Download Problematizing “New Media”: Culturally Based Perceptions of Cell

Critical Studies in Media Communication
Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 160–179
Problematizing “New Media”: Culturally
Based Perceptions of Cell Phones,
Computers, and the Internet among
United States Latinos
Paul M. Leonardi
䊐 – Recent studies of new communication technologies have shown that broad terms such as
“new media” are problematic. This study expands previous research by exploring how
first-generation, working class United States Latino participants perceive and use new
communication technologies in relation to their cultural values. Discussions generated across
seven focus group sessions (N ⫽ 78) about three common new communication technologies, 1)
cell phones, 2) computers, and 3) the internet, showed that United States Latinos positioned
the perceived usefulness of each communication technology differently, based upon their cultural
values regarding good communication. In particular, participants discussed how cell phones
provide an effective way to make interpersonal contact whereas computers and the internet were
viewed as damaging to the communication necessary for good social relations. The findings show
that this group of United States Latinos did not view new media as a homogeneous category,
but instead had very distinct perceptions and ideas about the expected uses of cell phones,
computers, and the internet in relation to their cultural values regarding communication.
T
echnologies that enhance daily
communication practices, including cellular phones, video conferencing, text messaging, computers,
personal digital assistants, and the inPaul Leonardi is a graduate student in the
Department of Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder. A previous version of this paper
received a Top 5 Student Paper Award from the
Human Communication and Technology Commission at the 2002 National Communication
Association annual conference, New Orleans, LA.
I wish to thank Karen Tracy, Michele Jackson,
and Larry Frey for their review of earlier versions
of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to Paul Leonardi,
Department of Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 270, Boulder,
CO 80309-0270 ([email protected])
ternet, are often grouped together
under headings such as “new
media,” “information and communication technologies” (ICTs), or
“communication media.” The tendency broadly to classify distinct communication technologies under an
umbrella term has recently been challenged by communication scholars
who argue that each technology is fundamentally different in the way it is
socially constructed by its users (Edge,
1995; Jackson, 1996; Starbuck, 1996).
In spite of such protest, broad categorization continues in daily discourse
about new communication technologies, as well as in scholarly research
(Hokanson & Hooper, 2000; Morris &
Naughton, 1999).
Copyright 2003, National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/0739318032000095668
161
CSMC
The problem with grouping distinct
technologies together is not so much
one of naming, but rather the ease
with which we do it. Led by advertising and marketing efforts directed at
convincing consumers that new media
unilaterally improve communication,
we often unproblematically homogenize technologies even though they
support many different uses (Barnett,
1997; Radovan, 2001). As students of
communication we broadly categorize
in our research when we study usage
of one specific technology and impose
our findings on other similar technologies. One possible way to combat this
tendency is to problematize technology by examining how communication
practices shape uses of it. The purpose
of this essay is to do just that. As
students of communication we would
intuit that one can distinguish one
technology from another by the communication practices we use when engaging them. Recognizing that
technologies are always understood in
cultural contexts (Leonardi, 2002),
perhaps looking at communication as
it socially constructs technology in an
under-studied culture may help us to
see just how problematic it is to group
disparate technologies together.
Therefore, this study examines how
the communication practices of
United States Latinos help to distinguish among three distinct technologies: cell phones, computers, and
the internet.
A number of scholars (Marin,
Gamba, & Marin, 1992; Martin,
Hammer, & Bradford, 1994; SuberviVélez, 1999) have issued a call to arms
to those in the field of communication
to study Latino communication patterns; although Latinos comprise one
of the two largest minority groups in
the United States, there has been little
study of their reactions to new com-
LEONARDI
munication technologies. With this in
mind, this essay has two goals. The
first is to problematize our discourse
about technology by taking communication practices seriously. The second
is to examine the uses and perceptions
of technology in a cultural group
largely under-represented in communication technology scholarship.
I begin by drawing upon two bodies
of literature to provide a theoretical
basis for this investigation. The first
looks at communication technologies
as social constructions in which social
practices and communication norms
play a key role in determining the use
and structure of the technology. The
second examines the collectivist cultural practices of communication generally representative of working class
United States Latinos.
Technology and Socially
Constructed Use
As social constructionist ideas are
appropriated by students of communication technology, researchers have
begun to show how behavioral patterns regarding technology are shared
among members of a culture. From a
communication perspective, thinking
about technology in this sense provides
a way to place communication in a
position of importance rather than regarding it as ancillary to and shaped
by technology. Decentering technology at the interactional site allows it to
be reconstructed as a social practice
wherein technologies are posited as social entities. Taking seriously the communication practices that help to
construct certain technologies, Jackson, Poole, and Kuhn (2002) encourage the promotion of communication
as an “object of interest itself, rather
than keying only to characteristics of
162
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
communication that seem derivable
from technology” (p. 237). Hence,
communication should be the focal
point of all study of the interaction
with communication technology (Fulk,
1993).
An adaptive structuration approach
(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Poole &
DeSanctis, 1990) to the social construction of technology attempts to
position technology as interactionally
constructed through interplay with
various groups. Central to this idea is
the argument that the communication
acts engendered by a given technology
are highly unpredictable. The frequent
occurrence of unanticipated uses of
communication technologies (Rogers,
1995; Scott, Quinn, Timmerman, &
Garrett, 1998) suggests that technology use is often influenced by social
practices. Not only do groups construct peoples’ meaning of technology,
but they also continually define and
reposition it throughout changing contexts (Barley, 1986, 1990). Social constructionist thinking extends past the
mere implications of technological implementation to elucidate an understanding of how social interaction with
technology constructs perceptions of
the important functions of a given
technology. The social influence
model of technology use (Fulk,
Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1990;
Fulk & Boyd, 1991) proposes that the
communicative framework behind media perception accounts for the effect
of information on group perceptions
and attitudes toward technology,
resulting in the adaptation of communication task requirements and
communication technology use and
behavior (Fulk et al., 1990).
Extending these premises to cultural
analyses, Widman, Jasko, and Pilotta
(1988) argue that no technology inherently makes sense for a given cultural
JUNE 2003
system and, therefore, a technology’s
sociocultural fit should be examined.
In short, varying social communication practices warrant different technological usage. What the extant
literature has failed to examine, however, are the cultural elements in communication practices that are often at
odds with the use of particular technologies. To understand and refocus
on the importance of such thinking, it
is crucial to pay particular attention to
the cultural communication practices
of those who use new communication
technologies.
