r .

0 . .‘K .

. wuhu.$anhnat

. I :A ﬁt... ll:
. tr! L. 9...... I

, . . . . . . r s .

t . , , .. .- . . . .

5.5.3»... a

M...- .

 

.I...

.. I. .
: umﬂnﬂmﬁoﬂp

:.l u
tilt}. urn?!
11-15!!!

..
liliv...‘
.xvtlglz.
ll 1.. :7. v.
[$5.13!
3. v...
.24. «3!.
3.191.140! (it...)
21 . .vQ‘Q-Ai
.‘vl. .K..lx..iﬂt§ll.m!07|.lu_
: a].
.v
03-“

 

 

 

 

4.- ... . . , .. r .
mg...._,.....~..§.......ﬁx ,. . . +5» .
Ema: an... , . .

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

BUILDING A TECHNOLOGY INCLUSIVE AGENCY: A CASE
STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY USE BY WOMEN IN RECOVERY

Doctoral

presented by
James H. Edwards ll, LMSW

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Social Work

Quﬂ? ﬂed/(dike

Major Professor's Signature

W41 (3; Zoo‘l

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

.ﬂ'w
~_A_-_. d—w

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K1/ProleocsPrelelRClDateDue.indd

*—

——.-

BUILDING A TECHNOLOGY INCLUSIVE AGENCY: A CASE STUDY OF
TECHNOLOGY USE BY WOMEN IN RECOVERY

BY

James H. Edwards II, LMSW

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Social Work

2009

ABSTRACT

BUILDING A TECIH‘IOLOGY INCLUSIVE AGENCY: A CASE STUDY OF
TECHNOLOGY USE BY WOMEN IN RECOVERY

By
James H. Edwards 11, LMSW

The development of low cost and practical information and communication
technologies (ICT) has led to increased pressure on social workers and other human
service providers to insure their clients are not digitally disenfranchised. In fact, the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and Association of Social Work Boards
(ASWB) Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice require social work
practitioners to insure their own access to technology as well as insuring access to
technology on behalf of their clients. The ﬁrst step in carrying out this mandate is to
understand how, why, and for what purpose clients use ICT. Secondly, we must
understand the role that human service agencies can play in insuring their clients are not
digitally disenfranchised. To this end, the qualitative study presented here is comprised of
two components: ﬁrst, an exploratory study examining how women in recovery from
chemical addiction view, use, and envision their use of technology; and second, an
evaluative component examining an effort by their provider agency to promote digital
empowerment through the use of computer access and training.

The ﬁndings suggest the participants were empowered through increased access
to technology and increased computer skills. The agency struggled to maintain an
adequate technology infrastructure for the participants, but found the intervention to be

beneﬁcial and consistent with its overall mission of empowerment. In general, the

participants expressed an increased frequency of computer use outside of the training as
well as increased conﬁdence in their ability to use a computer. The participants expressed
feelings of joy, excitement, pride and an overall sense of empowerment as a result of the
computer training experience. This was evident by the perfect attendance at the trainings

and conﬁrmed in the statements by the executive director.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This accomplishment was truly a family and community effort, beginning with
my parents, who have encouraged me, prayed for me, and who have instilled in me the
value of education and faith in God.

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Tina Timm, Dr. Sally
Rypkema, Dr. W. Patrick Dickson, and Dr. Paul F reddolino. Thank you for the many
meetings, words of encouragement and your steady hand of guidance. To my committee
chair, Dr. Paul Freddolino, I owe a special debt of gratitude. Thank you for sharing your
wisdom and helping me give life to this project. Your work in the area of social work and
technology is a tremendous legacy and one I hope to emulate in my career.

To my wife, Kendra, I know that you did not plan on this journey but you have
walked by my side all the way. I am not sure many partners would have put up with four
years of an absent spouse but you did and I am forever grateﬁrl. To my beautiful
daughters, your love and laughter is and always has been the highlight of each day.

To my ﬁiends, your support and encouragement has been invaluable. Friends
such as Walter Tett, Dr. George Grant, Dr. Jerry Johnson, Dr. Salvador Lopez-Arias, Dr.
Muthoni Imungi, and others. Thank you for your advice, words of encouragement and
many offers to critique my work.

Finally, to my hero and Great Aunt Mollie Jordan, at 95 years old you are the best
example of strength I have ever seen. You have been witness to so many of the hardships
experienced by African Americans, it is a blessing that you are here to see that while the
struggle continues, with each generation we become stronger and wiser. The love and

wisdom you have given our family can never be replaced.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... , ..................... i x
CHAPTER ONE

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Key Terminology ................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 9
The Social Work Perspective on ICTs ................................................................................ 9
Digital Divide .................................................................................................................... 21
Technology Acceptance Models ....................................................................................... 25
Computer Self-efﬁcacy ..................................................................................................... 30
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER THREE

Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 33
The Setting ........................................................................................................................ 33
Agency Cooperation ......................................................................................................... 35
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 35
Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................................................... 37
Research Questions — Phase I ........................................................................................... 39
Instrumentation — Phase I .................................................................................................. 41
Sample Selection/Recruitment .......................................................................................... 45
Interpretation of the Data - Phase I ................................................................................... 48
Research Process - Phase I ................................................................................................ 50
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER FOUR

Findings — Phase I .............................................................................................................. 55
Access to ICTs .................................................................................................................. 58
Purpose of ICT Use ........................................................................................................... 59
Phase I - Participant Focus Group Findings ..................................................................... 60
Phase I - Staff Survey Findings ........................................................................................ 88
Phase I - Staff Focus Group Findings ............................................................................... 90
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 92
CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 93
Non-user Group ................................................................................................................ 93
Moderate-user Group Findings ......................................................................................... 95
Power-user Focus Group Findings .................................................................................... 98

Discussion of the Research Questions .............................................................................. 99

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 106
CHAPTER SIX

Research Methodology - Phase II .................................................................................... 107
Theoretical Framework — Phase II .................................................................................. 107
Phase II Sample Selection and Recruitment ................................................................... 109
Phase II Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 110
Research Process- Phase II ............................................................................................. 113
Interpretation of the Data ................................................................................................ 116
Computer Training .......................................................................................................... 117
The Setting for the Intervention ...................................................................................... 119
Methodology Adjustments .............................................................................................. 121
Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER SEVEN

Results .............................................................................................................................. 124
Phase II — Initial Survey .................................................................................................. 124
Computer Training Setting and Pedagogy ...................................................................... 126
Eight-Week Computer Training Observations ............................................................... 130
Participant Interviews ..................................................................................................... 164
Phase II Follow-up Survey .............................................................................................. 168
Agency Director Interview ............................................................................................. 170
Archival Data .................................................................................................................. 175
Chapter Summary ................................................................................. 172
CHAPTER EIGHT

Discussion and Implications ............................................................................................ 178
Discussion of Phase II Findings ...................................................................................... 178
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................. 187
Implications for vulnerable populations ......................................................................... 187
Implications for Intervention Design .............................................................................. 189
Implications for Research ............................................................................................... 193
Implications for Social Work Practice and Education .................................................... 194
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 196
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 197
APPENDICIES

APPENDIX A

Participant Survey Phase — l ............................................................................................ 200
APPENDIX B

Staff Perception of Client Technology Use Survey ......................................................... 203
APPENDIX C

Non-user Focus Group Questions ................................................................................... 207

vi

APPENDIX D

Moderate-user Focus Group Questions .......................................................................... 209
APPENDIX E

Power-user Focus Group Questions ................................................................................ 211
APPENDIX F

Staff Focus Group Questions .......................................................................................... 213
APPENDIX G

Research Participation Information and Consent Form — Phase I .................................. 214
APPENDIX H

Sample F lyer ................................................................................................................... 217
APPENDIX I

Research Participation Information and Consent Form — Phase II ................................. 218
APPENDIX J

Staff Perception of Client Technology Use Survey — Phase II ....................................... 221
APPENDIX K

Interview Protocol - Executive Director ......................................................................... 224
APPENDIX L

Participant Computer Use Initial Survey ........................................................................ 226
APPENDIX M

Participant Computer Use 30 day Survey ....................................................................... 229
APPENDIX N

Interview Protocol — Client Participants ......................................................................... 233
APPENDIX 0

Interview Protocol - Staff ................................................................................................ 235
APPENDIX P

Phase II — Staff Focus Group Questions ......................................................................... 237
APPENDIX Q

Phase II — Board of Directors Focus Group Questions ................................................... 238
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 240

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table l: UTAUT Four Determinants ............................................................................... 29
Table 2: Research Questions — Phase I ............................................................................ 41
Table 3: Focus group categories ...................................................................................... 43
Table 4: Initial Survey Participation Rate ........................................................................ 47
Table 5: Focus Group Participation Rate ......................................................................... 48
Table 6: Summary of the Research Process ..................................................................... 53
Table 7: Types of Public Assistance. ................................................................................ 57
Table 8: Purpose of Staff Technology Use ...................................................................... 89
Table 9: Perception of Participant ICT Use ..................................................................... 90
Table 10: Frequency of Technology Use ....................................................................... 125
Table 11: Initial Survey Proﬁle — Phase II ..................................................................... 126
Table 12: Examples of Language Adaption ................................................................... 130
Table 13: Computer Training Participant’s User Proﬁle ............................................... 132
Table 14: Internet and E-mail Use Comparison ............................................................ 169

Table 15: Perception of 'Intemet Skills: No one around and with someone watching... 169
Table 16: Perception of Internet Skills: Call for help and time to use ........................... 169

Table 17: Intervention Costs .......................................................................................... 176

viii

Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:

Figure 20:

LIST OF FIGURES

NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice ......... 20
Relationship between Technology Acceptance Models ................................... 26
Participant Age Range ...................................................................................... 56
Participant Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 56
Annual Income ................................................................................................. 57
Digital Cable Television versus Internet Access .............................................. 59
Purpose of Technology Use ............................................................................. 59
Participant User Proﬁle .................................................................................... 60
Non-user Selective Coding Themes ................................................................. 95
Moderate-user Selective Coding Themes ....................................................... 97
Power-user Selective Coding Themes ............................................................ 99
Cost, Procedure, Process, and Outcome Analysis ........................................ 108
Supportive Housing Computer Area ............................................................ 120
Type of Technology Owned by Participants ................................................ 125
Purpose of Internet Use for Baseline Survey Respondents .......................... 126
Overall Study Participation Rate .................................................................. 133
Computer Monitor ........................................................................................ 146
Computer Desk, Keyboard, and Monitor ..................................................... 147
Perception of Ability to Learn lntemet Skills .............................................. 170
Purpose of Technology Use ......................................................................... 170

ix

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

The expansion and use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in
our society is having a profound effect on the way we interact with one another
regardless of our age, gender, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or physical location
(Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003). Interestingly, while this digital culture has the
potential to remove barriers to education, employment, health care, housing, and other
consumer needs, it also possesses the ability to further marginalize members of our
society who have limited or no access to ICTs (Lazurus, Lipper, & Roberts, 2003;
Warschauer, 2003). Based on a 2007 population estimate of 300 million people in the
United States, it is reported that over 212 million people have lntemet access. This means
that approximately 70% of people in the US. have the ability to participate in education,
citizenship, employment, entertainment, and exchanging information and knowledge
through the use of technology (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; lntemet World Stats, [n.d.];
Warschauer, 2003). For the remaining 30% of the population, this digital barrier will
increasingly represent an inability to fully participate in society (Harlow & Webb, 2003;
Hick, 2006; Warschauer, 2003, 2006).

