Determination of the complementary topics for the survey

Appendix

MEDIAPPRO Meeting report, Warsaw

11-12 April 2005

Participants :

• Thierry De Smedt, UCL, Belgium
• Catherine Geeroms, UCL, Belgium,
• Patrick Verniers, Média Animation, Belgium
• Paul de Theux, Média Animation, Belgium
• Evelyne Bevort, Clemi, France
• Isabelle Bréda, Clemi, France
• Sue Cranmer, Institute of Education, United Kingdom
• Sofia Aslanidou, University of Macedonia, Greece
• Andreas Oikonomou, School of teacher training in Aspete, Greece
• Vitor Reia-Baptista, University of Algavre, Portugal
• Pier Cesare Rivoltella, Universita Cattolica di Milano, Italy
• Elsa Zoffi, Universita Cattolica di Milano, Italy
• Birgitte Tufte, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
• Katarzyna Maniszewska, Foundation for Economic education, Poland
• Krzysztof Zielinski, Foundation for Economic education, Poland
• Kadri Ugur, Robert Schumani Prantsus Uuringute, Estonia
• Jacques Piette, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec
• Christian-Marie Pons, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec
• Luc Giroux, Université de Montréal, Québec

1. Introduction

The meeting started with a roundtable and a short presentation of all the participants.

Thierry De Smedt explains the meeting agenda. Minor technical changes are proposed by the participant and adopted to rise the quality of the work.

2. Current situation of Internet in member's countries

Each country has presented his current situation of Internet and also the researches and initiatives about Media Literacy. The detailed data will be synthesised in the deliverable d 3.1 "Collect, analyse and synthesize existing data about youth practices of new medias".

Thierry De Smedt made the synthesis of that presentation. The evolution of the access and use of Internet is present in each Member State of research, but is not carried out according to the same profile. Some countries seem to have reached a level of saturation and others countries are on the ascending slope of this saturation at various levels. The processes of access are different from one country to another and depend on historical, cultural, political or economic conditions. We have to be careful about this difference when we will analyse our results.

The mobile phone theme and its evolution compared to the picture, the messages and the interconnectivity with Internet is interesting to study. Some countries assume and follow the examination of new technologies (for example, Denmark, France, Belgium, England, Italy), others not (Greece, Poland, Estonia, Portugal). While observing what emerges from the technology of the mobile phone, we will be able to examine the effect of complementarities between this one and Internet.

It should be also interesting to study games in console, computer and online.
The young people are playing with their identity in games, chat, email and bogs.

Almost the totality of the young people seems to have an access to Internet at various places: house, school, cyber cafes, public places, friendly and workplace of the parents...

See the document "Data Report: Current situation of Internet and new media for youth" who was sent before the seminar.

3. Researches Issues

3.1. Knowledge/Representations, Attitudes and Behaviours/Uses

Thierry De Smedt introduces three concepts that should be a main line for the research.

First the concept of Representation indicates the way which an individual or a group represents to him an object (poverty, exclusion, justice, Togo, a rural co-operative, the psychoanalysis...) and mobilizes, consciously or not, this representation to think, understand and express themselves. The representation is often resulting from a combination of formal knowledge, issue from the "formal learning" like those from school or the specific trainings, and of "abstract" knowledge known as, resulting from the experiment, the human entourage and the media. The representations are also implanted in the various levels of the subconscious personnel or collective. They are moreover often modulated by emotional factors of attraction or repulsion. So any action to the representations mixes, in variable proportions, a cognitive dimension focused on knowledge and an emotional dimension, focused on the desire.

Secondly the concept of Attitude indicates a virtuality of act. Closely related with the representations, the attitude can be described like a propensity to adopt behaviour, face to face with certain possible events. The attitude is so a «virtual act ", susceptible to update himself (to be realised concretely) or to inhibit himself when a certain event acting like a release mechanism do or not occur.

Finally, the Behaviour is a "current" act, i.e. in concrete situation, observable as such as through the concrete forms of her expression.

