problematizing new media : culturally based … · this study expands previous research by...

Critical Studies in Media CommunicationVol. 20, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 160–179

Problematizing “New Media”: CulturallyBased Perceptions of Cell Phones,Computers, and the Internet among

United States Latinos

Paul M. Leonardi

� – Recent studies of new communication technologies have shown that broad terms such as“new media” are problematic. This study expands previous research by exploring howfirst-generation, working class United States Latino participants perceive and use newcommunication technologies in relation to their cultural values. Discussions generated acrossseven 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 positionedthe perceived usefulness of each communication technology differently, based upon their culturalvalues regarding good communication. In particular, participants discussed how cell phonesprovide an effective way to make interpersonal contact whereas computers and the internet wereviewed as damaging to the communication necessary for good social relations. The findings showthat 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.

Technologies that enhance dailycommunication practices, includ-

ing cellular phones, video conferenc-ing, text messaging, computers,personal digital assistants, and the in-

ternet, are often grouped togetherunder headings such as “newmedia,” “information and communi-cation technologies” (ICTs), or“communication media.” The ten-dency broadly to classify distinct com-munication technologies under anumbrella term has recently been chal-lenged by communication scholarswho argue that each technology is fun-damentally different in the way it issocially constructed by its users (Edge,1995; Jackson, 1996; Starbuck, 1996).In spite of such protest, broad catego-rization continues in daily discourseabout new communication technolo-gies, as well as in scholarly research(Hokanson & Hooper, 2000; Morris &Naughton, 1999).

Paul Leonardi is a graduate student in theDepartment of Communication, University of Col-orado at Boulder. A previous version of this paperreceived a Top 5 Student Paper Award from theHuman Communication and Technology Com-mission at the 2002 National CommunicationAssociation annual conference, New Orleans, LA.I wish to thank Karen Tracy, Michele Jackson,and Larry Frey for their review of earlier versionsof this manuscript. Correspondence concerning thisarticle should be addressed to Paul Leonardi,Department of Communication, University of Col-orado at Boulder, Campus Box 270, Boulder,CO 80309-0270 ([email protected])

Copyright 2003, National Communication AssociationDOI: 10.1080/0739318032000095668

161

CSMC LEONARDI

The problem with grouping distincttechnologies together is not so muchone of naming, but rather the easewith which we do it. Led by advertis-ing and marketing efforts directed atconvincing consumers that new mediaunilaterally improve communication,we often unproblematically homoge-nize technologies even though theysupport many different uses (Barnett,1997; Radovan, 2001). As students ofcommunication we broadly categorizein our research when we study usageof one specific technology and imposeour findings on other similar technolo-gies. One possible way to combat thistendency is to problematize technol-ogy by examining how communicationpractices shape uses of it. The purposeof this essay is to do just that. Asstudents of communication we wouldintuit that one can distinguish onetechnology from another by the com-munication practices we use when en-gaging them. Recognizing thattechnologies are always understood incultural contexts (Leonardi, 2002),perhaps looking at communication asit socially constructs technology in anunder-studied culture may help us tosee just how problematic it is to groupdisparate technologies together.Therefore, this study examines howthe communication practices ofUnited States Latinos help to dis-tinguish among three distinct tech-nologies: cell phones, computers, andthe internet.A number of scholars (Marin,

Gamba, & Marin, 1992; Martin,Hammer, & Bradford, 1994; Subervi-Velez, 1999) have issued a call to armsto those in the field of communicationto study Latino communication pat-terns; although Latinos comprise oneof the two largest minority groups inthe United States, there has been littlestudy of their reactions to new com-

munication technologies. With this inmind, this essay has two goals. Thefirst is to problematize our discourseabout technology by taking communi-cation practices seriously. The secondis to examine the uses and perceptionsof technology in a cultural grouplargely under-represented in com-munication technology scholarship.I begin by drawing upon two bodies

of literature to provide a theoreticalbasis for this investigation. The firstlooks at communication technologiesas social constructions in which socialpractices and communication normsplay a key role in determining the useand structure of the technology. Thesecond examines the collectivist cul-tural practices of communication gen-erally representative of working classUnited States Latinos.

Technology and SociallyConstructed Use

As social constructionist ideas areappropriated by students of communi-cation technology, researchers havebegun to show how behavioral pat-terns regarding technology are sharedamong members of a culture. From acommunication perspective, thinkingabout technology in this sense providesa way to place communication in aposition of importance rather than re-garding it as ancillary to and shapedby technology. Decentering technol-ogy at the interactional site allows it tobe reconstructed as a social practicewherein technologies are posited as so-cial entities. Taking seriously the com-munication practices that help toconstruct certain technologies, Jack-son, Poole, and Kuhn (2002) encour-age the promotion of communicationas an “object of interest itself, ratherthan keying only to characteristics of

162

PROBLEMATIZING “NEW MEDIA” JUNE 2003

communication that seem derivablefrom technology” (p. 237). Hence,communication should be the focalpoint of all study of the interactionwith communication technology (Fulk,1993).An adaptive structuration approach

(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Poole &DeSanctis, 1990) to the social con-struction of technology attempts toposition technology as interactionallyconstructed through interplay withvarious groups. Central to this idea isthe argument that the communicationacts engendered by a given technologyare highly unpredictable. The frequentoccurrence of unanticipated uses ofcommunication technologies (Rogers,1995; Scott, Quinn, Timmerman, &Garrett, 1998) suggests that technol-ogy use is often influenced by socialpractices. Not only do groups con-struct peoples’ meaning of technology,but they also continually define andreposition it throughout changing con-texts (Barley, 1986, 1990). Social con-structionist thinking extends past themere implications of technological im-plementation to elucidate an under-standing of how social interaction withtechnology constructs perceptions ofthe important functions of a giventechnology. The social influencemodel of technology use (Fulk,Steinfield, Schmitz, & Power, 1990;Fulk & Boyd, 1991) proposes that thecommunicative framework behind me-dia perception accounts for the effectof information on group perceptionsand attitudes toward technology,resulting in the adaptation of com-munication task requirements andcommunication technology use andbehavior (Fulk et al., 1990).Extending these premises to cultural

analyses, Widman, Jasko, and Pilotta(1988) argue that no technology inher-ently makes sense for a given cultural

system and, therefore, a technology’ssociocultural fit should be examined.In short, varying social communi-cation practices warrant different tech-nological usage. What the extantliterature has failed to examine, how-ever, are the cultural elements in com-munication practices that are often atodds with the use of particular tech-nologies. To understand and refocuson the importance of such thinking, itis crucial to pay particular attention tothe cultural communication practicesof those who use new communicationtechnologies.