Latino Culture
United States Latinos come from
diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and
ethnic backgrounds. Although the cultural characteristics of each Latin
American country are distinct, many
scholars suggest that communication
practices among individuals from various Latin American countries feature
some substantive similarities, and that
they become increasingly similar when
those individuals immigrate to the
United States (Gracia, 2000; Morales,
2002; Ramos, 2002). When attempting
to understand the cultural practices
of United States Latinos, scholars
have long turned to the individualism–
collectivism distinction, the major dimension of cultural variability
identified by theorists (Gudykunst &
Ting-Toomey, 1988). Briefly defined,
individualism is characterized by an
emotional independence from certain
groups and organizations to which one
might belong, whereas collectivism is
related to solidarity and integration
with others, placing the needs of the
in-group over the needs of the self.
Although United States Latino culture is generally viewed as a collectivist
163
CSMC
culture (Marin & Triandis, 1985;
Shkodriani & Gibbons, 1995), collectivism for United States Latinos in particular takes on certain special
characteristics affected largely by cultural heritage and history. In Latino
culture, pride is a defining characteristic (Gracia, 2000; Morales, 2002).
Due to a long history of conquest and
diaspora, Latinos have developed a
sense of pride, or orgullo, for the accomplishments of their people. Moreover, because Latino culture has long
been judged second-rate by many socalled modern cultures (such as the
United States), United States Latinos
experience increased levels of pride for
that which they can call their own
(Rodriguez, 1988). Another notable
Latino cultural quality is the high
value placed on simpatı́a, or behaviors
that promote smooth and harmonious
relationships (Benet-Martı́nez & John,
1998; Guarnaccia & Rodriguez, 1996).
For non-Latinos, the concept of simpatı́a is often encountered when seeking
to establish friendships or business relations with members of a Latino culture. More important than the respect
individuals show to each other is the
way in which relationships are formed.
Only over long periods of time do
Latinos feel valuable relations can be
established that will be healthy for all
individuals involved. Bradford,
Meyers, and Kane (1999) suggest that
the combination of simpatı́a and high
power distance (respect for and loyalty
to one’s superiors) in Latino culture
may influence Latinos’ communication behavior. Another quality of
Latino collectivist culture is the high
value placed on familial relationships
(Dávila, 2001; Flores Niemann,
Romero, Arredondo, & Rodriguez,
1999). Interactions among family
members in Latino culture tend to be
much tighter and tradition-bound
LEONARDI
than in Anglo cultures. Credit for this
lies in longstanding cultural traditions
and for United States Latinos, in particular, an initial estrangement from
their homeland and introduction into
a foreign United States culture. In
addition, Lindsley (1999) finds that
the cultural symbols of stability and
trust established in Latino home life
produce good communication, as
defined culturally, among members of
the culture.
United States Latinos are different
from Latinos in Latin America because, as Stavans (1995) suggests, the
former “live in the hyphen,” or the
intersection of two very different cultures. Feelings of “otherness” often
characterize the United States Latino
experience and influence much of the
group’s behavior (Gonzalez, 1990;
Ramos, 2002); this behavior is often
identified as maintenance of Latino
cultural values, with an incorporation
of United States norms and practices.
Latinos who migrate to the United
States have a tendency to acculturate
rather than assimilate to new cultures
(Korzenny, 1999; Korzenny & Abravanel, 1998). In other words, United
States Latinos tend to incorporate important elements of United States culture into their lives, while retaining
nearly the entirety of their own cultural heritage. Moreover, researchers
have shown that strong relations with
the culture of origin remain with
United States Latinos for two generations; it is the third generation that
begins to resemble the typical profile
of United States culture (Buriel, 1993;
Der-Karabetian & Ruiz, 1997). Such
analysis shows that acculturation is not
necessarily associated with the loss of
native culture, and that identification
with one’s own ethnic group does not
mean the rejection of mainstream culture. Therefore, United States Latinos
164
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
should not be viewed with regard to
how Americanized they have become,
but rather how bicultural they are (Birman, 1998; Korzenny, 1999).
Although there are a number of
studies that examine the effects of mass
media on Latino culture (Greenberg,
Burgoon, Burgoon, & Korzenny,
1983; Jackson Turner & Allen, 1997;
Olivarez, 1998; Rodriguez, 1996;
Waisbord, 1998), there is currently no
literature examining cultural factors
pertaining to working class United
States Latino usage of new communication technologies. Several related
studies, however, suggest that the function of certain technologies might be
at odds with the values of the members
of this particular culture. Roscoe
(1999) observes that the effects of both
technological development and social
formation around new communication
technologies, such as the internet, exist
in complex reciprocal relationships.
For United States Latinos, one such
complex relationship concerns the incongruity of the qualities of collectivism and the individualistic nature of
new communication technologies.
Studies have shown, for instance, that
increased use of such communication
technologies promotes the possible displacement of interpersonal networks
(Baym, 2001; Kayany & Yelsma,
2000), often resulting in more attention paid to the self rather than the
in-group. Another variable in the relationship between Latinos and new
communication technologies is the
perceived ability of individuals of
Latino origin to use new communication technologies. Issues of education and literacy have been raised in
this debate; some researchers suggest
that Latinos tend to rely less on print
and more on broadcast media (Kargaonkar, Larson, & Lund, 2001)
whereas others argue that print is used
JUNE 2003
just as widely (Greenberg et al., 1983).
Regardless of United States Latino
preference, Scott and Rockwell (1997)
concluded that writing and reading
competencies are not strongly related
to new technologies and, therefore,
should not interfere with such usage.
They argued, instead, that communication apprehension is more strongly
correlated with likelihood not to use
new technologies. Combating the possibility of such opposition, Roach and
Olaniran (2001) found Latinos to have
quite high levels of willingness to communicate and low levels of communication apprehension after several years
in the United States.
The intersection of the two reviewed bodies of literature leads to the
following research questions about
working class United States Latinos’
perceptions and uses of communication technologies.
RQ1: Do first-generation working
class Latinos in the United
States perceive and use each of
three new media – cell phones,
computers, and the internet –
in distinct ways?
RQ2: Can the reasons United States
working class Latinos give for
use/non-use be related to distinctions between technologies
based on Latino cultural values
of what constitutes good communication?