The distinction between representation, attitudes and behaviour is essential to anyone which wishes to exceed a strictly behaviourist attitude, associating any stimulus to a determining answer, like advertising often do. On the contrary, to distinguish representation, attitudes and behaviour is to give explanation for the complexity of the social acts and the multiplicity of sensitivities and personal orientations and environmental factors, without deny the reality of the collective in the individual behaviours.

The members approve concepts but some of them should prefer to use Representation/Knowledge, Attitude and Use as terminology.

3.2. Elaboration of the main lines of the research

To be more efficient it was proposed to work in sub-groups to try to build five schemes.

Three sub-groups were established under the direction of Vitor Reia-Baptista,
Sue Cramer and Birgitte Tufte.

After two hours of work, each sub-group present his main lines and questions about the research.

Group 1 - Dir. Vitor Reia-Baptista :

What are the skills children's needs and how they learn that ?

They proposed to have the following schemes :

1. Social Demographic aspect: the accessibility of Internet and the situation
   of the different country.
2. Awareness of risk situation: perception, representation and experience.
3. Possibilities of interconnectivity in different multimedia contexts.
4. Patterns (lacks) of communication between young peers, adults peers
   and together.
5. Media discourse and (meta) representations: how the medias projects
   the youngsters or adult technological culture?

Group 2 - Dir. Sue Cranmer :

1. How do the children represent the Internet?
2. Is there common style or different styles?
3. What they see as parent's fears? What is influence of parent's representation on they uses?
4. Evolution of the picture's statute (visual literacy) (production, exchange)
5. Morality: how do young people consider ethics in uses? Are they thinking to
   a legal use of Internet?

Group 3 - Dir. Birgitte Tufte :

1. Safety Issues: are not dangers. Do the children perceive the limits on what is legal or not ?
2. Knowledge / Cognitive process : is it peer knowledge? How is the construction
   of that knowledge ?
3. Multimedia tic environment: What do the children expect ? What are the links between different Medias? Is it interactivity ?
4. How do the media affect relationships ? What is the limit between public and private space ? Is it a "blogosphere" ?
5. Future/Democratic citizenship: How to imagine the future ? Are the children efficient to use Internet in the future ?

Work in sub-groups proceeded in two phases (Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning). The second phase was necessary in order to mix the sub-groups and to work over again the research issues while following the groundwork of the group C (initially the group of Birgitte). We have to work to 5 issues with the 3 dimensions presented above. Different items of the research would be spread into the different issues. Vitor Reia-Baptista proposes to add a 6th issue concerning the psychosocial dimension (with and outside Internet).

This synthesis will be explained with more precision in the deliverable 3.2. "Determination of the complementary topics for the survey".

4. Methodological questions

The Canadian's team presents the research "Internet and young people".

1. Les jeunes Québécois et Internet
(représentation, utilisation et appropriation)

The survey was carried out during the 1997-1998 school year, in all secondary schools of the school Commission of the area of Sherbrooke near the whole of the students of secondary 1, that is to say a total population of almost a thousand of students. With an aim of determining various dimensions, the investigation was intended to study the interactions between the young people and Internet starting from the principal contexts where their computer operation develops: school, house and public library. The data were collected using quantitative questionnaires, supplemented by qualitative interviews carried out in-depth near sub samples of the study population.

2. Les jeunes et Internet

Directed by the University of Sherbrooke, this research was undertaken in 1999-2000 in collaboration with France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Portugal, starting from a common protocol. The studied population was widened on the five levels of the secondary (or their equivalents). The principal objective of international research was to make a profile of the young people of the secondary (12-17 years) with the development of Internet and its establishment in the schools.

To Quebec, the survey was carried out in four secondary schools (two in Sherbrooke, two in Montreal), one class by level of secondary first to secondary fifth in each school, a near population of 576 pupils during the school year 1999-2000.

3. Designing Mediappro

Jacques Piette summarizes the methodological choices of the (99-2000) research and articulates them with the design of Mediappro research.

Mediappro will approach a focused sample of 12-18 years old people. The children will be asked in different schools of each member's country.