The continuous and present development of new Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) has led to a strong interest in the creation of models with the ability
to predict what technologies will be used, by whom this technology will be used, and for
what purpose this technology will be used (Taylor, 2004). While models of technology
acceptance and adoption have provided a great deal of insight into the process of

technology use in corporations, non—governmental organizations (N GO) and

governmental organizations, most of these models are based on a top-down application
design and pay little attention to end user dynamics beyond the individuals’ technical and
literacy skills (Bakardjieva, 2003). This is especially true for vulnerable populations such
as ethnic minority populations and individuals with behavioral health conditions
(Rotondi, Sinkule, Haas, Spring, Litschge, Newhill, Ganguli, & Anderson, 2007).

How, why, and for what purpose vulnerable populations use ICTs take on
increasing importance as the expanded networking capabilities available through Web 2.0
have allowed for the creation of digital networks and resources that offer treatment
potential and opportunities for economic advancement (F reddolino & Blaschke, 2008;
Madden, 2006; Warschauer, 2003). According to Madden (2006), Web 2.0 has allowed
the World Wide Web (Web) to morph into a multidimensional tool that goes beyond
providing information to the public. In addition to providing information and
entertainment, Web 2.0 has evolved into a global community where resources and
information are exchanged among people and organizations, which prior to the
development of the Internet would have had a minimal chance of interacting
(Warschauer, 2003, 2006). For vulnerable populations who already lack access to
resources and opportunities, the evolution of the Web represents both an opportunity and
a threat (Sandberg, Gardelli, & Stubbs, 2005).

Much has been written about this ‘digital divide’ where the ‘information haves’
become increasingly separated from the ‘information have-nots’ based on access to
technology and opportunities created through digital networks (Lazurus, Lipper, &
Roberts, 2003; Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Sarnoff, 2002 Warschauer, 2003). This gap in

technology, computers, and lntemet usage affects disproportionately individuals and

families with incomes less than $25,000, as well as ethnic groups such as African
Americans, Latinos, and single female-headed households (Bakardjieva, 2003; Miller-
Cribbs, 2001; Roach, 2007; Sarnoff, 2002;).

The consensus of the current digital divide literature is that ethnic minorities,
families living in poverty, older adults, and individuals with disabilities are least likely to
have access to ICTs or posses the skills and knowledge necessary to participate in a
digital society (Bakardjieva, 2003; Blaschke, Freddolino, & Mullen, 2009; MacLeod,
2005; Roach, 2007; Sarnoff, 2002; Warschauer, 2003, 2006). For all practical purposes,
individuals and families not participating or unable to participate in the use of ICTs to
access resources and digital networks maybe experiencing similar limitations as
individuals who have been subjected to discrimination based on race, gender, sexual
orientation or socioeconomic status (Martin & Robinson, 2007; Miller-Cribbs, 2001;
Warschauer, 2003). This does not mean that one cannot survive without being digitally
connected; however, the lack of connection to the digital culture will increasingly
become problematic as the access points for resources such as employment, political
representation, and education become embedded within ICT infrastructures (Bakardjieva,
2003; Martin & Robinson, 2007; Miller-Cribbs, 2001).

As noted in Chapter Two below, access to ICTs means more than just having the
necessary hardware and software. Access to ICTs is an increasingly complex interaction
among many variables including, but not limited to, hardware, software, content, skills,
culture, modeling, and motivation (Warschauer, 2003). In fact, despite millions of dollars
allocated to K-12 schools for technology hardware, software, and infrastructure changes,

several studies have found only minimal changes in teaching pedagogies over the past ten

years (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Cuban, 2003). The consistent ﬁndings with
regard to the deployment of ICTs in educational settings have led to the evolution of
digital divide theories. Current digital divide theory recognizes that the simple
deployment of ICTs will not by itself produce technology use (Christensen, Johnson, &
Horn, 2008; Cuban, 2003; Warschauer, 2003). However, while understanding that the
impact of the digital divide on vulnerable populations requires an examination of multiple
variables, providing physical access to technology is an important ﬁrst step (Hick, 2006;
VanDijik & Hacker, 2003; Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).

According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the
Association of Social Work Boards [ASWB] (2005), the lack of client access to
technology in the 21St century is a social justice issue that must be addressed on behalf of
the client, as well as for the social worker. What these two social work organizations
have recognized is that without access to technology, already vulnerable populations will
increasingly become disenfranchised as resources and social interactions take on new
forms through the use of ICTs (Oliver-Parker & Demiris, 2006; NASW & ASWB, 2005).

Under these new conditions, social workers attempting to empower vulnerable
populations should consider client access to technology as an empowerment strategy
(Harlow & Webb, 2003; Larrison, Nackerud, Risler, & Sullivan, 2002; Miller-Cribs,
2001; NASW & ASWB, 2005; Sandberg, et al., 2005). Further, if social workers and
others who view the digital divide as a social justice issue are to intervene on behalf of
individuals and families who lack access to ICTs, we must ﬁrst understand the complex
interactions that combine to create access barriers for those we serve (Larrison,

Nackerud, Risler, & Sullivan, 2002; Miller-Cribs, 2001; NASW & ASWB, 2005).

One method for understanding of how vulnerable populations use, view, and think
about technology use is to engage in community-based research focused on vulnerable
populations who historically lack access to technology (Bakardjieva, 2003; Miller-
Cribbs, 2001). Populations such as families with incomes below $25, 000, ethnic
minorities, single-parents, older adults, and individuals with disabilities or behavioral
health conditions have been identiﬁed in the literature as less likely to have access to
technology (Bakardjieva, 2003; Blaschke, et al., 2009; Hick, 2006; Miller-Cribbs, 2001;
Warschauer, 2003). In fact, Sandberg, Gardelli, and Johnson (2005) called for the use of
“qualitative case studies” to uncover the computer training and use experience of
vulnerable populations (p. 235). To this end, the current case study provides an initial
examination into how one vulnerable group, ethnic minority women in recovery from
chemical addition, view and use information communication technologies. Additionally,
the second phase of this study explores the treatment agency’s attempt to empower its
clients through increased access to technology and computer training. Findings from this
study provide a glimpse into the technological needs of a vulnerable population and one
avenue through which social workers and human service administrators can assist in
dismantling barriers to technology use.

As described in detail in Chapter Three below, the design for this study has two
components. The ﬁrst utilizes an exploratory research design based on the key concepts
of the Technology Acceptance Model [TAM] (Davis, 1989) and its expanded model the
Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [UTAUT] (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003), as well as theoretical principles from symbolic interaction [SI]

(Rank & LeCroy, 1983) and empowerment theory (Cox, 2001). The second component is

an evaluative phase based on the Cost, Procedure, Process, and Outcome Analysis
(CPPOA) model proposed by Yates (1996). The case-study approach to this topic
allowed for an in-depth look at a single agency and its service recipients. Through this
study participants provided qualitative data on the type of technology used, preferred
online activities, preferred access point(s), technology skill level and the amount of
support they need to breach the digital barrier. For the provider agency this study
examined the development of a technology—focused intervention and the impact of this
effort on the agency and its clients. The ﬁndings from this study highlight one strategy
for the re-conceptualization of the client/agency relationship that extends beyond typical
program designs by including opportunities for the digital empowerment of vulnerable
populations.

In designing a meaningful intervention, it has been the intent of this study to
expose current clients to the potential resources accessible to them through participation
and utilization of web-based resources. To this end, participants were provided
meaningful opportunities to engage in technology use within their community. The long-
range effect of this intervention will not be a part of this initial study. However, the long-
term vision is that as vulnerable populations are able to breach the digital barrier, they
can begin to exercise their digital voice to increase awareness of their needs.

As Wilhelm (2004) and Warschauer (2003, 2006) have discussed, the potential of
ICTs for empowerment of the poor, ethnic minorities, older adults, and other
disadvantaged populations is an important by-product of increased access to technology.
As a contribution to this discussion, the ﬁndings from this study will have implications

for social workers, human service providers, and community ICT access projects, as well

as for recipients of human services. Additionally, for social workers practicing under the
NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice (2005), this
study provides an opportunity to increase client utilization of technology while
empowering clients through the use of web-based resources.
Key Terminology

Because of the unique perspective of this case study, it is important to deﬁne a
few of the terms used in this study prior to going any further. For example, the term
“information and communication technologies” (lCTs) is commonly referenced in
discussions of modern devices used for the purpose of exchanging, extracting, and
retaining information regardless of ones’ physical location via the Internet, Intranet,
and/or the Web (Harlow & Webb, 2003; Warschauer, 2003). This term is important as it
distinguishes a speciﬁc category of technological devices from other devices, and it
excludes software lacking the ability to mediate communication (Warschauer, 2003).
Throughout this study the term “ICTs” and the term “technology” are used
interchangeably; however both terms, as used in this study, refer to the class of software
and hardware that have the ability to mediate communication in some form or fashion.
Additionally, because social workers practice in a variety of settings the term “human
services” is used so that non-traditional social work settings are not excluded from this
discussion. The deﬁnitions below provide additional information about three of the terms
commonly used in this study.
Deﬁnitions:
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): refers to the use of hardware

and software designed to mediate communication between individuals or groups.