Latino Culture

United States Latinos come fromdiverse socioeconomic, cultural, andethnic backgrounds. Although the cul-tural characteristics of each LatinAmerican country are distinct, manyscholars suggest that communicationpractices among individuals from vari-ous Latin American countries featuresome substantive similarities, and thatthey become increasingly similar whenthose individuals immigrate to theUnited States (Gracia, 2000; Morales,2002; Ramos, 2002). When attemptingto understand the cultural practicesof United States Latinos, scholarshave long turned to the individualism–collectivism distinction, the major di-mension of cultural variabilityidentified by theorists (Gudykunst &Ting-Toomey, 1988). Briefly defined,individualism is characterized by anemotional independence from certaingroups and organizations to which onemight belong, whereas collectivism isrelated to solidarity and integrationwith others, placing the needs of thein-group over the needs of the self.Although United States Latino cul-

ture is generally viewed as a collectivist

163

CSMC LEONARDI

culture (Marin & Triandis, 1985;Shkodriani & Gibbons, 1995), collec-tivism for United States Latinos in par-ticular takes on certain specialcharacteristics affected largely by cul-tural heritage and history. In Latinoculture, pride is a defining character-istic (Gracia, 2000; Morales, 2002).Due to a long history of conquest anddiaspora, Latinos have developed asense of pride, or orgullo, for the ac-complishments of their people. More-over, because Latino culture has longbeen judged second-rate by many so-called modern cultures (such as theUnited States), United States Latinosexperience increased levels of pride forthat which they can call their own(Rodriguez, 1988). Another notableLatino cultural quality is the highvalue placed on simpatıa, or behaviorsthat promote smooth and harmoniousrelationships (Benet-Martınez & John,1998; Guarnaccia & Rodriguez, 1996).For non-Latinos, the concept of simpa-tıa is often encountered when seekingto establish friendships or business re-lations with members of a Latino cul-ture. More important than the respectindividuals show to each other is theway in which relationships are formed.Only over long periods of time doLatinos feel valuable relations can beestablished that will be healthy for allindividuals involved. Bradford,Meyers, and Kane (1999) suggest thatthe combination of simpatıa and highpower distance (respect for and loyaltyto one’s superiors) in Latino culturemay influence Latinos’ communi-cation behavior. Another quality ofLatino collectivist culture is the highvalue placed on familial relationships(Davila, 2001; Flores Niemann,Romero, Arredondo, & Rodriguez,1999). Interactions among familymembers in Latino culture tend to bemuch tighter and tradition-bound

than in Anglo cultures. Credit for thislies in longstanding cultural traditionsand for United States Latinos, in par-ticular, an initial estrangement fromtheir homeland and introduction intoa foreign United States culture. Inaddition, Lindsley (1999) finds thatthe cultural symbols of stability andtrust established in Latino home lifeproduce good communication, asdefined culturally, among members ofthe culture.

United States Latinos are differentfrom Latinos in Latin America be-cause, as Stavans (1995) suggests, theformer “live in the hyphen,” or theintersection of two very different cul-tures. Feelings of “otherness” oftencharacterize the United States Latinoexperience and influence much of thegroup’s behavior (Gonzalez, 1990;Ramos, 2002); this behavior is oftenidentified as maintenance of Latinocultural values, with an incorporationof United States norms and practices.Latinos who migrate to the UnitedStates have a tendency to acculturaterather than assimilate to new cultures(Korzenny, 1999; Korzenny & Abra-vanel, 1998). In other words, UnitedStates Latinos tend to incorporate im-portant elements of United States cul-ture into their lives, while retainingnearly the entirety of their own cul-tural heritage. Moreover, researchershave shown that strong relations withthe culture of origin remain withUnited States Latinos for two genera-tions; it is the third generation thatbegins to resemble the typical profileof United States culture (Buriel, 1993;Der-Karabetian & Ruiz, 1997). Suchanalysis shows that acculturation is notnecessarily associated with the loss ofnative culture, and that identificationwith one’s own ethnic group does notmean the rejection of mainstream cul-ture. Therefore, United States Latinos

164


should not be viewed with regard tohow Americanized they have become,but rather how bicultural they are (Bir-man, 1998; Korzenny, 1999).Although there are a number of

studies that examine the effects of massmedia on Latino culture (Greenberg,Burgoon, Burgoon, & Korzenny,1983; Jackson Turner & Allen, 1997;Olivarez, 1998; Rodriguez, 1996;Waisbord, 1998), there is currently noliterature examining cultural factorspertaining to working class UnitedStates Latino usage of new communi-cation technologies. Several relatedstudies, however, suggest that the func-tion of certain technologies might beat odds with the values of the membersof this particular culture. Roscoe(1999) observes that the effects of bothtechnological development and socialformation around new communicationtechnologies, such as the internet, existin complex reciprocal relationships.For United States Latinos, one suchcomplex relationship concerns the in-congruity of the qualities of collec-tivism and the individualistic nature ofnew communication technologies.Studies have shown, for instance, thatincreased use of such communicationtechnologies promotes the possible dis-placement of interpersonal networks(Baym, 2001; Kayany & Yelsma,2000), often resulting in more atten-tion paid to the self rather than thein-group. Another variable in the rela-tionship between Latinos and newcommunication technologies is theperceived ability of individuals ofLatino origin to use new communi-cation technologies. Issues of edu-cation and literacy have been raised inthis debate; some researchers suggestthat Latinos tend to rely less on printand more on broadcast media (Kar-gaonkar, Larson, & Lund, 2001)whereas others argue that print is used