Participants
Methods
In all, 78 first-generation working
class Latino immigrants, all of whom
now reside permanently in the United
States, participated in this study. Participants were members of a housekeeping staff at a large university in
165
CSMC
LEONARDI
TABLE 1
PARTICIPANTS’ COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN
Country of Origin
N
%
Costa Rica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Mexico
Panama
Puerto Rico
6
8
9
44
4
7
8
10
11
57
5
9
the western United States who were
responsible for the daily cleaning and
upkeep of the university’s residence
halls. Staff members who selfidentified as United States Latino were
invited to participate in the study.
Approval for this study was granted by
the University of Colorado’s Human
Research Committee and all participants gave explicit informed consent
to participate. Spanish was the native
language of all participants. The Latin
American countries from which they
emigrated were diverse, as illustrated
in Table 1. The average age of participants was 34 and the average length
of residency in the United States was
13 years.
This particular staff was selected for
this study for two reasons. First, as
Rodrı́guez-Alvez (1999) noted, much
of the research on Latino use of the
internet and other new communication technologies has focused on
English-speaking upper class individuals in Latin America. Such a population is not representative of most
United States Latinos. Therefore, firstgeneration, Spanish-speaking, working
class Latinos in the United States were
chosen to provide insight into a population largely under-represented in
scholarly literature. Second, Reeves
and Nass (1996) have shown that peoples’ feelings about communication
technologies change with increased
usage. To elicit perceptions of technol-
ogy unaffected by familiarity with it,
such a participant pool proved ideal
for this study. An initial survey of new
communication technology usage provided insight into the depth of the
participants’ familiarity with the individual technologies surveyed in this
study (see Table 2).
Focus Group Sessions
Krueger (1994) notes that focus
groups conducted among peers can
usually foster comfortable environments for participants and tend to
elicit in-depth comments and responses. To achieve a comfortable
group ideally requires six to 10 participants per group; to achieve productive
results three to five groups per project
are needed (Morgan, 1997). Further,
Bradford et al. (1999) suggest that
focus group interviews may serve to
increase the level of disclosure from
Latino participants by reducing typically high power distance and affording participants the opportunity to
speak freely without fear of reproach.
For this study, seven focus groups
were conducted with an average of 11
participants in each. Each focus group
lasted approximately an hour and a
half and was held in a staff lounge on
the university campus so that participants would feel comfortable in a familiar setting. Participants were first
166
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
JUNE 2003
TABLE 2
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY USE AND OWNERSHIP
Technology use (at least once)
N
%
Cell phone
72
92
Computer
31
40
Internet*
21
27
*Used either at home, work, or a public library.
asked to discuss their general impressions of new technologies, both good
and bad, and then were asked more
specific questions about their uses of
and perceptions of the effects of cellular phones, computers, and the internet. All participants were encouraged
to share both personal experiences and
stories they had heard about each of
the three communication technologies,
and to comment whenever they felt it
appropriate. The focus group sessions
were conducted entirely in Spanish by
the author, a fluent Spanish speaker.
Each session was audio-recorded and
transcribed and the transcriptions
translated from Spanish into English.
The data were analyzed for themes,
patterns, and positions built on cultural orientation. Particular attention
was given both to comments or stories
that made claims about the purpose of
a certain technology as well as its
benefits and hindrances, and to the
way in which participants framed their
knowledge about the specific communication technologies. Looking at
in-depth reactions to different communication technologies highlights not
only cultural orientation, but distinctions in perceptions and uses among
the technologies.
Moving from data collection in
Spanish to reporting in English raises
several concerns. The first issue is that
of the level of translation appropriate
for this particular study. Because I am
Technology ownership
N
%
52
10
4
67
13
5
interested in the ways in which participants position their knowledge about
specific communication technologies
through their speech, I felt it important to translate colloquially. Therefore, equivalent vernacular expressions
can be found in the English translation. The second issue is how foreign
language data are to be presented in a
research study. Out of respect for the
native language of participants, and
the cultural focus of this study, whenever data are referenced herein both
the original Spanish and the translated
English are included. I hope that in
this way the study is sensitive to the
cultural differences that constitute its
effectiveness.
Findings
Working class United States Latino
participants in this study used and perceived cell phones, computers, and the
internet in terms of how each technology promoted their own cultural values of good communication. For the
most part, participants thought and
talked about computers and the internet in the same way, seeing them as
similar. The distinction in perception
and use of cellular phones and computers and the internet, however, was
great, and often conflicting. The following results reflect participants’ perceptions and uses of cell phones, and
167
CSMC
LEONARDI
computers and the internet. The posi- E: When the line is busy, the regular
tioning of these two types of technolline, you have to use a cell phone.
ogy distinctly in line with Latino Several participants mentioned that
cultural values is then explored.
their children even use cell phones to
call them from another room in the
Cell Phones
house to ask what is being prepared
for dinner. Rather than viewing cell
Participants overwhelmingly ac- phones as a useful but avoidable tool
knowledged that cell phone use was an for enhancing communication, such
important tool for communication in activities in both Anglo and Latino
their everyday lives. In fact, most par- cultures have helped to instantiate cell
ticipants saw cell phone use as being phones as a necessary tool for comgenerally expected from most people munication. Moreover, 96% of those
in United States society. More than a who did not currently have a cell
luxury allowing for instantaneous com- phone noted that they planned to purmunication, participants noted that chase one within the next year. The
cell phones are a necessity in an in- major obstacle to acquisition was cost.
creasingly hectic and unpredictable
In their discussions about the
world. As one participant, Rosario, necessity of cell phones, many particinoted:
pants revealed deep and pervasive
knowledge about the functions and
Excerpt 1: Session 2
limitations of that particular technolR: ¡Esto es! El teléfono, como dice ogy. On a simple level, operating platUd., el teléfono no es un lujo. Es forms in both English and Spanish
una necesidad porque les sacan a available on nearly all cell phones enuno de muchos problemas … de abled participants to gain functional
emergencias.
command of the types of tasks of
R: That’s it! The phone, like you said, which the cell phone was capable. On
the phone’s not a luxury. It’s a a deeper level, most participants were
necessity because it can get a per- quite familiar with not just the funcson out of a lot of problems … of tions of the device but also the mechanical limitations of the larger
emergencies.