Examples of these technologies are computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cell
phones, MP3 devices, text messaging, e-mail, web cams and digital videos, instant
messaging (1M), blogs, and wikis.

Human Service Agency: refers to public agencies, for-proﬁt agencies and non-proﬁt
agencies providing services such as mental health, child welfare, substance use services,
housing, and developmental disability services and who are staffed by social workers and
other helping professionals.

Technology: this term is used synonymously with the term Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs). Both terms, as used in this document, refer to the

use of hardware and software designed to mediate communication between individuals or

groups.

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
The Social Work Perspective on ICTs

To provide context for this discussion, it is important to understand the
development of technology use in human service agencies and social work practice.
Many practitioners have met lCTs used for the delivery of social work services with
resistance and skepticism, while managers in human service agencies have viewed the
use of technology as a cost-saving measure (Parker-Oliver & Demiris, 2006).

According to Kirk and Reid (2002), the earliest articles discussing social work
and technology appeared in the literature in 1967 and 1968. These two articles were in
response to the notion that computers could be used to support social casework. As with -
much of the early literature discussing social work and technology, data storage systems
that could be used to provide efﬁciencies in the management of a human service
organization were the primary focus (Cwikel & Cnaan, 1991; Kirk & Reid, 2002).

In the mid-sixties, computer technology was thought of as an instrument for
business or research institutions (Taylor, 1981). The technology of this era consisted of
large database storage systems that were designed to automate ofﬁce processes and to
serve as a tool for storing large amounts of ﬁnancial data and performance information
(Taylor, 1981). It was designed for corporations, universities, and large agencies, not for
individual users. This corporate/business focus of this period is in contrast to the
emphasis on personal devices we experience today (Gere, 2002; Tapscott, 1998).

In the seventies and early eighties technology evolved from mainframe computers

to affordable PC-based computers. While this transformation in the size and cost of

computers was occurring, the utilization of ICTs expanded to include educational
applications (Cuban, 2002; Gere, 2002; Tapscott, 1998). With the exception of
researchers, early adopters of technology in the social work profession began to embrace
the use of ICTs for education purposes in the late eighties to early nineties.

During the nineteen-nineties computers became smaller, faster, and possessed
greater memory at signiﬁcantly lower prices. These price reductions and simpliﬁed
operating systems made PC ownership more practical for individuals as well as for
human service agencies (Carrilio, 2007; Cuban, 2002; Schoech, 2003). In addition to
these changes, the lntemet became more accessible than ever, and the development of the
World Wide Web in the late eighties provided a range of new possible uses for this
technology (Gere, 2002; Madden, 2006). This lntemet explosion led to the creation of
“dotcom” businesses that took advantage of this new technology for the delivery of
information, goods, and services to consumers (Gere, 2002). Billions of dollars were
invested into the development, research, and application of these new technologies
throughout the world (Gere, 2002; Tapscott, 1998). The social work literature during this
period is dominated by discussions on the use of ICTs for distance education and
classroom simulations (Freddolino, 1998; Reinoehl & Mueller, 1991).

Technology was viewed as a solution to many of the inefﬁciencies within
business, educational institutions, and human service agencies. On this point, Schoech
(2002) states, “thus, human service technology applications require that we closely
examine social work organizations, techniques, processes, and client outcomes. Properly
applied, technology becomes an informational model of the organizations, processes, and

systems that the technology supports" (p. 1 ).

10

Human service administrators have slowly embraced the use of technology as a
way to improve efﬁciencies within their agencies. The use of technology often
accompanied the adoption of a managed-care philosophy in social work that emphasized
the use of ICTs to gather, analyze, store, and disseminate outcome information and other
mandated reporting requirements attached to service funding (Harlow & Webb, 2003;
Harris, 2001; Kirk & Reid, 2002). In fact, the Princeton Survey Research Associates
(2001) conducted a study of 203 non-proﬁt human service organization executives on the
use of technology in their organizations. This study found that for most organizations
(84%), technology had changed the way they operated over the past ﬁve years. In this
same study, 83% of the executives viewed the use of technology as positively impacting
their services. Furthermore, the executives believed that improvements to technological
capacities and infrastructure positively changed their agency’s research capabilities,
communication abilities, fundraising and overall daily operations. Additionally, the
majority of executives believed their use of technology translated into overall cost-
savings for the agency (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2001).

While the Princeton Survey Research Associates (2001) study presented a very
positive view of technology use among nonproﬁt human service executives, this
perspective was not without its detractors. One quarter of the executives surveyed
believed enhancing their technology would not improve their ability to carry out their
agencies’ mission. While they were positive about the use of technology overall, 29% of
the executives feared that increased technology use in the agency would negatively

impact the job performance of their staff. The implication was that staff would be

11

distracted from their work by engaging in personal online activities (Princeton Survey
Research Associates, 2001 ).

Similar to the ﬁndings discussed by the Princeton Survey Research Associates
(2001), Hughes, Joo, Zentall, and Ulisheny (1999) found that despite some concerns on
the part of managers and practitioners, ICT use in human service agencies is a common
phenomenon. Further, in their survey of 149 Ohio human service agencies, Hughes, et a1.
(1999) found that provider access rates to technology was high (75%), but those less
likely to have access to technology performed direct service ﬁtnctions. While the sample
used in Hughes, et a1. (1999) consisted of more administrators than direct service
providers, the study’s ﬁndings citing limited use of technology by direct service
providers is a consistent theme in the literature (Edwards, 2007; Oliver-Parker &
Demiris, 2006; NASW, 2006)

The reasons for the limited use of technology in direct practice have been
multifaceted. Social workers often argue that the use of ICTs for service delivery is
inconsistent with the personal relationship underpinnings of the profession (Parker-Oliver
& Demiris 2006). Others cite computer-mediated communication as an inferior way of
communicating with clients or other professional (Walther & Parks, 2002). Additional
criticisms of technology use for service delivery and reasons for limiting how technology
is used include the inability to read nonverbal cues, concerns over privacy and
conﬁdentiality, and the cost of ICT infrastructure (Parker-Oliver & Demiris, 2006;
Walther & Parks, 2002).

In contrast to reasons for limited use of lCTs, proponents for increased use in

social work direct practice tout potential service efﬁciencies and monetary savings as

12

reasons for increasing the use of ICTs in direct practice (Parker-Oliver & Demiris, 2006;
Princeton Research Associates, 2001). This argument is especially appealing to middle
and upper level managers who are constantly looking for more efﬁcient ways to deliver
quality services (Princeton Research Associates, 2001). The issue of how, when, why,
how much, and who should use technology, especially in direct practice, continues to be
a controversial topic within the social work profession (McFall& F reddolino, 2008).

Proponents of increased ICT use in social work practice have attempted to sway
some practitioners to incorporate technology into their practice. Gifford (1998)
persuasively discusses ICT tools such as e-mail, listserves, bulletin boards, chat rooms
and the Web as useful in social work practice. Karger and Levine (1999) published a
how-to-manual complete with descriptions of how to connect to the lntemet and how to
map the Internet using Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). Vernon and Lynch (2003)
discuss how the social work profession could use websites to facilitate professional
collaboration as well as direct practice.

In 1999, Schoech authored a book that provided a basic understanding of the
relationship between ICTs and the delivery of human services. Schoech (1999) proposed
several key assumptions for understanding technology use in human services practice:
A primary human service activity is decision making
Decision making requires information
Access to low cost ICTs is critical
Clients will have access to ICTs
Adaptation of ICTs for practice is essential
Understanding of technology and practice techniques is essential
Assessment is essential to facilitate change

Human service practice can be improved
ICTs will have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on society

PPNP‘MPP’NI‘

13

In the years since this text was written, there have been dramatic changes in the type and
scope of ICTs available to social workers and their clients (Madden, 2006; US.
Department of Commerce, 2004). Schoech’s (1999) prediction of access to low cost ICTs
for clients and practitioners is on the verge of coming true.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project, a division of the Pew Research
Center, is dedicated to examining the intersection of technology and our communities.
As a part of this mission, the Pew lntemet & American Life Project (n.d.) has produced
over 150 research reports discussing the way technology is shaping our society. In a
recent Pew Internet & American Life Project report by Horrigan and Rainie (2006) found
44% of lntemet users logged-on at least once a day. Further, information obtained
through the Internet was used to assist in making important decisions for approximately
“60 million Americans” (p. l). The information sought for these major decisions
included health information, career information, ﬁnancial information, educational
information, housing information, and consumer information for major purchases
(Horrigan & Rainie, 2006).

While the inﬂuence of ICTs on our society is irrefutable, the inﬂuence of ICTs on
direct social work practice requires additional exploration (Hick, 2006; Miller-Cribbs,
2001; Schoech, 2003). A review of the articles published in the journal Social Work
between 1998 and 2008 found 13 articles speciﬁcally written about ICTs in social work
practice. Of these thirteen articles most were theoretical arguments about how technology
could be used in social work or how technology is changing the role of the social worker.
Expanding this review to other human service literature found several themes with regard

to the role of technology in human services. These themes can be summarized as

14

discussion of: (a) Advocacy Models (b) Interpersonal Interventions (c)
Empowerment/Inclusion and (d) Values and Ethics. The following section is a brief
overview of the current discussions in the literature about how ICTs may be used in
human service practice.

Advocacy

Social work literature discussing micro and macro advocacy methods has begun
to include the possibility of using technology-based advocacy interventions. In articles
by Fitzgerald and McNutt (1999) and Queiro-Tajalli, McNutt and Campbell (2000), the
use of technology for the purposes of advocacy at a national and international level are
highlighted. Although these articles are primarily ‘thought pieces’, they provided
interesting analysis of the potential for electronic advocacy to inﬂuence social policy at a
local, state, federal and international level.

Fitzgerald and McNutt (1999) discuss how e-mail can be used by constituents to
inﬂuence policy makers, and the potential impact of the “push” technology, that allows
information to be sent from the Web to an lntemet appliance automatically (p. 335). This
technology allows Internet systems to deliver information to a recipient without the
recipient searching for the information. For example, this technology allows automatic
feeds that alert the user to new web or blog content. Additionally, several companies push
software updates to consumers automatically as they become available. The signiﬁcance
of this technology is that it has enabled advocacy groups to keep their members updated
regardless of their location (Fitzgerald & McNutt, 1999; Maney, 2004).