just as widely (Greenberg et al., 1983).Regardless of United States Latinopreference, Scott and Rockwell (1997)concluded that writing and readingcompetencies are not strongly relatedto new technologies and, therefore,should not interfere with such usage.They argued, instead, that communi-cation apprehension is more stronglycorrelated with likelihood not to usenew technologies. Combating the pos-sibility of such opposition, Roach andOlaniran (2001) found Latinos to havequite high levels of willingness to com-municate and low levels of communi-cation apprehension after several yearsin the United States.The intersection of the two re-

viewed bodies of literature leads to thefollowing research questions aboutworking class United States Latinos’perceptions and uses of communi-cation technologies.

RQ1: Do first-generation workingclass Latinos in the UnitedStates perceive and use each ofthree new media – cell phones,computers, and the internet –in distinct ways?

RQ2: Can the reasons United Statesworking class Latinos give foruse/non-use be related to dis-tinctions between technologiesbased on Latino cultural valuesof what constitutes good com-munication?

Methods

Participants

In all, 78 first-generation workingclass Latino immigrants, all of whomnow reside permanently in the UnitedStates, participated in this study. Par-ticipants were members of a house-keeping staff at a large university in

165

CSMC LEONARDI

TABLE 1PARTICIPANTS’ COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN

Country of Origin N %

Costa Rica 6 8Ecuador 8 10El Salvador 9 11Mexico 44 57Panama 4 5Puerto Rico 7 9

the western United States who wereresponsible for the daily cleaning andupkeep of the university’s residencehalls. Staff members who self-identified as United States Latino wereinvited to participate in the study.Approval for this study was granted bythe University of Colorado’s HumanResearch Committee and all partici-pants gave explicit informed consentto participate. Spanish was the nativelanguage of all participants. The LatinAmerican countries from which theyemigrated were diverse, as illustratedin Table 1. The average age of partic-ipants was 34 and the average lengthof residency in the United States was13 years.

This particular staff was selected forthis study for two reasons. First, asRodrıguez-Alvez (1999) noted, muchof the research on Latino use of theinternet and other new communi-cation technologies has focused onEnglish-speaking upper class individu-als in Latin America. Such a popu-lation is not representative of mostUnited States Latinos. Therefore, first-generation, Spanish-speaking, workingclass Latinos in the United States werechosen to provide insight into a popu-lation largely under-represented inscholarly literature. Second, Reevesand Nass (1996) have shown that peo-ples’ feelings about communicationtechnologies change with increasedusage. To elicit perceptions of technol-

ogy unaffected by familiarity with it,such a participant pool proved idealfor this study. An initial survey of newcommunication technology usage pro-vided insight into the depth of theparticipants’ familiarity with the indi-vidual technologies surveyed in thisstudy (see Table 2).

Focus Group Sessions

Krueger (1994) notes that focusgroups conducted among peers canusually foster comfortable environ-ments for participants and tend toelicit in-depth comments and re-sponses. To achieve a comfortablegroup ideally requires six to 10 partici-pants per group; to achieve productiveresults three to five groups per projectare needed (Morgan, 1997). Further,Bradford et al. (1999) suggest thatfocus group interviews may serve toincrease the level of disclosure fromLatino participants by reducing typi-cally high power distance and afford-ing participants the opportunity tospeak freely without fear of reproach.

For this study, seven focus groupswere conducted with an average of 11participants in each. Each focus grouplasted approximately an hour and ahalf and was held in a staff lounge onthe university campus so that partici-pants would feel comfortable in a fam-iliar setting. Participants were first

166


TABLE 2COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY USE AND OWNERSHIP

Technology use (at least once) Technology ownership

N % N %

Cell phone 72 92 52 67Computer 31 40 10 13Internet* 21 27 4 5

*Used either at home, work, or a public library.

asked to discuss their general impres-sions of new technologies, both goodand bad, and then were asked morespecific questions about their uses ofand perceptions of the effects of cellu-lar phones, computers, and the inter-net. All participants were encouragedto share both personal experiences andstories they had heard about each ofthe three communication technologies,and to comment whenever they felt itappropriate. The focus group sessionswere conducted entirely in Spanish bythe author, a fluent Spanish speaker.Each session was audio-recorded andtranscribed and the transcriptionstranslated from Spanish into English.The data were analyzed for themes,

patterns, and positions built on cul-tural orientation. Particular attentionwas given both to comments or storiesthat made claims about the purpose ofa certain technology as well as itsbenefits and hindrances, and to theway in which participants framed theirknowledge about the specific com-munication technologies. Looking atin-depth reactions to different com-munication technologies highlights notonly cultural orientation, but distinc-tions in perceptions and uses amongthe technologies.Moving from data collection in

Spanish to reporting in English raisesseveral concerns. The first issue is thatof the level of translation appropriatefor this particular study. Because I am

interested in the ways in which partici-pants position their knowledge aboutspecific communication technologiesthrough their speech, I felt it import-ant to translate colloquially. There-fore, equivalent vernacular expressionscan be found in the English transla-tion. The second issue is how foreignlanguage data are to be presented in aresearch study. Out of respect for thenative language of participants, andthe cultural focus of this study, when-ever data are referenced herein boththe original Spanish and the translatedEnglish are included. I hope that inthis way the study is sensitive to thecultural differences that constitute itseffectiveness.