The definition of the school and youngsters profiles is an urgent task. It will be necessary to establish the contact with schools in May to obtain the needed authorisations.

Concerning the quantitative part of the research, the previous quantity of 400 questionnaires seems to be to low, not for representativeness purpose, but for resolution.

De group decides to rise up the quantity to 1000 questionnaires, to be distributed in each country.

The sample will be divided in three age levels have been defined :

12-14 (beginning of the secondary school),

15-16 (middle of the secondary school), and

17-18 (end of the secondary school) years old young people.

For the qualitative part, the interviews will reach 25-30 young people in each country, selected from the results the quantitative survey.

A long discussion occurs, concerning the more pertinent criterion to apply in order to divide in two the user groups. Several criteria are evoked: city and countryside, the school level of the parents, the economic level, integration cultural and Community...

Definition of populations A and B

Facing the diversity of local situations and hypothesis, reflecting the variety of the theoretical models, it seems difficult to apply common characteristics to each country. Consequently, the group decided to create two groups of different weights (2/3, 1/3).

An master group (2/3) and a different group (1/3), depending on specific criteria, seen as remarkable, being "less something" (depending on the hypothetical model, will be created in each country.

Group A will be regarded as that whose characteristics can be extended in the majority of the population. It will be defined according to economic, social and cultural criteria. The indicators will be chosen by each country according to its particular characteristics. "B" group will be distinguished from "A" by an element which will be considered as relevant for each country, by each national partner.

Each partner will have to describe send us its selection criteria of the schools, their definition of group A (by mail). Each country team will have to choose +/- 10 schools.

5. Administrative management

• Each country will be able to exploit its national results, as he wants. Any use of the Mediappro research results will have to mention the other partners, the Mediappro logo and the fact that the European Commission subsidizes this research. The steering committee will write a text relating to the exploitation and rights of the data. This convention will be sent to each member for being signed.
• "Cost statement" Report: each member is responsible for his cost part. Thierry De Smedt reminds that all the participants must be attentive with their invoices.
• "Time sheet for cost statement": each partner who works on the Mediappro project must note on time sheets the details of its activity (a number of day, hour working...). Isabelle Bréda accepts to make the time sheet draft and to send the model to everyone.
• The "Progress report" will be made following the pattern of the work package.
• Each partner acknowledges the reception of the first payment. One is reminded that each partner managed his budget itself and that he assumed the cost of each one of his activities.
• To transfer money from a heading to another can be only done with the preliminary authorization of the European Commission.
• Patrick Verniers asked to the Polish partner to check the budgetary breakdown on its personnel costs. Personnel costs must indicate the name of the people taking part in the project, their role and their remuneration.

6. Organization

a) Deliverable

At the end of April, deliverable 3.1 "Collect, analyse and synthesize existing data about youth practices of new medias" will be ready. All the partners will have to write the conclusion report about his presentation in Warsaw. This deliverable is public access.

End of May, deliverable 3.2 "Determination of the complementary topics for the survey" should presents the problematic and methodological questions that are discussed in this seminar, in an organized and homogenous way.

b) Next meetings calendar

In Paris, two seminars were planned in Augustus 2005 (for all the partners) and in December 2005 (WG). For practical reasons the members deferred the first meeting to November (the 21 and 22) and advanced the WG meeting at November 20, 2005.

They decided also to organize a "Panic meeting" on 10 July in London.

We have the following calendar :

SEM 2 :

• 1/2/3/4/5/6 June 2005, Sherbrook - Quebec, Steering Committee + Canadian's Team
• Elaboration of the questionnaires

SEM 3 :

• 10 July 2005, London Scientific Committee and European Commission
• Elaboration of the questionnaires

SEM 4 :

• 20 November 2005, London, WG
• 21/22 November 2005, London, all partners
• Quantitative analyse and hypothesis from the data
• Qualitative point of view

SEM 5 :

• 27/28/29 March 2006, Milan, all partners

SEM 6 :

• 12/13 June 2006, Brussels, all partners