Interpersonal Interventions

15

The social work literature on electronic interpersonal interventions is not as
plentiful as other professions; however, there is increasing attention to the ways social
workers may intervene with clients using ICTs (Castelnuovo, Gaggioli, Mantovani, &
Riva, 2003; Firm & Schoech, 2008; Matano, Koopman, Wanat, Winzelberg, Whitshell,
Westrup, Futa, Clayton, Mussman, & Taylor, 2007; Murphy & Mitchell, 1998; Oravec,
2000; Riemer-Reiss, 2000; Sandberg, et al., 2005; Smokowski, Galinsky, & Harlow,
2001). The methodology most discussed in the literature is the use of ICTs to conduct
therapy sessions and/or client support via the lntemet. According to Reimer-Reiss (2000)
this new technology allows individual access to services that previously would not have
been accessible. An attractive element of this technology is that it allows the practitioner
to provide a therapeutic service to a client irrespective of the location of either party
(Beder, 2005). While this intervention has elements in common with traditional
outpatient therapy, it also requires a special skill set to deal with issues speciﬁcally
related to the use of a computer-mediated intervention (Castelnuovo, et. al., 2003;
Elleven & Allen, 2004; Murphy & Mitchell, 1998). Still a relatively new intervention
tool, online therapy has been used for the treatment of anxiety disorders, alcohol
dependence, phobias, and other disorders (Castelnuovo, et. al., 2003; Matano, et. al.,
2007). This technology can be used synchronously, as in the case of a chat room, or
asynchronously as in the use of email (Castelnuovo, et. al., 2003; Clingerrnan & Benard,
2004). Although not fully embraced by practitioners, this form of clinical intervention is
gaining in acceptance (Freeny, 2001; Leibert, Archer, Munson, & York, 2006; Rochlen,

Beretvas, & Zack, 2004).

16

In fact, Murphy, McFadden, and Mitchell (2008) recently discussed the
introduction of a “cybercounseling” certiﬁcate program within a school of social work (p.
448). This training in asynchronous counseling using secure e-mail as the delivery system
began in 2004. The training has a basic level certiﬁcation and an advanced certiﬁcation.
The course covers the ethics of online counseling through e-mail as well as clinical
challenges and beneﬁts associated with this type of therapy. Thus far 66 practitioners
have received training through this new program (Murphy, et al., 2008). Interestingly,
Finn and Krysik (2007) discuss the need for training and clear agency policies for
clinicians to follow as a result of receiving unsolicited e-mails from clients. The link
between the need found by Finn and Krysik (2007) and the certiﬁcate program reviewed
by Murphy, et al. (2008) represents an move toward a more technology enhanced social
work practice.

Along this same theme, F reddolino and Blaschke (2008) discuss the potential use
of online gaming in therapy. Games designed for vulnerable populations such as teens,
substance users, and older adults provided feedback on behaviors and feelings, mental
exercise, as well as social connections. One of the more mainstream role playing games,
Second Life, boast more than sixteen million players world wide. In fact, the authors call
for agencies to have at least one computer available for clients to be exposed to the
potential beneﬁts of lntemet resources such as online gaming (F reddolino & Blaschke,
2008)

Empowerment/Inclusion

One of the fundamental roles of social workers is to empower the individual,

families and communities that are the focus of our interventions (Cox, 2001). Because

17

 

much of our society has become digitized, empowering vulnerable populations with the
knowledge, skill, and access to technology has become increasingly important (NASW &
ASWB, 2005). As an example, Opalinski (2001) attempted to empower older adults
through the use of technology. To accomplish this empowerment, older adults were
trained to use computers and provided computer access. The results of her study with
older adults showed 100% of the respondents described computer use as providing a
valuable source of communication. According to Opalinski (2001) fifty-three percent of
respondents used chat rooms and other forms of technology to communicate with others
and reduce isolation. Opalinski (2001) found that given the proper training and access to
technology, vulnerable populations could participate in a digital culture.

In study with a similar population of older adults, Slegers, van Boxtel, and J olles
(2008) found that participants who regularly used the computer reported feeling “more in
control of their lives” (p. 182). Although the overall study ﬁndings were inconclusive, the
authors encouraged further research in this area to assess the impact of increased access
and skill development with other vulnerable populations (Slegers, van Boxtel, & Jolles,
2008).

In other studies technology has been used to develop and maintain supportive
relationships for individuals dealing with serious physical illness or caring for someone
with a serious illness or a disability (Barrera, Glasgow, McKay, Boles, & Feil, 2002;
Wright & Bell, 2003). The ability to access health-related information, and to give to or
receive support from others struggling with similar issues is a growing part of Internet
activities. In fact, according to Wright and Bell (2003) these ‘weak tie’ networks

(meaning there is no close relationship) provide opportunities for the exchanging of

18

information including disclosure of information that may carry with it signiﬁcant
personal risk of stigmatization. Further, “ﬁnding individuals who share similar
experiences of illness or addiction online allows people to discuss fears, ask factual
questions and discuss common experiences with their peers, and may help reduce
isolation” (Wright & Bell, 2003, p. 44). While online support groups have become more
popular, additional research is needed to explore the nature of these relationships with
regard to their impact on the individual’s health status (Barrera, Glasgow, McKay, Boles,
& Feil, 2002; Galinsky, Schopler, & Abell, 1997; Wright & Bell, 2003).

Values and Ethics

As early as 1991 social workers began to pose ethical questions with regard to the
use of technology in social work practice. Cwikle and Cnaan (1991) challenged social
work to think more broadly about the use of expert systems, therapeutic games, e-mail
and online communications in clinical practice, while paying attention to our professional
values and ethics. Equally important, the authors accurately pointed out the social justice
implications related to the digital divide, and they questioned the competency of social
workers in the use of technology (Cwikle & Cnaan, 1991). The sentiments expressed by
Cwikle and Cnaan (1991) were shared by Schoech (1999, 2003 ), as well as Miller-Cribbs
(2001). However, the social work profession did not formally respond to the concerns of
these authors and others about the lack of ethical guidelines or the lack of technical
competency within’the profession until 2005.

The social work response to the use of emerging ICTs in practice was the
development of the NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work

Practice (2005). These standards provide the basis for social work action with regard to

19

the implementation and utilization of ICTs for the delivery of social work services and
the empowerment of service recipients (NASW & ASWB, 2005). These new standards
discuss the responsibilities of social workerto work on behalf of their clients to address
the digital divide. Further the standards call for all social workers to develop technical
competencies, maintain competency as new technologies emerge, and to advocate for the
technology needs of their clients (NASW & ASWB, 2005).

These standards were based on the NASW Code of Ethics and the Model Social
Work Practice Act. They are designed to guide social work practitioners at all levels in
the use of technology. NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work
Practice (2005) acknowledge the signiﬁcant inﬂuence technology is having on social
work practice and the need for guiding principles to shape social work practice. The
areas covered in the technology standards are listed in Figure 1. However, this table does

not include the interpretation that accompanies each standard in the original document.

Figure 1: NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice (2005)

 

 

 

 

Standard 1 Standard 8 Standard 9 Standard 10
. Risk Practice Continuing
Ethics 8‘ Values Management Competencies Education

Standard 7 Standard 9.1

Advocacy &
Social Action

Standard 2
Access

Standard 9.6

Privacy, Supervision

Confidentiality

Standard 3

Standard 6

Identification 8:
Verification

Standard 9.2

Community
Practice

Standard 9.5

Cultural Research

Competency

     

Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 9.3 Standard 9.4
Technical Regulartory Administrative Clinical
Competencies Competencies Practice Competencies

 

 

20

 

 

Among the many areas addressed by the standards, there is a speciﬁc directive
calling for social workers to “take action to ensure client access to technology” (NASW
& ASWB, 2005, p. 8). This statement places the burden of advocating for client related
access squarely on the shoulders of social work practitioners, educators, advocates, and
researchers. What is not mentioned in the standards is a plan of action for social workers
to meet this goal. To this end, the current study will examine the intersection of this
digital divide through the eyes of the client and the human service provider.

Digital Divide

The term ‘digital divide” was ﬁrst coined by researchers as a way to describe the
diffusion of computer technology in this country and abroad (Bakardjieva, 2003). Over
the years the meaning of the digital divide has been reconceptualized based on changes in
the capabilities and portability of ICTs and in response to widespread diffusion of
technology (Bakardjieva, 2003; Warschauer, 2003).

The Digital Divide literature can be categorized into three distinct phases:

1. Access to hardware/ software
2. Computer training/literacy skills
3. Social Inclusion

Access to Hardware/Software

Early discussions about the digital divide focused on the gap in computer
ownership between wealthy and poor Americans (Bakardjieva, 2003; Warschauer, 2003).
These early discussions led to the creation of programs designed to move computers into
the homes, schools, and communities (Cuban, 2002; Hick, 2006). One common method

for increasing exposure to technology was to focus on the introduction of computer

21

systems into K-12 education (Burbules & Callister, 2000; Cuban, 2002; Zhao, 2003).
Other programs distributed laptops to elementary students and teachers (Zhao, 2003).
Grants were developed that assisted K-12 schools to become physically wired to the
lntemet as a means to ensure access to technology by children, especially those who
otherwise could not afford such technology at home (Cuban, 2002; Burbules & Callister,
2000)

In response to the gap in computer ownership, some communities developed
community access points such as public libraries and community centers. Hick (2006)
studied the operation of one community center in Canada. According to Hick (2006) the
focus on physical access to computers is a simplistic view of the digital divide. Further,
Hick (2006) observed that computer use became a group activity among the teens in his
study. This socializing in connection with computer use adds another dimension to the
increasing complex digital divide issue.