Findings

Working class United States Latinoparticipants in this study used and per-ceived cell phones, computers, and theinternet in terms of how each technol-ogy promoted their own cultural val-ues of good communication. For themost part, participants thought andtalked about computers and the inter-net in the same way, seeing them assimilar. The distinction in perceptionand use of cellular phones and com-puters and the internet, however, wasgreat, and often conflicting. The fol-lowing results reflect participants’ per-ceptions and uses of cell phones, and

167

CSMC LEONARDI

computers and the internet. The posi-tioning of these two types of technol-ogy distinctly in line with Latinocultural values is then explored.

Cell Phones

Participants overwhelmingly ac-knowledged that cell phone use was animportant tool for communication intheir everyday lives. In fact, most par-ticipants saw cell phone use as beinggenerally expected from most peoplein United States society. More than aluxury allowing for instantaneous com-munication, participants noted thatcell phones are a necessity in an in-creasingly hectic and unpredictableworld. As one participant, Rosario,noted:

Excerpt 1: Session 2

R: ¡Esto es! El telefono, como diceUd., el telefono no es un lujo. Esuna necesidad porque les sacan auno de muchos problemas … deemergencias.

R: That’s it! The phone, like you said,the phone’s not a luxury. It’s anecessity because it can get a per-son out of a lot of problems … ofemergencies.

Several participants also described us-ing cell phones for a number of rea-sons other than emergencies. Thereasons given included: cell phones areoften cheaper than regular land lines,and one can reach someone at anytime if land lines are busy. Participantsremarked that it is simply not goodenough to give up trying to contactsomeone. For example, Esteban said:


E: Cuando esta la lınea ocupada, lalınea regular, hay que usar los celu-lares.

E: When the line is busy, the regularline, you have to use a cell phone.

Several participants mentioned thattheir children even use cell phones tocall them from another room in thehouse to ask what is being preparedfor dinner. Rather than viewing cellphones as a useful but avoidable toolfor enhancing communication, suchactivities in both Anglo and Latinocultures have helped to instantiate cellphones as a necessary tool for com-munication. Moreover, 96% of thosewho did not currently have a cellphone noted that they planned to pur-chase one within the next year. Themajor obstacle to acquisition was cost.In their discussions about the

necessity of cell phones, many partici-pants revealed deep and pervasiveknowledge about the functions andlimitations of that particular technol-ogy. On a simple level, operating plat-forms in both English and Spanishavailable on nearly all cell phones en-abled participants to gain functionalcommand of the types of tasks ofwhich the cell phone was capable. Ona deeper level, most participants werequite familiar with not just the func-tions of the device but also the mech-anical limitations of the largertechnology itself:


N: Pues, la mıa no funciona aquı [enel sotano].

O: Aquı abajo no funcionan.A: Tiene que irse afuera.P: Y adentro de las montanas

tampoco funciona.

N: Well, mine doesn’t work here [inthe basement].

O: They just don’t work down here.A: You have to go outside.P: And when you’re in the mountains

it doesn’t work either.

168


Participants were thus aware that cellphones have certain functional limita-tions. Even those who did not own cellphones, such as Oscar and Patriabove, were aware that users could notobtain a signal in a basement or inmountainous areas. Understanding atechnology’s mechanical limitationsshows a substantial level of familiarityand respect for it. In addition, partici-pants were clearly aware of the ongo-ing issues surrounding the use of cellphones, such as privacy, that have per-vaded trade publications of late(Rezendes Khirallah, 2001; Schwartz,2000). The particular questions sur-rounding cell phone use usually ad-dressed the problem of having one’scalls listened to by other users:


S: En las conversaciones privadas nodebe de usar los celulares.

C: Sı, me preocupo todo eso los tele-fonos celulares.

S: Los telefonos regulares son mejorespor eso porque ası no se escuchanadie.

S: For private conversation youshouldn’t use cell phones.

C: Yeah, all that worries me aboutcell phones.

S: Regular phones are better for thatbecause no one can listen in.

Thus, in general, participants wereconfident in their awareness of the lim-itations of and preoccupations occa-sioned by cell phones.Another important aspect of under-

standing technology use is the compre-hension of its function in relation toother modes of communication. In ad-dition to their knowledge of what cellphones can and cannot do mechani-cally, participants expressed that cellphones become a necessity due totheir ability to facilitate information

transfer. Understanding the role of cellphone as social agent, all participantswere aware of how to use cell phonesas a means of communication ratherthan as an end. The ability to ac-complish daily tasks is greatly aided bythe invocation of the cell phone; fromany locale one can access informationby making a simple and quick call.When asked to recount how they findinformation they need in their dailylives, two participants responded:


M: Muchas veces la consigo por eltelefono celular.[una lınea quitada]

D: Por ejemplo, en el periodico tam-bien viene mucha informacion.Casi la mayorıa de las tiendas lotiene. Luego tienes que llamarlos.

M: A lot of times I get it with the cellphone.[one line deleted]

D: For example, a lot of informationcomes in the newspaper. It hasalmost all the stores. Then you justhave to call them.

Several participants also noted thatthey not only find information on theircell phones but store it as well.


H: Oh, en los telefonos ahı se guardan[cosas importantes] ya. Los poneen el telefono y se quedanguardados.

H: Oh, the phones can store [import-ant things] now. You put them inthe phone and they stay savedthere.

Cell phones are seen as a positiveand necessary technology. A height-ened awareness of the function andlimitations of both the immediate de-vice and the larger technology showshow easily working class United States

169

CSMC LEONARDI

Latinos have embraced and acceptedcell phones into their lives, coming toview them as a necessary tool for effec-tive communication.The next section examines percep-

tions and uses of computers and theinternet.

Computers and the Internet

As mentioned earlier, most partici-pants positioned their uses and percep-tions of computers and the internetvery similarly, drawing almost no dis-tinction between the functions of thesetwo technologies. In fact, there was astrong tendency to equate computerswith the internet, blending their per-ceived uses and purposes. In the follow-ing example, participants were asked todiscuss what they knew, thought, orhad heard computers can do:


L: Es muy bien para recordar cosas,y grabar cosas.

