1 / 17

Being 3.0 Technology Subgroup GYF

Being 3.0 Technology Subgroup GYF. Midterm Meeting Essen, 21.06.2010 Roberto Avanzi, Gerald Enzner , Viola Hofmann, Christian Igel, Isa Jahnke, Frank Meyer zu Heringdorf, Beate Schmuck, Sandra Sülzenbrück, Dorothea Voss-Dahm. Introduction What Being 3.0 means Aim of the study

lois
Download Presentation

Being 3.0 Technology Subgroup GYF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Being 3.0Technology Subgroup GYF Midterm Meeting Essen, 21.06.2010 Roberto Avanzi, Gerald Enzner, Viola Hofmann, Christian Igel, Isa Jahnke, Frank Meyer zu Heringdorf, Beate Schmuck, Sandra Sülzenbrück, Dorothea Voss-Dahm

  2. Introduction What Being 3.0 means Aim of the study Our approach Next steps Outline Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  3. How will the world be when Larais grown up? 1 Will she USE latest technology ? Will she UNDERSTAND Technology ? Will she be AWARE of the risks? Will she take responsibility? Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  4. Need for awareness and skills 1 How do we teach us to „be safe“ in new environments? … if the environment is rapidly changing and … not really knowing the coming rules and standards. We learnt how to safely cross the street - often from our parents. We teach it to our children. It seems that this process has been sufficiently good. Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  5. Technologies: “Meat” “Poison” 1 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  6. Evolution of the Human Being • Being 1.0 • „Tool Maker“ • Successful utilization of small technology and environment • Assuming independent evolution of the bigger environment • Being 2.0 • Interacts with a larger environment through technology • “ProSumer” (producer & consumer) • Possesses awareness of this interaction, including the ambivalent nature of technology (“meat and poison”) • Being 3.0 • Interactive and aware of the large scale of interaction • Further taking responsibility for sustainable interaction • Guided by competence: ability, awareness, responsibility 1 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  7. > > Being 1.0 > > > Being 2.0 > 1 Isn‘t it us? Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  8. What “Being 3.0” means (our vision) We would like to bring „Being 3.0“ into people’s consciousness more than it is today. That means: “One of the most important tasks in the Internet generation/age:enabling people for designing the society they’re living in: People can design their environment BUT awareness is needed (because people believe they don’t have influence). Even if people live in complex systems and networks,there are a lot of opportunities for concrete actions for designing the own socio-technical society and people have the responsibility to use these opportunities.” 2 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  9. …therefore, we aim to study: • Measurement ofthedegreeof „Awareness“ • Measurement of „Behavior“ • Survey ofthedegreeof „Responsibility“,(i.e., ofthedegreeof „Being 3.0“) • withregardto different cultures Wewantto • createawareness • createresponsibility • createrecommendations (forpolicy) etc. 3 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  10. Our hypothesis: 5 types of behavior (focused on Internet, “social media”, Web 2.0) People don‘t know about data problemsand use the Internet without knowing them People know about the data problem but still use it since they don‘t care People know about the data problem but still use it since they believe cost-benefit-relation is good enough for them People know about data problems and use the Internet but believe they can control the Internet People know about data problems so, they don’t use these Internet applications 3 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  11. Our approach • Development of a standardized questionnaire • Measurement of „awareness“ (a) regarding the Internet (attitudes) • Measurement of „behavior“ (b) regarding the Internet • Analysis: correlating a and b, classifying & identifying types • Telephone-supported survey(by an professional institute) • Target groups: • Wide range of people living in Germany • GYF member from other countries, OCF 4 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  12. Questionnaire (overview) • Part 1: some aspects about the person (e.g., education, age, city) • Part 2: Knowledge about „social media“ and awareness about data problems • Part 3: how people use ICT/social media • Part 4: acceptance about new technologies in general (and social desirability) • Part 5: what web 2.0 applications they use how often We expect differences between “awareness” and “usage” => 5 types of behavior 4 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  13. Part 2: Examples (3 out of 15) 4 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  14. Part 3: Examples (4 out of 10) 4 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  15. Part 5: Examples 4 Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  16. Next steps, outlook 5 Finalizing the questionnaire (July 2010) Choose professional institute for telephone survey (SUZ, Sozialwiss. Umfrage-Zentrum, Duisburg) Evaluating the results (September 2010) Developing strategies for creating/supporting awareness Philharmonie Essen, Midterm Meeting GYF

  17. Thank you for your attention

More Related