Computer Skills/Training

As efforts to distribute ICT hardware underwent evaluation, the issue of how
ICTs were or were not being utilized became a focal point of the literature (Zhao, 2003;
Cuban, 2002). The digital divide was found to reach beyond the deployment of hardware
to include user computer skill level (Cuban, 2002; Zhao, 2003). The concept of Computer
Self-efficacy (CSE) based on Bandura’s concept of self-efﬁcacy became a prominent
construct for the investigation into computer users’ or potential users’ perception of their
ability to use technology (Bandura, 1977; Marakas, Johnson, & Clay, 2007). According

to Marakas, Johnson, and Clay (2007) the CSE construct measure contains more than just

22

a perceived computer skill level assessment; it contains information on the individual’s
motivation toward a task and a global computer use level.

Similarly, VanDijk and Hacker (2003) describe the acquisition of “digital skills”
as a signiﬁcant element in the digital divide concept (p. 316). They deﬁne these skills as
including the ability to operate the computer, search for information, select information
and to utilize this information (VanDijk & Hacker, 2003). According to VanDijk and
Hacker (2003) computer skill acquisition can only be met after there is ﬁrst, exposure to
technology, and second, an opportunity to use technology. In other words, the acquisition
of computer skills comes after the recognition of the importance of using technology, and
then having physical access to the technology.

Social Inclusion

The latest departure from a focus on hardware and skill level of the computer user
in the digital divide literature has focused on the concept of ‘social inclusion’ (Hick,
2006; Miller—Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003). Social inclusion, as it relates to the use of
lCTs, refers to the ability of those lacking access to the lntemet to participate in the
functions of citizenship, access to resources, education, and digital networks through the
use of ICTs (Warschauer, 2003). In other words the replication and in some cases the
expansion of life roles through the use of ICTs may widen the gap between those with
access to digital resources and those without access to digital resources. In this way
access to technology is viewed as more than hardware, software or skill level, but as an
essential function for full participation in society (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Vernon & Lynch,
2003; Warschauer, 2003). For example, Horrigan and Rainie (2006) found that nearly 60

million lntemet users turned to the lntemet for assistance with major life decisions.

23

Additionally, Madden (2006) from a survey of lntemet users found that daily lntemet use
was associated with positive views of using the lntemet to enhance the respondent’s
employment, seek health information, gain access to information on hobbies, and
participate in online shopping. The signiﬁcance of this trend is that without access to this
digital information and participation in digital networks, vulnerable populations are at
risk for further disenfranchisement (Warschauer, 2003).

Along this same line of theoretical exploration, Bakardjieva (2003) discusses the
relationship between diversity and the social uses of ICTs in Canada. This qualitative
review of data collected from a larger study highlights the patterns of ICT use for
Canadian immigrants and individuals with disabilities. The information in this study was
collected through structured interviews, observation of the participants’ home computer
space, a review of computer use history (including bookmarks), and a group interview
with the families of the participants (Bakardjieva, 2003).

According to Bakardjieva, social uses of the lntemet for the immigrants in this
study consisted of connections with their communities of origin through web-based news
outlets and/or participation in culturally similar web-based groups. Further, individuals
living with various disabilities perceived the use of the lntemet as useful for sharing their
experiences and to receive support from people with similar life circumstances
(Bakardjieva, 2003).

Bakardjieva (2003) makes the argument that digital divide research should be
“guided by the concept of intersections of diversity should focus on identifying those
intersections that spell marginalisation [sic], but also of a great potential gain from the

new media” (p.15). In other words, research should focus on the ability of vulnerable

24

populations to use technology for the purpose of empowerment. Conceptually the present
study has similarity to the research discussed in the Bakardjieva (2003) article in that
both seek to understand the interaction between vulnerable populations and the use of
ICTs.

The Bakardjieva study provides a beginning qualitative look at this issue of
diversity and access, but it differs from the current study because it was dependent on a
retrospective approach using only current lntemet users. The exclusion of non-users who
may provide a unique perspective on the diversity intersection originally sought by
Bakardjieva limits the utility of the study. The assumption in this study and many others
is that sufﬁcient opportunity, training, and content already exist to entice diverse
populations to explore using the lntemet. As a departure from this approach, non-users
and vulnerable populations described as lacking access, skill, and training in the use of
technology will be included in the sample population for this study.

Technology Acceptance Models

So how, why and for what purpose do people use technology? To explain this
question several models of technology acceptance have been proposed. For the purpose
of this study, literature from business, management, social work and information
technology journals was reviewed. Particular attention was given to research involving
human service agencies and their use/acceptance of technology. Three primary models
were repeatedly discussed in the literature, 1.) the Technology Acceptance Model [TAM]
(Davis, 1989) and 2.) The Theory of Flamed Behavior [TPB] (Ajzen, 1991). Both the
TAM and TPB are derived from the Theory of Reasoned Action [Figure 2] (Chau & Hu,

2001). The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) asserts that attitudes and beliefs shape

25

intentions, which inﬂuence behaviors (C hau & Hu, 2001). TRA forms the basis for both
TAM and TPB; however only TAM was designed speciﬁcally to address technology
acceptance. TRA and TPB are theories designed to predict general human behavior
(Mathieson, 2001).

Figure 2: Relationship between Technology Acceptance Models
(Adapted from Mathieson, 2001)

 

Theory of Reasoned Action

 

 

 

 

 

 

(TRA)
l
I , 1
Theory of Planned Behavior Technology Acceptance
(TPB) Model (TAM)

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

TPB, like TRA is based on the belief that attitude can direct intentions which in
turn shape behaviors. TPB takes this one step further by adding perceived behavioral
control as an inﬂuencing factor (Chin & Hu, 2001 ). This perceived behavioral control is
in part the individual’s perception of the organization’s capacity to support technology
use (Chin & Hu, 2001). A second difference between TPB and TRA is that TPB
addresses situations in which the individual’s behavior is not purely volitional (Brown,
Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Burkman, 2002). TPB is applicable to a wide range of
settings. However, according to Mathieson, Peacock, and Chin (2001), TPB and other
instruments must be tailored to ﬁt each unique situation or speciﬁc behavior of interest to
be effective.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

26

The Technology Acceptance Model as developed by Davis (1989) differs from
TPB in that it was speciﬁcally designed to assess situations involving the use of
technology (Davis, 1989; Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001; Taylor, 2004). TAM
asserts that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are signiﬁcant predictors for
the use of technology (Davis, 1989; Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001; Taylor, 2004).
Davis (1989) deﬁnes perceived usefulness (PU) as “the degree to which a person believes
that using a particular system will enhance his or her performance” (p. 320). Therefore,
the concept of perceived usefulness includes internal and external rewards and sanctions
the individual may perceive are tied to her/his use of the technology (Davis, 1989). The
concept perceived ease of use (PEU) is deﬁned as, “the degree to which a person believes
that using a particular technology would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 302). PU and
PEU individually and/or together predict attitude, which inﬂuences intention and ﬁnally
the use or non-use of the technology (Davis, 1989; Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001;
Taylor, 2004). TAM has been widely researched and has proven to be reliable in
predicting variation in the acceptance of technology (Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001;
Taylor, 2004).

The major limitation to TAM, as highlighted by Mathieson, Peacock, and Chin
(2001), is that it assumes technology adoption decisions to be voluntary and within the
control of the individual. For example, an individual may ﬁnd a software system useful
and easy to use but not be able to use the technology because it is cost-prohibitive for the
individual or organization. Another example of this shortcoming is that regardless of the
individual’s perception of usefulness or case of use, if the technology is mandated to be

used, the individual’s attitude and intention may not adequately predict her/his behavior

27

(Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, 2001; Taylor, 2004). To address this limitation,
Mathieson, Peacock and Chin (2001) propose an extended TAM that includes perceived
user resources. Others in the literature have adapted the basic TAM model to account for
other unique situations while still adhering to the basic concepts of PU and PEU (Taylor,
2004). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) introduced a TAM2 with the addition of social
inﬂuences and cognitive processes as other factors that help explain technology adoption.
In TAM 2 and other expansions of this model, PU and PEU are still the prominent
structures.

Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

The Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), was
proposed by Venkatesh, Mon'is, Davis, and Davis (2003). UTAUT is based on the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and TAM2 (Davis, 1989; Taylor, 2004;
Venkatesh, et al., 2003). UTAUT is an expanded version of TAM, incorporating other
models like the Theory of Flamed Behavior (TPB), and Innovation Diffusion Theory,
which better explain the use of technology in involuntary situations (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor,
2004). UTAUT, like TAM and TAM2, is based on the belief that PU and PEU are
signiﬁcant factors in the acceptance of new technology (Davis, 1989; Taylor, 2004). The
concepts PU and PEU have been renamed in this new model to be more encompassing
(Performance Expectancy and Effort Expectancy) but once again remain prominent
structures of this uniﬁed model.

The UTAUT model is unique in that it highlights four primary determinants of
technology acceptance which are moderated by other factors, such as age, experience

with technology, agency leadership, funding, etc. (Taylor, 2004; Venkatesh, et al., 2003).

28

Taylor (2004) found that the UTAUT predicted seventy percent of the variance with
regard to intention to use technology. The chart below (Table 1) illustrates the
relationship between the four determinants and the moderating factors.

Table 1: UTAUT Four Determinants (adapted from Taylor, 2004)

 

1. Performance Expectancy

 

Deﬁnition

The degree to which an individual/organization believes that
using the system will help attain signiﬁcant rewards

 

Related terms

Perceived usefulness; extrinsic motivation; job-ﬁt; outcome
expectations; attitude toward using technology

 

Moderators

 

Gender, age, occupation, services provided

 

2. Effort Expectancy

 

 

 

Deﬁnition The degree of ease associated with use of the technology
Related terms Perceived ease of use; complexity; computer anxiety
Moderators Gender, age, experience with technology

 

 

3. Social Inﬂuence

 

Deﬁnition

The degree to which an individual/organization perceives
that important others believe the technology should be used

 

Related terms

Subjective norm; social factors; image; social norms; peer
dynamics

 

Moderators

 

Gender, age, experience, voluntariness, governance, funding
sources, competition

 

4. Facilitating Conditions

 

Deﬁnition

The degree to which an individual believes that an
organizational and technical structure exists to support the
use of technology

 

Related terms

Perceived behavioral control; compatibility; trust

 

 

Moderators

 

Age, experience, technology plan, training, technology
support

 

29

 

The expansion of the UTAUT from the original TAM provides the potential for
improved predictability by addressing macro, mezzo and micro inﬂuences for technology
acceptance (Taylor, 2004; Venkatesh, et al., 2003). Based on this review of these three
technology acceptance models (TPB, TAM, & UTAUT), UTAUT appears to be the
model most appropriate to assess technology acceptance and the complex interaction that
leads to an intention to use technology. This model offers the possibility to capture
inﬂuences such as funding for technology, usage by peers, referral source perspectives,
and consumer inﬂuences in addition to the internal and external rewards/sanctions for
workers and clients (V enkatesh, et al., 2003).