E: Puede hacer compras y hacerotras cosas ası.

M: Puede comprar cosas por el inter-net.

F: Puede buscar precios; no tiene queir a la tienda.

L: It’s a good way to rememberthings, and store things.

E: You can shop and do other thingslike that.

M: You can buy things on the inter-net.

F: You can look for prices; you don’thave to go to the store.

Participants used the terms“computer” and “internet” relativelyinterchangeably, collapsing their func-tions. Also interesting are the ways inwhich participants described the func-tions of these technologies. They werevery clear as to what individuals can

indeed do with computers and the in-ternet; most of these examples point tospeed and efficiency:


F: Por ejemplo, los hijos ponen en uncampo en la computadora si hayuna direccion que no conocen, yrapido con la computadora sacanel mapa … como van a llegar tam-bien.

F: For example, the kids go to a siteon the computer if there is an ad-dress they don’t know, and with thecomputer they get a mapquickly … how they’re gonna getthere too.

In their discourse, participantsidentified many of the main functionsof computers and the internet, andelsewhere in the sessions they noted auser’s ability to chat, participate invideo conferencing, download songs,listen to the radio, use a web phone,and operate a search engine. Comput-ers and the internet were largely rec-ognized as providing positive services.Although they emphasized the posi-

tive services provided by computersand the internet, participants per-ceived the operation of such technolo-gies to be difficult. Even those whodidn’t know much about computershad heard or seen that they aredifficult to learn.


N: Pues, yo no mas he oıdo que lacomputadora, que la computadoraes muy, muy difıcil aprender.

N: Well, I’ve just heard that the com-puter, the computer is very, verydifficult to learn.

Although participants understoodthe ways in which computers and theinternet can ease everyday activities,

170


they believed that both technologiesare so difficult to learn to use properlythat the time invested in acquisitionof the necessary skills would notamount to the time saved by using thetechnology.


R: Para mı es demasiado difıcil apren-der, pero es comodo porque mihijo lo hace.

A: No es tan difıcil. Todo se aprende.¿Como aprender limpiar losbanos?

V: Dandole, dandole.R: Pero tarda tiempo y lo que pasa es

uno llega a la casa, llega de bar-rando y lavando y ya cuandoviene …

A: Pero si das tu tiempo …C: ¿Pero cuando hay tiempo?

R: It’s too hard for me to learn, but itisn’t so bad because my son does it.

A: It’s not that difficult. You can learnanything. How did you learn toclean bathrooms?

V: Doing it, doing it.R: But it takes time and what happens

is you get home, you come fromsweeping and washing and whenyou get there …

A: But if you spend some time …C: But when is there time?

However, participants did not feel thatlearning how to operate computersand the internet was beyond their ca-pabilities. The constant invocation oftime constraints and the perceiveddifficulty of learning how to accessthese new technologies were the im-peding factors.This perception of difficulty of oper-

ation played a key role in participants’lack of affinity for computers and theinternet. Much of this sensitivity camefrom a belief in the intractable natureof these technologies. Participants

were very clear that the technologywould do various things over whichthey had no control. The technologyclearly was placed in a role of superi-ority over the user. Those who eitherhad experience with computers andthe internet, or had heard stories ofpeople who used them, were con-vinced the technology had a mind ofits own. Participants felt their actionswere subordinate to the function of thetechnology.


J: Sı, tiene muchas ventajas tambien.Si lo ves por este lado de agarrarla, las cosas positivas, tiene mucho.

A: Pero cuando se meten cosasmalas …

O: Estos sı son las cosas malas. Si [misninos] estan en lınea y se metenpor la pornografıa, se meten por lapornografıa. Nadie les puedeparar, ¿y tu?

A: Pero no mas se aplaste una tecla, yolvıdese.

O: Ay, la tecla equivocada, ¡Dios, Heequivocado!

J: Yeah, it has a lot of advantages. Ifyou see it as a way of getting the,the positive things, it has a lot.

A: But when bad things get inthere …

O: Yes, those are bad things. If [mykids] are online and they get intopornography, they get into por-nography. There’s nothing anyonecan do to stop them, can you?

A: But all you have to do is hit onewrong key, and forget about it,

O: Yup, the wrong key, God, it’s allover!

In this short passage, the participantsmake claims about the intractability ofcomputers and the internet on variouslevels. The first two speakers discusshow users do not have a choice about

171

CSMC LEONARDI

whether they access good or badthings on the internet but, rather, intandem with a willingness to use thetechnology to aid their daily activities,users must be willing to be exposed tothings they would like not to be. Simi-larly, the third speaker notes that nei-ther she nor anyone else, includingchildren themselves, has control overthe things children will see on the in-ternet. Finally, the last two speakersexpress concern that by accidentallyhitting an unintended key they may beexposed to unspecified harm. Partici-pants clearly felt that computers andthe internet had many good and badthings to offer, but that the voyagecould never be determined by the useralone, for the technology had just asmuch or more to say in the experi-ence.


S: Muchas veces cualquier uno semete ahı … uno pegado a atencion¿pero en un segundo de descuidocuantas cosas pasan?

S: A lot of times anyone who’son … someone who’s paying atten-tion, but in one second of inatten-tion how many things can happen?

Computers and the internet were be-lieved to be very difficult to learnabout, for a user not only had to ac-quire technical knowledge but also hadto deal with the possibility that thetechnology would take them on a wildride.

Through their discussions, partici-pants showed different levels of com-fort with and affinity for cell phones,and computers and the internet.Although both technologies providedmany advantages to the user, cellphones were much easier to operateand could be controlled entirely by theuser, while computers and the internet

were extremely difficult in part due totheir intractability.

The final section examines how par-ticipants position cell phones and com-puters and the internet in terms ofLatino cultural values.