Several participants also described us- technology itself:
ing cell phones for a number of rea- Excerpt 3: Session 1
sons other than emergencies. The N: Pues, la mı́a no funciona aquı́ [en
reasons given included: cell phones are
el sótano].
often cheaper than regular land lines, O: Aquı́ abajo no funcionan.
and one can reach someone at any A: Tiene que irse afuera.
time if land lines are busy. Participants P: Y adentro de las montañas
remarked that it is simply not good
tampoco funciona.
enough to give up trying to contact
someone. For example, Esteban said: N: Well, mine doesn’t work here [in
the basement].
Excerpt 2: Session 6
O: They just don’t work down here.
E: Cuando está la lı́nea ocupada, la A: You have to go outside.
lı́nea regular, hay que usar los celu- P: And when you’re in the mountains
lares.
it doesn’t work either.
168
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
Participants were thus aware that cell
phones have certain functional limitations. Even those who did not own cell
phones, such as Oscar and Patri
above, were aware that users could not
obtain a signal in a basement or in
mountainous areas. Understanding a
technology’s mechanical limitations
shows a substantial level of familiarity
and respect for it. In addition, participants were clearly aware of the ongoing issues surrounding the use of cell
phones, such as privacy, that have pervaded trade publications of late
(Rezendes Khirallah, 2001; Schwartz,
2000). The particular questions surrounding cell phone use usually addressed the problem of having one’s
calls listened to by other users:
Excerpt 4: Session 3
S: En las conversaciones privadas no
debe de usar los celulares.
C: Sı́, me preocupo todo eso los teléfonos celulares.
S: Los teléfonos regulares son mejores
por eso porque ası́ no se escucha
nadie.
S: For private conversation you
shouldn’t use cell phones.
C: Yeah, all that worries me about
cell phones.
S: Regular phones are better for that
because no one can listen in.
Thus, in general, participants were
confident in their awareness of the limitations of and preoccupations occasioned by cell phones.
Another important aspect of understanding technology use is the comprehension of its function in relation to
other modes of communication. In addition to their knowledge of what cell
phones can and cannot do mechanically, participants expressed that cell
phones become a necessity due to
their ability to facilitate information
JUNE 2003
transfer. Understanding the role of cell
phone as social agent, all participants
were aware of how to use cell phones
as a means of communication rather
than as an end. The ability to accomplish daily tasks is greatly aided by
the invocation of the cell phone; from
any locale one can access information
by making a simple and quick call.
When asked to recount how they find
information they need in their daily
lives, two participants responded:
Excerpt 5: Session 4
M: Muchas veces la consigo por el
teléfono celular.
[una lı́nea quitada]
D: Por ejemplo, en el periódico también viene mucha información.
Casi la mayorı́a de las tiendas lo
tiene. Luego tienes que llamarlos.
M: A lot of times I get it with the cell
phone.
[one line deleted]
D: For example, a lot of information
comes in the newspaper. It has
almost all the stores. Then you just
have to call them.
Several participants also noted that
they not only find information on their
cell phones but store it as well.
Excerpt 6: Session 2
H: Oh, en los teléfonos ahı́ se guardan
[cosas importantes] ya. Los pone
en el teléfono y se quedan
guardados.
H: Oh, the phones can store [important things] now. You put them in
the phone and they stay saved
there.
Cell phones are seen as a positive
and necessary technology. A heightened awareness of the function and
limitations of both the immediate device and the larger technology shows
how easily working class United States
169
CSMC
Latinos have embraced and accepted
cell phones into their lives, coming to
view them as a necessary tool for effective communication.
The next section examines perceptions and uses of computers and the
internet.
Computers and the Internet
As mentioned earlier, most participants positioned their uses and perceptions of computers and the internet
very similarly, drawing almost no distinction between the functions of these
two technologies. In fact, there was a
strong tendency to equate computers
with the internet, blending their perceived uses and purposes. In the following example, participants were asked to
discuss what they knew, thought, or
had heard computers can do:
Excerpt 7: Session 3
L: Es muy bien para recordar cosas,
y grabar cosas.
E: Puede hacer compras y hacer
otras cosas ası́.
M: Puede comprar cosas por el internet.
F: Puede buscar precios; no tiene que
ir a la tienda.
L: It’s a good way to remember
things, and store things.
E: You can shop and do other things
like that.
M: You can buy things on the internet.
F: You can look for prices; you don’t
have to go to the store.
Participants used the terms
“computer” and “internet” relatively
interchangeably, collapsing their functions. Also interesting are the ways in
which participants described the functions of these technologies. They were
very clear as to what individuals can
LEONARDI
indeed do with computers and the internet; most of these examples point to
speed and efficiency:
Excerpt 8: Session 7
F: Por ejemplo, los hijos ponen en un
campo en la computadora si hay
una dirección que no conocen, y
rápido con la computadora sacan
el mapa … cómo van a llegar también.
F: For example, the kids go to a site
on the computer if there is an address they don’t know, and with the
computer they get a map
quickly … how they’re gonna get
there too.
In their discourse, participants
identified many of the main functions
of computers and the internet, and
elsewhere in the sessions they noted a
user’s ability to chat, participate in
video conferencing, download songs,
listen to the radio, use a web phone,
and operate a search engine. Computers and the internet were largely recognized as providing positive services.
Although they emphasized the positive services provided by computers
and the internet, participants perceived the operation of such technologies to be difficult. Even those who
didn’t know much about computers
had heard or seen that they are
difficult to learn.
Excerpt 9: Session 5
N: Pues, yo no más he oı́do que la
computadora, que la computadora
es muy, muy difı́cil aprender.
N: Well, I’ve just heard that the computer, the computer is very, very
difficult to learn.
Although participants understood
the ways in which computers and the
internet can ease everyday activities,
170
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
they believed that both technologies
are so difficult to learn to use properly
that the time invested in acquisition
of the necessary skills would not
amount to the time saved by using the
technology.
Excerpt 10: Session 1
R: Para mı́ es demasiado difı́cil aprender, pero es cómodo porque mi
hijo lo hace.
A: No es tan difı́cil. Todo se aprende.
¿Cómo aprender limpiar los
baños?
V: Dándole, dándole.
R: Pero tarda tiempo y lo que pasa es
uno llega a la casa, llega de barrando y lavando y ya cuando
viene …
A: Pero si das tu tiempo …
C: ¿Pero cuando hay tiempo?