Interestingly, despite the signiﬁcant expansion of the UTAUT model from the
original TAM model, its core elements remain the concept of PU (renamed Performance
Expectancy) and PEU (renamed Effort Expectancy). While these determinants have
received a lot of attention in the literature, there remains the potential for greater
expansion of these models through their application in other disciplines, such as social
work (Taylor, 2004).

Computer Self-eﬂicacy

The TAM model and its later expansion UTAUT, retain a focus on the two
primary concepts of perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). The
concept of PEU or Effort Expectancy as it was renamed in the UTAUT model
(V enkatesh, et al., 2003), is mediated by six factors: Computer Self-Efﬁcacy; Facilitating
Conditions; Intrinsic Motivation/Computer Playfulness; Emotion/Level of Computer
Anxiety; Objectivity Usability; and Perceived Enjoyment (Wexler, 2001). Of these

factors the concept of Computer Self-Efﬁcacy (CSE) has received signiﬁcant attention in

30

the literature. As discussed earlier, C SE is the application of Bandura’s self-efﬁcacy
concept to explain the use or lack of computer use (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996).
According to Bandura (1977) the term self-efﬁcacy refers to an individual’s perception of
their ability to perform a task or activity. This concept as applied to computer use refers
to the individual’s perception of their ability to use a computer (Venkatesh & Davis,
1996). While the early literature focused on C SE related to general computing, more
recent literature discusses the CSE concept in relationship to general computing and
speciﬁc computing task or activities (Marakas, Johnson, & Clay, 2007). In other words,
an individual with a high general CSE score may not be a predictor of an individual’s
perception of her/his ability to perform speciﬁc activities such as navigating the World
Wide Web (Web). Because the concept CSE is inﬂuenced by factors such as motivation
and technology experience among other factors, using a speciﬁc task measurement has
proven to be the more successful way of assessing CSE (Pagan, Neill, & Wooldridge,
2004). For vulnerable populations who may have limited or no exposure to lCTs, their
perception of computer skills and the beneﬁts to be gained from computer use may
greatly inﬂuence their willingness to participate in computer related activities (Venkatesh
& Davis, 1996).
Chapter Summary

As Vernon and Lynch (2003) discuss, “The reality is that many service consumers
use the Web, if not from home then from other locations. . .Access is becoming less of a
problem, but other barriers such as language differences, literacy levels, typing skills,
manual dexterity and visual acuity thwarts access as well as poverty” (p. 38). On the one

hand there are access issues that require attention for both clients and social workers, and

31

on the other hand the potential use of ICT to empower vulnerable populations is
emerging from the literature. Additionally, we know that without access to technology
and the skill to use technology vulnerable populations will be unable to compete for
resources.

Further, the emergence of ICTs as a primary resource for many common tasks
increases the risk for vulnerable populations to be disenfranchised. Using models such as
TAM as a framework can assist in understanding technology acceptance, use, and
inclusion. For social workers, the development of practice standards provides the
foundation for an examination of how ICTs can be use at all levels of practice and how
we can advocate for technology access on behalf of our service recipients. Chapter three
describes the initial process used in this study to explore how the participants use

technology.

32

CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology
The purpose of this case study is to understand the extent to which women in
recovery from chemical addiction use ICTs, and how the treatment provider can
empower and support this population in their quest for digital inclusion. To accomplish
this goal this study has been divided into two separate phases. The following chapter
describes the sample population, the setting and the research methodology used to collect
the data and analyze the ﬁndings. The research methodology for Phase II of this study
will be discussed in Chapter Six.
The Setting
The agency participating in this project is an urban nonproﬁt 501(c)3 substance
use treatment provider located in an urban area of a Great Lake state. The mission of the
agency as reﬂected on their website is to:
“provide an extensive continuum of community-based
therapeutic intervention and support for underserved
women and women with children, including a range of
outpatient services, community outreach, case
management, and supported housing in order to empower
recovery, self-sufﬁciency, family reuniﬁcation, spiritual

growth and positive inclusion in the community” (October
15, 2007).

This small grassroots agency is operated through a combination of paid and
volunteer staff. The stafﬁng pattern for the agency consists of an executive director (paid
staff), a Program Director (volunteer), one Administrative Assistant (volunteer), and four
part-time Peer Specialists (I paid and 3 volunteer). The executive director started this
agency in 2005 aﬁer a long career as a therapist in the local community. The current

services provided by this agency include prevention services, early intervention

33

(outreach) services, individual and group counseling, case-management and supportive
housing services. Recently the agency was awarded a local community mental health
substance use contract through a competitive bid process. The new prevention services
were not scheduled to begin until January, 2009 (Personal Communication, October, 15,
2007).

To increase community support and to avoid duplication of services, within the
ﬁrst year of operation the agency entered a partnership agreement with a neighboring
church. The agreement with the church provided ﬁnancial and organizational support,
and spiritual guidance for the agency. Additionally, the church partnership has provided
ofﬁce space, group meeting space, and a lease arrangement for the agency to use one of
the church’s renovated houses as a supportive housing facility. The agency does not
provide any ﬁnancial remuneration for the church support as long as they continue to
provide services to women and children in the immediate area surrounding the church
(Personal Communication, October, 15, 2007).

In 2007, the Community Research Institute (CRI) conducted a study of the area
surrounding the church and the agency’s target service area. This study found that only
29% of the 165 respondents described the neighborhood as “very safe’. This ﬁnding is in
contrast to 72% of residents in the same county who describe their neighborhood as ‘very
safe’. Further, 69% of the households in this neighborhood are female-headed. With
regard to income the vast majority of the households (73%) have incomes less than
$25,000. In fact, nearly 40% of these households have incomes of $10,000 or less. The
ethnic make up of the target neighborhood consists of 74% African American, 13%

Caucasian, and 8% Latino/Latina households (Community Research Institute, 2007).

34

Additionally, the CR1 report describes this neighborhood as “an area of crime, blight,
closed businesses, and vacant housing” (2007, p. 2). The demographic and economic
status of the residents in this urban area is consistent with populations described in the
digital divide literature as having little or no access to ICTs, which makes this area
desirable for a study of this nature (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).
Agency Cooperation

Over the past three years the executive director of this agency has consulted with
the researcher about the agency’s desire to become a licensed substance use provider.
These uncompensated consultation meetings have occurred up to twice a year since 2005.
During a consultation meeting in the fall of 2007, the executive director expressed a
desire to improve access to community resources for her clients through increased use of
technology and through the development of an agency website (Personal
Communication, October 15, 2007). To this end, the director was presented with a
description of the current study. After several revisions the executive director and the
agency board of directors approved the study in February, 2008.
Methodology

The literature describes ethnic minority women in recovery as having little formal
education, often living in poverty and frequently having been victims of domestic
violence or other violent crimes (Lapidus, Luthra, Verman, Small, Allard, & Levingston,
2004). In terms of technology use, the literature describes poor women living in urban
environments and having a behavioral health disorder as generally lacking access to ICTs
(Bakardjieva, 2003; Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003). However, the degree and

scope of involvement in the use of ICTs for urban, ethnic minority women in recovery

35

has not fully been explored. Because of the limited research specifically addressing how,
why and for what purpose this population uses ICTs, this study will take a qualitative
approach using an exploratory design (Dudley, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2006;
Richards, 2005). According to Marshall and Rossman (2006), a qualitative approach is
particularly useful to understand the experience and/or perceptions of individuals
belonging to oppressed groups deﬁned by race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or
disability.

According to Dudley (2007), in addition to observational techniques, exploratory
research designs typically involve smaller sample sizes and the use of surveys, focus
groups, unstructured or semi-structured questionnaires and/or interviews as the primary
methods of data collection. In contrast to exploratory research designs, the primary
methods of data collection for explanatory research involve the use of large sample sizes,
structured interviews, observational techniques, and structured questionnaires to collect
data (Dudley, 2007). Consistent with research design principles from Dudley (2007) and
Richards (2005), this study will use focus groups, surveys, and semi-structured interviews
as the principal methods for data collection.

A Grounded Theory approach will be utilized for the ﬁrst phase of this study to
understand and theorize how poor ethnic minority women in recovery use technology.
LaRossa (2005) states that, “GTM [Grounded Theory Methods] are a valuable set of
procedures for thinking theoretically about textual materials” (p. 855). More speciﬁcally,
Grounded Theory is particularly suited for this study as the perceptions of women in
recovery toward ICT use has yet to be explored in the human service literature (Dudley,

2007; LaRossa, 2005; Richards, 2005).

36

 

Theoretical Foundation

Symbolic Interaction

The three theoretical frameworks used to inform this study are Symbolic
Interaction (SI) (Rank & LeCroy, 1983), the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis,
1989), and Empowerment Theory (Solomon, 1976). SI provides the context for how
individuals use symbols and communication to form meaning of their life circumstance
(White, 2002). The continued and rapid expansion of ICTs and their use in accessing
resources and information and in developing relationships makes SI particularly salient as
a framework for this study (Anderson, 2005; Merkle & Richardson, 2000; McQuillen,
2003; Rumbough, 2001). The process of construction and reconstruction of meaning as
described in SI helps individuals make sense of their role and the relevancy of technology
to their daily lives (F ulk, Schmitz, & Ryu, 1995). The patterns of interaction and the
subjective interpretations of the individual will assist in providing meaning to the
experience of using or not using technology (Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993). The meaning
individuals attach to technology use or non-use will operate within the context of their
social norms and values (Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993). The exploration of these meanings
from the perspective of the participants will take place through data collected from
surveys and focus group discussions.

Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Derived from TAM, and incorporated into its later expanded model UTAUT, the
concepts of Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) add
understanding to how and why individuals use ICTs. As discussed earlier in the review of

the literature, TAM is the most widely researched of the technology acceptance models

37

and has been extended beyond the information systems ﬁeld to other professions to
assess intention to use technology (Taylor, 2004). According to the model these two
determinants, PU and PEU, combine to shape attitude toward a technology, which in turn
predicts intention to use the technology (Davis, 1989, Taylor, 2004, Venkatesh, et al.,
2003). As a theoretical framework for this study, the concepts of PU and PEU provide
explanatory guidance for the participants’ use or nonuse of technology. PU and PEU
work in concert with SI as the participants describe in their own words how they use or
do not use technology and the circumstances inﬂuencing their decisions.

Empowerment Theory

Working for change on behalf of those we serve is one of the fundamental
principles of the social work profession (Boehm & Staple, 2004). The outcomes,
processes, and tools involved in facilitating change are referred to together as
“empowerment” (Bohem & Staple, 2004, p.270). Empowerment can occur at personal,
familial, community, or a social level. Further, empowerment strategies as used by social
workers are particularly salient for use with vulnerable populations (Cox, 2001).
According to Cox, empowerment is “the process of assisting individuals, groups,
families, and communities to discover and expend the resources and tools within and
around them” (Cox, 2001, p. 306).

From this perspective, empowerment theory provides an appropriate lens for this
study in two ways: ﬁrst, in a technology-focused world the uncovering of the ways
women in recovery currently use technology to empower themselves, their families, and
community is important for human services agencies to learn and possibly replicate.

Secondly, the study process itself may give voice to concerns, frustrations and beliefs of

38

 

this population that previously may have been unknown or ignored (Banyard & Miller,
1998).
Research Questions — Phase I

Guiding the research process is a set of questions derived from review of
literature, previous research, and areas of interest expressed by the agency executive
director, the board of directors, and the researcher. According to Marshall and Rossman
(2006) research questions should be focused on the problem, be general in nature, and
become more reﬁned through the research process. Further, they describe three main
categories of research questions in qualitative research: a.) theoretical questions, b.)
population questions, and e.) site related questions. Consistent with the exploratory case
study design, research questions for Phase I are best categorized as population speciﬁc
questions. However, while the research questions seek to illuminate the experience of a
select group, women in recovery, the questions are general enough to allow for reﬁning
through the research process (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

For example, question #1 examines the experience of the participants with ICTs.
To fully understand this experience, areas such as the participants’ interest in using
technology, their pattern of use, and the accessibility of ICTs for this population were
examined. This question is important to this study in that the digital divide literature
clearly highlights that ethnic minority women, individuals living in poverty, and
individuals with a disability tend to have low levels of access to technology and often
lack basic computer skills (Miller-Cribs, 2001; Warschauer, 2003).

Question #2 examines the scope, frequency, and purpose of technology use. As

Horrigan (2007) showed, ICT use is more complex than simply assessing use versus non-

39

use. In fact, Horrigan (2007) found ten distinct types of ICT users, which include a group
of moderate users labeled “Connected but Hassled” (p. 6). This group is signiﬁcant
because although they use technology they do not feel good about their use and likely
would not view their use of technology as empowering. Research question two follows a
similar pattern of exploration described in Horrigan by examining not only the devices
used but also the purpose for this use and the frequency of their use.

Research question #3 was designed to examine the factors discussed in the

”3115

f I . P-I‘

literature on technology acceptance. In particular, question three focuses on the
determinant areas from TAM and UTAUT: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived
Usefulness [PU] (Venkatesh, et al., 2003). This involves an examination of internal
motivation, external motivation, social Setting, perceived beneﬁts for using or not using
technology and perceived technology skills among other variables (Venkatesh, et al.,
2003; Taylor, 2004).

Research question #4 is linked to Empowerment theory, the NASW and ASWB
Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice (2005) and Warschauer’s (2003)
theory of digital inclusion. As a ﬁrst step to building a model of digital empowerment it
is important to understand how human service workers perceive the use of ICTs by those
they serve. Worker misconceptions or over generalizations about the scope, frequency
and purpose of client technology use may lead to poorly designed interventions. Table 2
lists the questions used to guide the research process for Phase I of this study and the data

collection methods used.

40

Table 2: Research Questions — Phase I

 

 

Research Questions Data Collection Methods
$12215 the experience of the agency clrents wrth Focus Groups & Survey

 

1. How oﬁen, for what purpose, and under what Focus Groups & Survey
circumstances do the agency clients use ICTS?

2. What are the factors that inﬂuence use or non-
use of ICT for the agency clients?

3. How does agency staff perceive their clients
frequency of use, purpose of use, and access Survey & Focus Group
to ICTs?

 

Focus Groups

 

 

 

 

 

Instrumentation — Phase 1

Instruments used in the ﬁrst phase of this study consisted of a participant survey
instrument (Appendix A), three focus group protocols (Appendix C - E) and a staff
technology survey (Appendix B). All of the instruments were developed by the
researcher and reviewed by the agency board and four local college students. The purpose
of the instrument review was to discover confusing questions, and questions with
language concerns, and to assess the time needed to complete the instruments. Student
volunteers met as a group and reviewed the instruments. The group feedback was noted
by the researcher and incorporated into the revised instruments. The same review process
was used for all instruments in this study. Agency board of directors involvement was at
the suggestion of the executive director, who hoped that board participation in this project
would foster support for any recommendations resulting from this study. Board members
received the survey instruments via e-mail from the researcher for review and comment.
The executive director, who sent a reminder message to the board encouraging them to
give feedback to the researcher, supported this e-mail review process.

Survey Design

41

The initial Phase I client survey instrument consisted of nine questions. The
survey began with the IRB approved consent form (Appendix G), an explanation of the
survey’s purpose and ended with a statement of the conﬁdential nature of responses and
that participation in this study is voluntary. Next participants were asked to respond to
three technology use questions followed by six demographic questions, which will be
used to compare the participants to populations described in the literature as typically
lacking access to technology.

The ﬁrst three questions of this survey were adapted from Horrigan’s (2007)
technology user survey. Information gathered by Horrigan (2007) led to the development
of ten technology user typologies. Similarly, responses to the ﬁrst three questions in this
survey led to the development of participant technology use proﬁle. This proﬁle was later
used to classify participants into three groups based on their technology use pattern. As a
part of this proﬁle development, questions one through three examined the devices
participants used to connect to the lntemet and the frequency with which these devices
were used. Together, questions one through three provided a technology user proﬁle from
which the researcher developed the composition of three focus groups.

Based on responses to the ﬁrst three questions, survey participants were placed
into the following categories: (a) Non-users (b) Moderate-users and (c) Power-users.
Individuals responding afﬁrmatively to personally owning a cell phone with lntemet
capability or a desktop or laptop computer in response to question one (Q1), and daily use
of the lntemet in response to question two (Q2) were categorized as Power-users.
Individuals indicating no personal ownership of a laptop or desktop computer or a cell

phone with lntemet capability (Q1), and who have access to a laptop or desktop computer

or cell phone with lntemet capability through friends/family or through public sources
and who indicate use ranging from weekly to monthly lntemet use in response to Q1
were categorized as Moderate-users. Individuals who do not have access to a laptop or
desktop computer or cell phone with Internet capability through personal ownership or
through friends/family or through public sources (Q1) and indicate no current use of the
Internet (Q1) were categorized as Non-users. It should be noted that the term Non-user
does not mean that these individuals have never used ICTs. Rather, this term indicates no
current use or ready access to ICTs. Table 3 is an example of how participants were
assigned to categories.

The remaining questions of the initial survey, questions four through nine,
explored the participant’s demographic information. Information such as age, ethnicity,
social economic level and education were collected through responses to questions four
through nine.

Table 3: Focus group categories

 

 

 

 

 

Non-User Moderate User Power User
Question 1 No ownership No ownership Personal ownership
Question 1 No access through Access through Access through

friends/family friends/family friends/family
Question 1 No access through Access through public Access through

public resources resources public resources
Question 2 Annual or no use Eggnthly or weekly Daily use

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second survey instrument used in this study was designed to explore the staff
perception of the participant’s access to and use of technology (Appendix B). Staff

perception of participant technology use was later compared to participant self-reports of

43

their technology use and discussed with staff. This instrument asked staff to estimate the
percentage of clients who own a computer or some other device that connects to the
Internet; what percentage of clients have access to the lntemet through friends and
family; what percentage of clients have access to the lntemet through public resources;
and what percentage of clients use the lntemet weekly. The survey also asked staff to
select activities that they believe their clients engage in when using technology.
Additionally, this survey captured information about how staff use technology and how
they engage participants in the use of technology. The researcher based the questions on
extensive review of the literature, as well as by following the same structure as the initial
participant survey. Using responses from questions one and two of the second survey the
researcher was able to place staff into a technology user proﬁle group, similar to the
process used for the client participants. Together, staff user proﬁle and their perception of
client access and use of technology provided a springboard for staff and board
discussions.

Focus Group Questions

According to Marshall and Rossman (2006), focus groups have the advantage of
offering ﬂexibility to address unanticipated issues while providing a supportive
environment for disclosure. To uncover additional information about how the participants
use, view, and thought about technology, three technology proﬁle speciﬁc focus groups
were conducted. As discussed above, participants were divided into three distinct groups;
Non-users, Moderate-users, and Power-users. Up to ten participants from each user group
were invited to participate in small focus group discussions. Focus group participants

were asked to respond to six questions developed by this researcher based on sensitivity

44

to the literature and the research questions guiding this study. Appendices C - E provide
listings of the focus group questions designed for each group.
Sample Selection/Recruitment

The participating agency offers a range of services from assessment and referral
to individual and group counseling. According to the executive director, the most popular
service is the weekly support group meeting. This meeting is typically attended by up to
40 women in various stages of recovery (Personal Communication, November 15, 2007).
The support group meetings are seen as an essential component of the agency’s services;
as such the support group meeting was selected as the ideal recruitment setting for this
study. Additional supports such as providing transportation, childcare, and a light meal
were services offered for each support group meeting.

Like most support group meetings attendance was not mandatory, and the actual
number of women attending each meeting was unpredictable. Nevertheless, participants
for Phase I of this study were recruited from the approximately 40 women who regularly
participate in the agency sponsored support group meetings. A minimum sample size of
30 - 40 client participants was sought for this study. However, there was no preset upper
limit for the number of participants. Participation in this study was in no way related to
the services the participants were receiving or scheduled to receive through this agency.