Cell Phones vs. Computers and theInternet

Whether using cell phones or com-puters and the internet, participantswere adamant that communicationaugmentation should be the mainfunction. Although cellular phones,computers and the internet are clearlycapable of more than providing a me-dium for communication, participantssaw each type of technology as eitherpositive or negative on the basis of itsability to help them communicate withothers. From this viewpoint, partici-pants found cell phones to have onlypositive qualities because the technol-ogy enabled communication at anyplace and at any time.


C: En cualquier actividad es muy pos-itiva tener un telefono celular. Esmuy importante porque tu lotienes a la mano. Como con esoque paso en New York (11 sep.).Muchas personas llamaron yhablaron con sus queridos por laultima vez.

C: For any activity it’s good to have acell phone. It’s very important be-cause you have it right it at yourfingertips. Like with what hap-pened in New York (Sept. 11). Alot of people called and talked totheir loved ones for the last time.

Whether the situation is life threaten-ing or a daily occurrence, cell phonesprovide a way to ensure users are al-ways in contact with those they love.

172



I: Gracias a Dios que podemos [man-tener contacto con familiares] portelefono.

I: Thank God we can [keep in touchwith family] over the phone.

Although a cell phone user is tempo-rarily disengaged from interpersonalcommunication acts with those aroundhim/her, this cultural communicationproblem is offset by the ability tobridge the relational gap often causedby distance.When discussing whether cell

phones had any negative impacts onthe user or the community the onlyissues raised by participants were thoseof use at dangerous or inappropriatetimes, such as while driving or inchurch. Otherwise, cell phones werenever mentioned as anything otherthan positive, due to the ways theykeep people connected.In contrast, participants did not

view computers and the internet astechnologies that helped to keep peo-ple connected. The primary functionof such technologies was seen as facili-tating information collection andtransfer. In fact, use of computers andthe internet was viewed by participantsas having a negative impact on inter-personal relationships, especiallywithin the family.


L: Yo digo que la gente se emocionamucho y se olviden hasta la familiacuando esta con la computadora.Esto, puede ser malo.

B: Yo creo que ha arruinado un pocoa la familia, estar tanto en la com-putadora.

L: Pues, depende de cada persona,pero si esta persona no esta pasandocon la familia, pienso que sı.

L: People get all excited and forgeteven about their family whenthey’re on the computer. That canbe bad.

B: I think that it’s kinda ruined thefamily a bit, being on the computerso much.

L: Well, it depends on the person, butif they’re not spending time withthe family I think that it is.

Despite all the positive things theymight be able to do, if computers andthe internet distract users from inter-personal activities, they are perceivednegatively. Unlike cell phones, whichencourage communication outsidefact-to-face contexts, participantsviewed computers and the internet aspromoting individuality and removingthe user from social life. Consequently,as one participant pointed out, inter-personal values are jeopardized bysuch technology.


D: Sı, puede estar mas en la computa-dora que con la familia. Eso no esbueno.

D: Yeah, you can be on the computermore than with the family. That’snot good.

As might be expected, language alsoplayed a small but important role inthe preference of one technology overanother. Virtually all cell phones comein a multilingual format, easing use forthose who do not speak English. Al-though Spanish platforms are avail-able for computers, they are notreadily accessible on all computers, asthey are on cell phones. Also, only1.5–2% of all internet content is inSpanish (Gomez, 2000; Rodrıguez-Alvez, 1999), vastly limiting the num-ber of pages to which Spanish speakersmay have access. Not only is a simplelanguage barrier a problem but axio-

173

CSMC LEONARDI

logically the question then becomesone of pride. Must the user forgo theuse of his/her native language in orderto access a new technology?


P: Yo creo que en la computadoravienen muchas … casi necesitas de-jar el espanol para entrar. En lostelefonos celulares no, [pausa] noes una decision tan difıcil.

P: I think that on the computer a lotof things come in … you almosthave to leave Spanish behind toenter. With cell phones it’s not,[pause] not such a difficult de-cision.

Participants spoke of the decisionsthey make about when to defend theuse of their language and when toconcede to using English in their ev-eryday lives. Computers and the inter-net provide two more venues in whicha difficult choice has to be made.Overall, however, participants did notsee the language barrier as insur-mountable when accessing computersand the internet. Rather, it was thedifficulty of deciding whether to acceptthe use of a new language, coupledwith a lack of knowledge of how tooperate the technology, that provedtroublesome.Although the learning curve seemed

great, participants were unanimousin their desire to learn how to usecomputers and the internet. The rea-sons they wished to learn how to usesuch technologies do not, however,align with communicative culturalvalues, for, as explained earlier, theyfeel that as tools for communicationcomputers and the internet do notadequately accomplish this task.Participants felt that although it wasnot necessary to learn to use the tech-nology to communicate effectively,

they did realize that their unfamiliaritywith computers and the internetexcluded them from being a part ofa larger community of users. AsUnited States culture is largely depen-dent today on computers and the in-ternet for daily activities, participantsnoted that they were beginning to feelinferior to those who know how to usethem:


N: Bueno, yo sı siento, ¿verdad? Porejemplo, yo que no se usar la com-putadora nada. Sı, me gustarıaaprender porque siento que me es-toy quedando atras.

D: Ası me siento yo, igual.N: Porque mis hijas, una tiene 12

anos, y la otra tiene 10 anos, usar-las. Y yo no se nada de eso y sısiento que me estoy quedandomuy atras porque ahorita puedetodo el mundo usar la computa-dora. Soy una persona que nosabe.

F: Ası me siento yo precisamente,siento que me estoy quedandoatras, que no estoy aprendiendo lobueno de la tecnologıa. Que meesta avanzando y me voy huyendopara atras.

N: OK, it really gets to me, right? Forexample, I don’t know how to usethe computer at all. Yes, I wouldlike to learn because I feel like Iam falling behind.

D: That’s exactly how I feel.N: Because my daughters, one is 12

and the other is 10, use them. AndI don’t know anything about thatand I feel like I am falling waybehind because now everyone canuse the computer. I’m someonewho doesn’t know how.