R: It’s too hard for me to learn, but it
isn’t so bad because my son does it.
A: It’s not that difficult. You can learn
anything. How did you learn to
clean bathrooms?
V: Doing it, doing it.
R: But it takes time and what happens
is you get home, you come from
sweeping and washing and when
you get there …
A: But if you spend some time …
C: But when is there time?
However, participants did not feel that
learning how to operate computers
and the internet was beyond their capabilities. The constant invocation of
time constraints and the perceived
difficulty of learning how to access
these new technologies were the impeding factors.
This perception of difficulty of operation played a key role in participants’
lack of affinity for computers and the
internet. Much of this sensitivity came
from a belief in the intractable nature
of these technologies. Participants
JUNE 2003
were very clear that the technology
would do various things over which
they had no control. The technology
clearly was placed in a role of superiority over the user. Those who either
had experience with computers and
the internet, or had heard stories of
people who used them, were convinced the technology had a mind of
its own. Participants felt their actions
were subordinate to the function of the
technology.
Excerpt 11: Session 2
J: Sı́, tiene muchas ventajas también.
Si lo ves por este lado de agarrar
la, las cosas positivas, tiene mucho.
A: Pero cuando se meten cosas
malas …
O: Estos sı́ son las cosas malas. Si [mis
niños] están en lı́nea y se meten
por la pornografı́a, se meten por la
pornografı́a. Nadie les puede
parar, ¿y tú?
A: Pero no más se aplaste una tecla, y
olvı́dese.
O: Ay, la tecla equivocada, ¡Dios, He
equivocado!
J: Yeah, it has a lot of advantages. If
you see it as a way of getting the,
the positive things, it has a lot.
A: But when bad things get in
there …
O: Yes, those are bad things. If [my
kids] are online and they get into
pornography, they get into pornography. There’s nothing anyone
can do to stop them, can you?
A: But all you have to do is hit one
wrong key, and forget about it,
O: Yup, the wrong key, God, it’s all
over!
In this short passage, the participants
make claims about the intractability of
computers and the internet on various
levels. The first two speakers discuss
how users do not have a choice about
171
CSMC
whether they access good or bad
things on the internet but, rather, in
tandem with a willingness to use the
technology to aid their daily activities,
users must be willing to be exposed to
things they would like not to be. Similarly, the third speaker notes that neither she nor anyone else, including
children themselves, has control over
the things children will see on the internet. Finally, the last two speakers
express concern that by accidentally
hitting an unintended key they may be
exposed to unspecified harm. Participants clearly felt that computers and
the internet had many good and bad
things to offer, but that the voyage
could never be determined by the user
alone, for the technology had just as
much or more to say in the experience.
Excerpt 12: Session 4
S: Muchas veces cualquier uno se
mete ahı́ … uno pegado a atención
¿pero en un segundo de descuido
cuántas cosas pasan?
S: A lot of times anyone who’s
on … someone who’s paying attention, but in one second of inattention how many things can happen?
Computers and the internet were believed to be very difficult to learn
about, for a user not only had to acquire technical knowledge but also had
to deal with the possibility that the
technology would take them on a wild
ride.
Through their discussions, participants showed different levels of comfort with and affinity for cell phones,
and computers and the internet.
Although both technologies provided
many advantages to the user, cell
phones were much easier to operate
and could be controlled entirely by the
user, while computers and the internet
LEONARDI
were extremely difficult in part due to
their intractability.
The final section examines how participants position cell phones and computers and the internet in terms of
Latino cultural values.
Cell Phones vs. Computers and the
Internet
Whether using cell phones or computers and the internet, participants
were adamant that communication
augmentation should be the main
function. Although cellular phones,
computers and the internet are clearly
capable of more than providing a medium for communication, participants
saw each type of technology as either
positive or negative on the basis of its
ability to help them communicate with
others. From this viewpoint, participants found cell phones to have only
positive qualities because the technology enabled communication at any
place and at any time.
Excerpt 13: Session 1
C: En cualquier actividad es muy positiva tener un teléfono celular. Es
muy importante porque tú lo
tienes a la mano. Como con eso
que pasó en New York (11 sep.).
Muchas personas llamaron y
hablaron con sus queridos por la
última vez.
C: For any activity it’s good to have a
cell phone. It’s very important because you have it right it at your
fingertips. Like with what happened in New York (Sept. 11). A
lot of people called and talked to
their loved ones for the last time.
Whether the situation is life threatening or a daily occurrence, cell phones
provide a way to ensure users are always in contact with those they love.
172
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
Excerpt 14: Session 6
I: Gracias a Dios que podemos [mantener contacto con familiares] por
teléfono.
I: Thank God we can [keep in touch
with family] over the phone.
Although a cell phone user is temporarily disengaged from interpersonal
communication acts with those around
him/her, this cultural communication
problem is offset by the ability to
bridge the relational gap often caused
by distance.
When discussing whether cell
phones had any negative impacts on
the user or the community the only
issues raised by participants were those
of use at dangerous or inappropriate
times, such as while driving or in
church. Otherwise, cell phones were
never mentioned as anything other
than positive, due to the ways they
keep people connected.
In contrast, participants did not
view computers and the internet as
technologies that helped to keep people connected. The primary function
of such technologies was seen as facilitating information collection and
transfer. In fact, use of computers and
the internet was viewed by participants
as having a negative impact on interpersonal relationships, especially
within the family.
Excerpt 15: Session 3
L: Yo digo que la gente se emociona
mucho y se olviden hasta la familia
cuando está con la computadora.
Esto, puede ser malo.
B: Yo creo que ha arruinado un poco
a la familia, estar tanto en la computadora.
L: Pues, depende de cada persona,
pero si esta persona no esta pasando
con la familia, pienso que sı́.
JUNE 2003
L: People get all excited and forget
even about their family when
they’re on the computer. That can
be bad.
B: I think that it’s kinda ruined the
family a bit, being on the computer
so much.
L: Well, it depends on the person, but
if they’re not spending time with
the family I think that it is.
Despite all the positive things they
might be able to do, if computers and
the internet distract users from interpersonal activities, they are perceived
negatively. Unlike cell phones, which
encourage communication outside
fact-to-face contexts, participants
viewed computers and the internet as
promoting individuality and removing
the user from social life. Consequently,
as one participant pointed out, interpersonal values are jeopardized by
such technology.
