management, 22, Jiang, P. (2009). Consumer Adoption of Mobile Internet Services: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(3), Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups : A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Los Angeles: SAGE. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. [Article]. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, Middleton, C. A. (2007). Illusions of balance and control in an always-on environment: A case study of BlackBerry users. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 21(2), Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), Nickerson, R. C., Isaac, H., & Mak, B. (2008). A multi-national study of attitudes about mobile phone use in social settings. [Article]. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6, Park, C., & Jun, J. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of Internet buying behavior. International Marketing Review, 20(5), 534?553. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Schiffman, L. G., Hansen, H., & Kanuk, L. L. (2008). Consumer Behaviour : a European Outlook. Harlow, England; Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups : Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. 6

7 Su, Q. Y. (2006). On the portability of technology across cultures: culture and technology adoption/use (CUTE) framework, analyzing the difference between mobile phone users in Beijing (China) and Portsmouth (UK). University of Portsmouth. Swanson, S. R et al. (2011). Private and public voice: exploring cultural influence: Managing Service Quality 21 (3), pp Zakour, A. B. (2004). Cultural differences and information technology acceptance. Paper presented at the Southern Association for Information systems, Savannah, Georgia, USA. 7