F: That’s precisely how I feel. I feellike I am falling behind, that I am

174


not learning the good things aboutthe technology. I feel like it is pass-ing me by and I keep falling far-ther behind.

Participants were conscious of the digi-tal divide in the United States and feltthat being computer illiterate placedthem at a disadvantage relative tothose who were computer savvy, in-cluding many Anglos.


J: Pienso que la gente de aquı,¿verdad? Son los que saben usar[computadoras y el internet]. Sonadaptados a hacerlo. Nosotros, losLatinos, son un poco mas atras.

J: I think that the people here, right?They’re the ones that know how touse [computers and the internet].They’re adapted to do it. We, theLatinos, are a little bit behind.

Although most participants did notcurrently own a computer or have ac-cess to the internet, 67% hoped topurchase a computer sometime withinthe next three years.These findings show how the uses

and perceptions of cell phones andthe internet are shaped by culturalvalues of communication. Reasonsgiven for future computer and internetacquisition are not for better com-munication purposes, but rather toensure that the digital divide, betweenthose who have access to technologyand those who don’t, would notleave Latinos in an inferior position tothose in mainstream United States cul-ture. The decision to use distinctcommunication technologies had asmuch to do with perceived ability tofamiliarize oneself with them as it didwith ensuring sustained interpersonalcontact.

Discussion

Through the use of focused groupdiscussions this study examined howworking class United State Latinos’collectivist cultural orientation affectedtheir perceptions and uses of cellphones, computers, and the internet.The findings showed that cultural val-ues of good communication affectedworking class United States Latinoviews of the three technologies, gener-ally viewed by mainstream UnitedStates culture as enhancing communi-cation. All participants in this studyidentified cell phones as a mediumthat promotes cultural communicativevalues, whereas computers and theinternet were viewed as media thatimpede those values.The function of cell phones worked

well with the communication goals ofthese participants. They viewed cellphones as a means by which to main-tain interpersonal relations with peo-ple both near and far. Consistent withresearch suggesting that Latinos valueconsistent, close interpersonal contact,participants expressed that cell phoneswere beneficial for a variety of reasons.In times of emergency, distress, or sim-ply with the rise of unexpected events,users can maintain contact withfriends and loved ones. Most partici-pants also found the technology easyto use. Cell phones were seen as aneffective way to communicate, but alsoan efficient means of storing infor-mation. Participants felt very comfort-able with the technology, understoodits advantages, and were aware of thelimitations of the device itself as well asthe larger framework in which it oper-ated. They were confident in theirability to use and control the technol-ogy and saw it as a resource withwhich to communicate more effec-tively. More than just a luxury,

175

CSMC LEONARDI

participants commented that cellphones were a necessity.Most United States Latinos who ar-

ticulated their opinions in this studymade few or no distinctions betweencomputers and the internet; the lack ofdifferentiation between these two tech-nologies was consistent with their cul-tural orientation. Participants viewedcomputers and the internet in thesame way because they did not see theinternet as a communication medium.Each time participants discussed therole of the internet, they referred to itas a tool with which to obtain infor-mation. Save for a few mentions ofchat rooms, participants rarely focusedon the internet’s ability to connectpeople through such media as messageboards, instant messaging, and email.Instead, access to information such asstore schedules and restaurant guides,the ability to make purchases such asairline tickets and hotel reservations,and a view of the internet as a placefor entertainment, pervaded their con-ception of the function of this technol-ogy. Given their understanding of theinternet as this type of resource, itmakes sense that they would viewcomputers and the internet similarly.Thus, they did not find the internet, orcomputers for that matter, to be anecessity but instead a time saver thatfacilitated the apprehension of infor-mation that could equally be found byinvesting a little more time in tra-ditional methods.Although computers and the inter-

net were seen as important to partici-pants, they also were seen as inhibitingparticipation and active membershipin the family and other importantgroups. Durham (1989) suggests thatthe one-to-one encounters fostered bysome new communication technolo-gies might be at odds with culturesthat value turn taking and social par-

ticipation. Accordingly, participantsfelt that the individualistic nature ofcomputers and the internet encour-aged individuals to break away fromsocial groups and not take active mem-bership roles in them. Although re-searchers suggest that immigrants andmembers of minority groups with simi-lar interests and backgrounds can of-ten find a sense of belonging andcommonality in cyberspace (Mitra,2001), participants in this study havenot come to utilize the internet in thatway.Even though they were unaware of

the communicative functions of com-puters and the internet, the vast ma-jority of participants had a great desireto learn how to use these technologies.Apart from the lack of recognition thatcomputers and the internet could in-deed be used as media for communi-cation, participants were veryknowledgeable about other importantfunctions of these media such as infor-mation retrieval, purchase power, anddata archiving. As members of theUnited States culture, most of the bi-cultural Latinos in this study felt thepressure of the digital divide. Theywere quite concerned about falling be-hind in the rapid acquisition of tech-nological know-how, and they feltinadequate when put in situationswhich required interaction with com-puters and the internet, which theywere unable to provide.The findings reported herein show

that this group of working class UnitedStates Latinos did not view new mediaas a homogeneous category. Instead,most participants had very distinctperceptions and ideas about the ex-pected uses of cell phones and com-puters and the internet in relation tocultural values of good communi-cation. While further research isneeded to see if these results pertain to