Excerpt 16: Session 5
D: Sı́, puede estar más en la computadora que con la familia. Eso no es
bueno.
D: Yeah, you can be on the computer
more than with the family. That’s
not good.
As might be expected, language also
played a small but important role in
the preference of one technology over
another. Virtually all cell phones come
in a multilingual format, easing use for
those who do not speak English. Although Spanish platforms are available for computers, they are not
readily accessible on all computers, as
they are on cell phones. Also, only
1.5–2% of all internet content is in
Spanish (Gómez, 2000; Rodrı́guezAlvez, 1999), vastly limiting the number of pages to which Spanish speakers
may have access. Not only is a simple
language barrier a problem but axio-
173
CSMC
logically the question then becomes
one of pride. Must the user forgo the
use of his/her native language in order
to access a new technology?
Excerpt 17: Session 2
P: Yo creo que en la computadora
vienen muchas … casi necesitas dejar el español para entrar. En los
teléfonos celulares no, [pausa] no
es una decisión tan difı́cil.
P: I think that on the computer a lot
of things come in … you almost
have to leave Spanish behind to
enter. With cell phones it’s not,
[pause] not such a difficult decision.
Participants spoke of the decisions
they make about when to defend the
use of their language and when to
concede to using English in their everyday lives. Computers and the internet provide two more venues in which
a difficult choice has to be made.
Overall, however, participants did not
see the language barrier as insurmountable when accessing computers
and the internet. Rather, it was the
difficulty of deciding whether to accept
the use of a new language, coupled
with a lack of knowledge of how to
operate the technology, that proved
troublesome.
Although the learning curve seemed
great, participants were unanimous
in their desire to learn how to use
computers and the internet. The reasons they wished to learn how to use
such technologies do not, however,
align with communicative cultural
values, for, as explained earlier, they
feel that as tools for communication
computers and the internet do not
adequately accomplish this task.
Participants felt that although it was
not necessary to learn to use the technology to communicate effectively,
LEONARDI
they did realize that their unfamiliarity
with computers and the internet
excluded them from being a part of
a larger community of users. As
United States culture is largely dependent today on computers and the internet for daily activities, participants
noted that they were beginning to feel
inferior to those who know how to use
them:
Excerpt 18: Session 4
N: Bueno, yo sı́ siento, ¿verdad? Por
ejemplo, yo que no sé usar la computadora nada. Sı́, me gustarı́a
aprender porque siento que me estoy quedando atrás.
D: Ası́ me siento yo, igual.
N: Porque mis hijas, una tiene 12
años, y la otra tiene 10 años, usarlas. Y yo no sé nada de eso y sı́
siento que me estoy quedando
muy atrás porque ahorita puede
todo el mundo usar la computadora. Soy una persona que no
sabe.
F: Ası́ me siento yo precisamente,
siento que me estoy quedando
atrás, que no estoy aprendiendo lo
bueno de la tecnologı́a. Que me
está avanzando y me voy huyendo
para atrás.
N: OK, it really gets to me, right? For
example, I don’t know how to use
the computer at all. Yes, I would
like to learn because I feel like I
am falling behind.
D: That’s exactly how I feel.
N: Because my daughters, one is 12
and the other is 10, use them. And
I don’t know anything about that
and I feel like I am falling way
behind because now everyone can
use the computer. I’m someone
who doesn’t know how.
F: That’s precisely how I feel. I feel
like I am falling behind, that I am
174
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
not learning the good things about
the technology. I feel like it is passing me by and I keep falling farther behind.
Participants were conscious of the digital divide in the United States and felt
that being computer illiterate placed
them at a disadvantage relative to
those who were computer savvy, including many Anglos.
Excerpt 19: Session 7
J: Pienso que la gente de aquı́,
¿verdad? Son los que saben usar
[computadoras y el internet]. Son
adaptados a hacerlo. Nosotros, los
Latinos, son un poco más atrás.
J: I think that the people here, right?
They’re the ones that know how to
use [computers and the internet].
They’re adapted to do it. We, the
Latinos, are a little bit behind.
Although most participants did not
currently own a computer or have access to the internet, 67% hoped to
purchase a computer sometime within
the next three years.
These findings show how the uses
and perceptions of cell phones and
the internet are shaped by cultural
values of communication. Reasons
given for future computer and internet
acquisition are not for better communication purposes, but rather to
ensure that the digital divide, between
those who have access to technology
and those who don’t, would not
leave Latinos in an inferior position to
those in mainstream United States culture. The decision to use distinct
communication technologies had as
much to do with perceived ability to
familiarize oneself with them as it did
with ensuring sustained interpersonal
contact.
JUNE 2003
Discussion
Through the use of focused group
discussions this study examined how
working class United State Latinos’
collectivist cultural orientation affected
their perceptions and uses of cell
phones, computers, and the internet.
The findings showed that cultural values of good communication affected
working class United States Latino
views of the three technologies, generally viewed by mainstream United
States culture as enhancing communication. All participants in this study
identified cell phones as a medium
that promotes cultural communicative
values, whereas computers and the
internet were viewed as media that
impede those values.
The function of cell phones worked
well with the communication goals of
these participants. They viewed cell
phones as a means by which to maintain interpersonal relations with people both near and far. Consistent with
research suggesting that Latinos value
consistent, close interpersonal contact,
participants expressed that cell phones
were beneficial for a variety of reasons.
In times of emergency, distress, or simply with the rise of unexpected events,
users can maintain contact with
friends and loved ones. Most participants also found the technology easy
to use. Cell phones were seen as an
effective way to communicate, but also
an efficient means of storing information. Participants felt very comfortable with the technology, understood
its advantages, and were aware of the
limitations of the device itself as well as
the larger framework in which it operated. They were confident in their
ability to use and control the technology and saw it as a resource with
which to communicate more effectively. More than just a luxury,
175
CSMC
participants commented that cell
phones were a necessity.
Most United States Latinos who articulated their opinions in this study
made few or no distinctions between
computers and the internet; the lack of
differentiation between these two technologies was consistent with their cultural orientation. Participants viewed
computers and the internet in the
same way because they did not see the
internet as a communication medium.
Each time participants discussed the
role of the internet, they referred to it
as a tool with which to obtain information. Save for a few mentions of
chat rooms, participants rarely focused
on the internet’s ability to connect
people through such media as message
boards, instant messaging, and email.
Instead, access to information such as
store schedules and restaurant guides,
the ability to make purchases such as
airline tickets and hotel reservations,
and a view of the internet as a place
for entertainment, pervaded their conception of the function of this technology. Given their understanding of the
internet as this type of resource, it
makes sense that they would view
computers and the internet similarly.
Thus, they did not find the internet, or
computers for that matter, to be a
necessity but instead a time saver that
facilitated the apprehension of information that could equally be found by
investing a little more time in traditional methods.
Although computers and the internet were seen as important to participants, they also were seen as inhibiting
participation and active membership
in the family and other important
groups. Durham (1989) suggests that
the one-to-one encounters fostered by
some new communication technologies might be at odds with cultures
that value turn taking and social par-
LEONARDI
ticipation. Accordingly, participants
felt that the individualistic nature of
computers and the internet encouraged individuals to break away from
social groups and not take active membership roles in them. Although researchers suggest that immigrants and
members of minority groups with similar interests and backgrounds can often find a sense of belonging and
commonality in cyberspace (Mitra,
2001), participants in this study have
not come to utilize the internet in that
way.
Even though they were unaware of
the communicative functions of computers and the internet, the vast majority of participants had a great desire
to learn how to use these technologies.
Apart from the lack of recognition that
computers and the internet could indeed be used as media for communication, participants were very
knowledgeable about other important
functions of these media such as information retrieval, purchase power, and
data archiving. As members of the
United States culture, most of the bicultural Latinos in this study felt the
pressure of the digital divide. They
were quite concerned about falling behind in the rapid acquisition of technological know-how, and they felt
inadequate when put in situations
which required interaction with computers and the internet, which they
were unable to provide.
The findings reported herein show
that this group of working class United
States Latinos did not view new media
as a homogeneous category. Instead,
most participants had very distinct
perceptions and ideas about the expected uses of cell phones and computers and the internet in relation to
cultural values of good communication. While further research is
needed to see if these results pertain to
176
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
JUNE 2003
a broader range of occupations and
regions, it is clear that if we are to
further understand and promote the fit
between technologies and culture, substantial additional research is needed
into the uses made of communication
technologies by Latinos and other
cultures.
These findings show that, in line
with social constructionist thinking, it
is presumptuous and disadvantageous
to the study of new communication
technology to group individual technologies a priori into broad categories
and treat them as engendering relatively equal effects and occasioning
relatively similar usage. In doing this,
we essentialize technology, abstracting
it from our own communication practices and treating it as a relatively
autonomous occurrence (Winner,
1977). Instead, our categories should
be constructed on the basis of social
uses and perceptions of the technology. If we do not do this, we deny
ourselves power in our interactions
with technology. When we say “the
computer won’t let me do what I
want,” and we believe it, we grant
technologies undue agency. Although
by itself this may not seem entirely
problematic, when coupled with a second danger – separating technology
from context – its hazards are compounded. Jackson (1996) reminds us
that the functionality of a given technology, “the ability of an artifact to be
used to accomplish a social task – is
the primary requirement of technology, prior to the material and social
definitions of the artifact” (p. 255).
That is to say, the communication
goals of a particular group of users
always play a crucial role in their
uses and perceptions of technology.
If we forget this, we may blindly
adopt technologies because we believe
they are a sign of progress (Banks
& Tankel, 1990; Smith, 1994), without
making sure that they help us
progress. Paying attention to the cultural fit between technologies and
communication practices helps us to
be critical users of technology and
to adopt only those technologies that
assist us in achieving our communication goals. The implications of the
findings of the present study, then,
extend to any subgroup or organization using new communication technologies. Technologies, in general,
should not be implemented because
they are believed to enhance communication for everyone; rather, particular technologies should be adopted
based on their specific abilities to augment culturally defined qualities of
good communication for specific
groups – qualities that are continually
changing.
䊐
Note
1Over the last two decades researchers and critics have vacillated between the use of the terms
“Latino” and “Hispanic” when referring to Spanish-speaking people of Latin American heritage.
Though each word has a long history and etymology, modern connotations are the source of current
debate. The term “Hispanic” was invoked by the United States government in its need to count the
ever-increasing number of Spanish speaking people who could not be identified as a single race, and
thus refers to individuals of Spanish-speaking cultural decent. The term “Latino” has come to
represent those who identify with a Latin American culture. Many users of this term find it to be a
positive alternative to the term “Hispanic,” which some believe attempts to homogenize Spanishspeakers of different races. Clearly, there is no correct term and the debate over nomenclature will
continue. I feel the best way for researchers to deal with this issue is to evaluate each project
individually, taking both the aim of the study and the preference of the participants into consideration.
177
CSMC
LEONARDI
Because this study is interested in the cultural qualities of participants, I tend to lean toward the term
“Latino” as the more culturally representative of the two. However, it seemed to me that the most
appropriate way to decide the use of a term for this specific study was to ask these specific participants
how they would prefer to be referenced. Though most participants said that either term was
acceptable, the majority (62%) felt that the term “Latino” slightly better represented their cultural
heritage. Therefore, in this study I refer to participants as United States Latinos.
References
Banks, J., & Tankel, J.D. (1990). Science as fiction: Technology in prime time television. Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, 7, 24–36.
Barley, S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT
scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78–108.
Barley, S.R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 61–103.
Barnett, S. (1997). New media, old problems: New technology and the political process. European
Journal of Communication, 12, 193–218.
Baym, N. (2001). Is the Internet really any different?: Social interactions across media. Paper presented at the
International Commmunication Association Annual Conference. Washington, DC.
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups:
Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 729–750.
Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latino immigrant adolescents. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 335–354.
Bradford, L., Meyers, R.A., & Kane, K.A. (1999). Latino expectations of communicative competence:
A focus group interview study. Communication Quarterly, 47, 98–117.
Buriel, R. (1993). Acculturation, respect for cultural differences, and biculturalism among three
generations of Mexican American and Euro American school children. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
154, 531–543.
Dávila, A. (2001). Latinos INC: The marketing and making of a people. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Der-Karabetian, A., & Ruiz, Y. (1997). Affective bicultural and global-human identity scales for
Mexican-American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 80, 1027–1039.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive
structuration theory. Organizational Science, 5, 121–147.
Durham, M. (1989). Culture and scotosis: Intercultural concerns in organisational communication.