176


a broader range of occupations andregions, it is clear that if we are tofurther understand and promote the fitbetween technologies and culture, sub-stantial additional research is neededinto the uses made of communicationtechnologies by Latinos and othercultures.These findings show that, in line

with social constructionist thinking, itis presumptuous and disadvantageousto the study of new communicationtechnology to group individual tech-nologies a priori into broad categoriesand treat them as engendering rela-tively equal effects and occasioningrelatively similar usage. In doing this,we essentialize technology, abstractingit from our own communication prac-tices and treating it as a relativelyautonomous occurrence (Winner,1977). Instead, our categories shouldbe constructed on the basis of socialuses and perceptions of the technol-ogy. If we do not do this, we denyourselves power in our interactionswith technology. When we say “thecomputer won’t let me do what Iwant,” and we believe it, we granttechnologies undue agency. Althoughby itself this may not seem entirelyproblematic, when coupled with a se-cond danger – separating technologyfrom context – its hazards are com-pounded. Jackson (1996) reminds us

that the functionality of a given tech-nology, “the ability of an artifact to beused to accomplish a social task – isthe primary requirement of technol-ogy, prior to the material and socialdefinitions of the artifact” (p. 255).That is to say, the communicationgoals of a particular group of usersalways play a crucial role in theiruses and perceptions of technology.If we forget this, we may blindlyadopt technologies because we believethey are a sign of progress (Banks& Tankel, 1990; Smith, 1994), withoutmaking sure that they help usprogress. Paying attention to the cul-tural fit between technologies andcommunication practices helps us tobe critical users of technology andto adopt only those technologies thatassist us in achieving our communi-cation goals. The implications of thefindings of the present study, then,extend to any subgroup or organiza-tion using new communication tech-nologies. Technologies, in general,should not be implemented becausethey are believed to enhance com-munication for everyone; rather, par-ticular technologies should be adoptedbased on their specific abilities to aug-ment culturally defined qualities ofgood communication for specificgroups – qualities that are continuallychanging. �

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 currentdebate. The term “Hispanic” was invoked by the United States government in its need to count theever-increasing number of Spanish speaking people who could not be identified as a single race, andthus refers to individuals of Spanish-speaking cultural decent. The term “Latino” has come torepresent those who identify with a Latin American culture. Many users of this term find it to be apositive alternative to the term “Hispanic,” which some believe attempts to homogenize Spanish-speakers of different races. Clearly, there is no correct term and the debate over nomenclature willcontinue. I feel the best way for researchers to deal with this issue is to evaluate each projectindividually, 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 mostappropriate way to decide the use of a term for this specific study was to ask these specific participantshow they would prefer to be referenced. Though most participants said that either term wasacceptable, the majority (62%) felt that the term “Latino” slightly better represented their culturalheritage. 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 Studiesin Mass Communication, 7, 24–36.

Barley, S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CTscanners 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. EuropeanJournal of Communication, 12, 193–218.

Baym, N. (2001). Is the Internet really any different?: Social interactions across media. Paper presented at theInternational Commmunication Association Annual Conference. Washington, DC.

Benet-Martınez, 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 SocialPsychology, 75, 729–750.

Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latino immigrant adolescents. AmericanJournal 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 threegenerations of Mexican American and Euro American school children. Journal of Genetic Psychology,154, 531–543.

Davila, A. (2001). Latinos INC: The marketing and making of a people. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Der-Karabetian, A., & Ruiz, Y. (1997). Affective bicultural and global-human identity scales forMexican-American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 80, 1027–1039.

DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptivestructuration 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 ofManagement, 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). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Gomez, 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 SouthernCommunication Journal, 55, 276–291.

178


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 massmedia. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Guarnaccia, P.J., & Rodriguez, O. (1996). Concepts of culture and their role in the development ofculturally competent mental health services. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 419–433.

Gudykunst, W.B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 31, 384–399.

Hokanson, S., & Hooper, B. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: examining the potential ofcomputers 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 ofthe workplace. In L.A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping andconsequences of ICTs (pp. 236–253). London: Sage.

Jackson Turner, L., & Allen, C.W. (1997). Mexican and Latino media behavior in Los Angeles: The1996 election example. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 884–901.

Kargaonkar, P., Larson, E., & Lund, D. (2001). Direct marketing: A comparison of Hispanic andnon-Hispanic perspectives. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 25–47.

Kayany, J.M., & Yelsma, P. (2000). Displacement effects of online media in the socio-technicalcontexts of households. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 215–229.

Korzenny, F. (1999). Acculturation vs. assimilation among US Hispanics: E-mail self-reports. Quirk’sMarketing Research Review, 13, 50–54.

Korzenny, F., & Abravanel, R. (1998). Acculturation: Conceptualization and measurement. Quirk’sMarketing 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 inmaquiladoras. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 1–31.

Marin, G., & Triandis, H.C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behavior ofLatin Americans and Hispanics. In R. Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in socialpsychology (pp. 85–104). New York: Elsevier Science.

Marin, G., Gamba, R.J., & Marin, B.V. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence amongHispanics: 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 contextson 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 basedon 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: Thetheory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & G. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communicationtechnology (pp. 173–195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Radovan, M. (2001). Information technology and the character of contemporary life. InformationCommunication & 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 likereal 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 communicationanxiety in international teaching assistants. Communication Research Reports, 18, 26–35.

Rodriguez, A. (1996). Objectivity and ethnicity in the production of the “Noticiero Univision.” CriticalStudies in Mass Communication, 13, 59–81.

Rodriguez, R. (1988, July 11). The fear of losing a culture. Time, 132, 84.

Rodrıguez-Alvez, F. (1999). Present and future of the Internet in Latin America: A TITLAN researchreport. 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 November20, 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 technologyapprehension 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 communi-cation technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with group decision supportsystem users. Communication Quarterly, 46, 353–374.

Shkodriani, G.M, & Gibbons, J.L. (1995). Individualism and collectivism among university students inMexico 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: TheMIT Press.

Starbuck, W.H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 11, 725–737.

Stavans, I. (1995). The Hispanic condition: Reflection on culture and identity in America. New York:HarperCollins.

Subervi-Velez, F.A. (1999). The mass media and Latinos: Policy and research agendas for the nextcentury. Aztlan, 24, 131–147.

Waisbord, S. (1998). When the cart of media is before the horse of identity: A critique oftechnology-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 researchmodel 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, 2002Final revision received October 11, 2002Accepted January 16, 2003

problematizing new media : culturally based … · this study expands previous research by...

Documents