Australian Journal of Communication, 15, 52–61.
Edge, D. (1995). The social shaping of technology. In N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon, R, Mason, &
H. Mackay (Eds.), Information technology and society (pp. 14–32). London: Sage.
Flores Niemann, Y., Romero, A.J., Arredondo, J., & Rodriguez, V. (1999). What does it mean to be
“Mexican”? Social construction of an ethnic identity. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 47–60.
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
921–951.
Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of
Management, 17, 407–447.
Fulk, J., Steinfield, G., Schmitz, J., & Power, J.G. (1990). A social influence model of technology use.
In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technologies (pp. 117–142). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gómez, R. (2000). The hall of mirrors: The Internet in Latin America. Current History, 99, 72–77.
Gonzalez, A. (1990). Mexican “otherness” in the rhetoric of Mexican Americans. The Southern
Communication Journal, 55, 276–291.
178
PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA”
JUNE 2003
Gracia, J.J.E. (2000). Hispanic/Latino identity: A philosophical perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Greenburg, B.S., Burgoon, M., Burgoon, J.K., & Korzenny, F. (1983). Mexican Americans and the mass
media. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Guarnaccia, P.J., & Rodriguez, O. (1996). Concepts of culture and their role in the development of
culturally competent mental health services. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 419–433.
Gudykunst, W.B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American
Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384–399.
Hokanson, S., & Hooper, B. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: examining the potential of
computers in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 537–552.
Jackson, M.H. (1996). The meaning of “communication technology”: The technology-context scheme.
In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (vol. 19, pp. 229–268). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Jackson, M.H., Poole, M.S., & Kuhn, T. (2002). The social construction of technology in studies of
the workplace. In L.A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and
consequences of ICTs (pp. 236–253). London: Sage.
Jackson Turner, L., & Allen, C.W. (1997). Mexican and Latino media behavior in Los Angeles: The
1996 election example. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 884–901.
Kargaonkar, P., Larson, E., & Lund, D. (2001). Direct marketing: A comparison of Hispanic and
non-Hispanic perspectives. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 25–47.
Kayany, J.M., & Yelsma, P. (2000). Displacement effects of online media in the socio-technical
contexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 215–229.
Korzenny, F. (1999). Acculturation vs. assimilation among US Hispanics: E-mail self-reports. Quirk’s
Marketing Research Review, 13, 50–54.
Korzenny, F., & Abravanel, R. (1998). Acculturation: Conceptualization and measurement. Quirk’s
Marketing Research Review, 12, 32–37.
Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leonardi, P.M. (2002). Cultural transference in perceptions and uses of communication technology:
A qualitative study. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 3, 56–63.
Lindsley, S.L. (1999). Communication and “the Mexican way”: stability and trust as core symbols in
maquiladoras. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 1–31.
Marin, G., & Triandis, H.C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behavior of
Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R. Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social
psychology (pp. 85–104). New York: Elsevier Science.
Marin, G., Gamba, R.J., & Marin, B.V. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence among
Hispanics: The role of acculturation and education. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 498–509.
Martin, J.N., Hammer, M.R., & Bradford, L. (1994). The influence of cultural and situational contexts
on Hispanic and non-Hispanic communication competence behaviors. Communication Quarterly, 42,
160–179.
Mitra, A. (2001). Marginal voices in cyberspace. New Media & Society, 3, 29–48.
Morales, E. (2002). Living in Spanish: The search for Latino identity in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, D., & Naughton, J. (1999). The future’s digital, isn’t it? Some experience and forecasts based
on the open university’s technology foundation course. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16,
147–162.
Olivarez, A. (1998). Studying representations of U.S. Latino culture. Journal of Communication Inquiry,
22, 426–437.
Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The
theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & G. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication
technology (pp. 173–195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Radovan, M. (2001). Information technology and the character of contemporary life. Information
Communication & Society, 4, 230–246.
179
CSMC
LEONARDI
Ramos, J. (2002). The other face of America: Chronicles of the immigrants shaping our future. New York:
HarperCollins.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like
real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
Rezendes Khirallah, D. (2001, December 7). Assessing privacy performance in 2001. Information Week.
Retrieved December 11, 2001 from http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011207S0042
Roach, D.K., & Olaniran, B.A. (2001). Intercultural willingness to communicate and communication
anxiety in international teaching assistants. Communication Research Reports, 18, 26–35.
Rodriguez, A. (1996). Objectivity and ethnicity in the production of the “Noticiero Univision.” Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 13, 59–81.
Rodriguez, R. (1988, July 11). The fear of losing a culture. Time, 132, 84.
Rodrı́guez-Alvez, F. (1999). Present and future of the Internet in Latin America: A TITLAN research
report. TITLAN. Available at http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/titlan/reports/report1.html
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Roscoe, T. (1999). The construction of the World Wide Web audience. Media, Culture and Society, 21,
673–684.
Schwartz, E. (2000, April 29). Cell phone safety ratings revealed. Computerworld. Retrieved November
20, 2000 from http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47 STO49171,00.html
Scott, C.R., & Rockwell, S.C. (1997). The effect of communication, writing, and technology
apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies. Communication Education, 46,
44–62.
Scott, C.R., Quinn, L., Timmerman, C.E., & Garrett., D.M. (1998). Ironic uses of group communication technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with group decision support
system users. Communication Quarterly, 46, 353–374.
Shkodriani, G.M, & Gibbons, J.L. (1995). Individualism and collectivism among university students in
Mexico and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 765–772.
Smith, M.R. (1994). Technological determinism in American culture. In M.R. Smith & L. Marx
(Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 1–35). Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Starbuck, W.H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. International Journal of Technology
Management, 11, 725–737.
Stavans, I. (1995). The Hispanic condition: Reflection on culture and identity in America. New York:
HarperCollins.
Subervi-Vélez, F.A. (1999). The mass media and Latinos: Policy and research agendas for the next
century. Aztlán, 24, 131–147.
Waisbord, S. (1998). When the cart of media is before the horse of identity: A critique of
technology-centered views on globalization. Communication Research, 25, 377–398.
Widman, T., Jasko, S.A., & Pilotta, J.J. (1988). Technology transfer: Theory and outline of a research
model for managing cultural change. Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 88–100.
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Received March 27, 2002
Final revision received October 11, 2002
Accepted January 16, 2003