Recruitment of study participants occurred through ﬂyers posted in the agency
ofﬁce and displayed in the agency-run supportive housing facility. Additionally, ﬂyers
sent to referral agencies about the support group meeting included information about the
opportunity to participate in this study. The circulated ﬂyers (Appendix H) directed

individuals who wished to learn more about the study, or who would like to participate in

45

the study, to attend a support group meeting scheduled for February 26, 2008. The staff
role in the recruitment of subjects was limited to the distribution and posting of ﬂyers.
Further, because the actual number of participants was not known in advance, the
aid of a trained research assistant was enlisted to support the surveying process. The
researcher provided a four-hour training session for the research assistant prior to her
involvement in the study. This training included how to conduct a survey, the intent of
the study, and sensitivity training to the ethnic, cultural, and educational backgrounds of

the study participants (Silverrnan, 2005; Marshall & Rossman, 2006).

- ianl ."1

Survey Participation Rate

There were nineteen attendees and ﬁve staff present at the February 26, 2008
support group meeting. Participants who consented to completing the initial survey were
given either a staff version of the survey (Appendix B), or a client version of the survey
(Appendix A), based on their role as identiﬁed by the agency director. Table 4 shows the
rate of participation for the initial Phase I survey.

Of the 19 women in attendance on February 26, 2008, 17 agreed to participate in
the study. All ﬁve staff present agreed to participate. Because the number of expected
attendees was lower than expected, second and third recruitment efforts were scheduled
for the March 11, 2008 support group meeting and the March 14, 2008 Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) meeting. At the March 11, 2008 meeting, four of the 13 women
present agreed to participate in the study. The other nine women stated they had
completed a survey on February 26, 2008. At the March 14, 2008 meeting nine of the 16
women present agreed to participate in the study. Only four women present at the March

14, 2008 meeting had previously completed the initial survey.

46

Table 4: Initial Survey Participation Rate

 

Recruitment Date February 28, 2008 March 11, 2008 March 14, 2008 Total

 

 

 

Eligible l 9 4 l2 3 5
Participants

Actual Participants 17 4 9 30
Participation Rate 89% 100% 75% 86%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the same IRB approved protocol for each meeting, the researcher described
the purpose of the study, the risks, and the beneﬁts. Participants were given an
opportunity to ask questions about the study before consenting to participate. Only two of
the 35 potential participants reported not being literate and therefore could not read the
survey. Both of these women declined to participate in the study, even though the
researcher offered them assistance to aid their completion of the survey. Thirty out of a
possible thirty-ﬁve active clients participated in the Phase I survey, which represents 86%
of the eligible participants.

Focus Group Participation Rate

Following the initial surveying, participants were placed into three groups based
on their technology use proﬁle as described above. Each participant who consented to be
contacted about participation in a focus group meeting was invited to attend a focus
group session. All focus group meetings took place prior to regularly scheduled support
group meetings held at the agency’s main ofﬁce. The location and the time of the focus
group meetings meant that participants could take advantage the agency’s services such

as transportation, child-care, and a free meal. As a matter of convenience, the moderate-

47

user and power-user focus groups were held on the same evening. Individuals consenting
to participate in a focus group meeting were asked to provide their name and a contact
number on the last page of the initial survey. The researcher linked the survey
information to the consent for participation through the use of a unique code on the initial
survey. Consenting participants were then contacted by the researcher at the phone
number they provided and asked abut their willingness to participate in a focus group
meeting. If the actual participant was not available a message was left on voicemail
asking them to contact the researcher by phone. The agency was given a list of meeting
times but was unaware of the identity of the participants scheduled to attend each
meeting. Participants contacting the agency about participation in the focus groups were
encouraged to follow up with the researcher by phone.

At the conclusion of each focus group meeting, participants were given a ten-
dollar gift certiﬁcate to a local retail store as a token of appreciation for their
participation. Table 5 shows the number of participants in each group, the number of
participants interested in being contacted about participation in a focus group, and the
actual number of focus group participants.

Table 5: Focus Group Participation Rate

 

Participant Proﬁle Count Focus Group Interest Contacted Attendees % Attended

 

 

 

Non-user 14 l l 1 l 5 45%
Moderate-user 8 7 7 4 57%
Power-user 8 8 8 6 75%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interpretation of the Data - Phase I

48

According to Richards (2006), good qualitative inquiry includes proper handling
of the data and a precise review of the data through which themes can be illuminated.
Surveys were collected by the researcher and/or the research assistant at the time of
completion. Each survey was coded and entered into SPSS for further analysis.
Participants consenting to be contacted about participation in a focus group session had
their survey results linked to their name and phone number. Agency staff were not given
access to the names of the survey participants or the potential focus group participants.
Using descriptive statistics participant demographic information was analyzed. The
demographic information was generally compared with digital divide literature in order
to assess any differences or similarities between the study population and populations
described in the literature as generally lacking access to technology. Further,
categorization of survey responses to questions one and two of the initial survey led to
the development of a technology use proﬁle. This technology use proﬁle was later used
to determine the participants in the three focus group sessions.

Focus group data was gathered and preserved through the use of digital audio
recording. This data was later transcribed, coded and analyzed for themes. Consistent
with the Grounded Theory model, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding was
used to uncover themes and build a model of technology use for these participant groups
(LaRossa, 2005). Using open coding, each focus group transcript was coded
independently by the researcher and a trained research assistant. Codes were labels given
to words, sentences, actions or statements of the participants (LaRossa, 2005). There
were no preset codes; all codes were derived from the actual data analyzed. To address

inter-rater reliability a research assistant was used as a second coder for all three groups

49

and participated in the discussion and development of axial and selective codes for all
three focus groups. The use of a second coder, according to Rosenblatt and Fischer
(1993) is desired for addressing “reliability” as well as having collaboration in discussing
the data (p. 172).

The researcher and research assistant met to review the codes and resolve any
disagreement over the meaning of the codes (Silvennan, 2005). This same process was
used to uncover themes using axial coding and selective coding. According to LaRossa
(2005) “Grounded theory methods (GTM) are most productive when all three phases of
coding are employed” (p. 42). Additionally, ﬁeld notes from each focus session were
used to add context to the themes discovered through the coding process.

The coding process led to the development of themes by combining codes. Each
group had its own themes as a result of the coding process, although many of the themes
were common to all groups. For example, there were themes discovered speciﬁc to the
non-user group, the moderate-user group, and the power-user group. Additionally there
were across group themes as well. These themes will be discussed further in Chapter
Four. A third and ﬁnal set of themes using selective coding that tie together the stories of
the participants from each group is discussed in Chapter Five (LaRossa, 2005).

Research Process - Phase I

Initial Participant and Staff Survey

At the February 26, 2008 agency support group meeting, the study was explained
to participants verbally and in writing per the IRB approved Research Participation
Information and Consent Form (Appendix G). Individuals who consented to participation

in this study were asked to review and sign the consent form. The initial survey asked

50

participants to provide demographic information, information about the type of devices
used to connect to the lntemet, how often they use the lntemet and their lntemet use
locations. Participants completing the survey were offered an opportunity to participate in
a focus group discussion on this same topic. Individuals interested in participating in a
focus group discussion indicated their interest by providing their name and contact
information on the last page of the survey. During this same meeting, agency staff
agreeing to participate in the study completed a staff version of the survey (Appendix B),
exploring their perceptions of client technology use. Similar to the client process, staff
interested in participating in a focus group discussion provided their name and contact
information on the last page of their survey, which was separated and coded by the
researcher.

Participant Focus Groups

Participants agreeing to participate in a focus group discussion about technology
were divided into three groups based on their responses to questions one and two from
the initial survey. Participants who indicated an interest in joining a focus group session
by providing their contact number were called by the researcher and asked to attend the
designated support group meeting. To maximize attendance, focus groups sessions took
place an hour before the weekly support group meeting. This allowed participants to take
advantaged of agency-sponsored transportation, child-care, and food. Table 3 (p. 51) is a
description of the process used to determine each group’s membership.

The non-user focus group occurred on March 18, 2008 and was led by the
researcher. The moderate-user focus group and the power-user focus group both occurred

on March 25, 2008. The power-user focus group session was led by the researcher and

51

the moderate focus group session was led by a trained research assistant. All three focus
groups were audio recorded and preserved in a digital format for transcription, coding,
and analysis. Coding and analysis were performed using the Invivo 8 qualitative software
package. Verbatim transcripts were uploaded into the Invivo 8 program in Microsoft
Word format where they were coded for analysis. This software allows for the consistent
handling of data and aids the researcher in organizing data as it is analyzed. According to
Silverman (2005) transcripts provide a public record, an opportunity for repeated study,
and ongoing analysis. In addition to transcripts, the focus group leaders took detailed
notes during each focus group meeting to ensure that participant comments were
preserved. These notes were coded by hand by the researcher and research assistant.

Staff Response to Findings

As a ﬁnal step, the survey and focus group ﬁndings were shared with four of the
ﬁve staff in a focus group format on March 31, 2008. The purpose of this discussion was
to explore differences between staff perceptions of the role technology plays in their
clients’ lives and the study’s ﬁndings. Results of this staff discussion are included in the
ﬁndings section of this study (Chapter 4). The staff focus group was digitally recorded;
however, because of background noise during the meeting transcription was not possible.
However consistent with proper focus group protocol, the researcher took extensive
meeting notes (LaRossa, 2006; Marshall & Roosman, 2006; Richards, 2005). Session
notes were later coded and analyzed for themes by the researcher and research assistant.

Table 6 shows the overall research process for the two phases of this study.

 

Table 6: Summary of the Research Process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Process Client Staff

Phase I

Step 1 Client Survey StaffSurvey

Step 2 Client Focus Groups

Step 3 Staff Focus Group

Phase II

Step 1 Computer Use (Archival) Staff Survey

Step 2 Client Survey CPPOA (Archival)

Step 3 Client Interview Director Interview
Chapter Summary

As discussed in this chapter, a qualitative case study is the most appropriate
method for uncovering how women in recovery use technology. Using surveys and small
focus groups as a part of the discovery process, this study gathered data to uncover the
ways in which the participants use, view, and think about technology. Participants
included clients and staff of an urban midwestem substance use provider. Further
theoretical guidance for this study comes from Symbolic Interaction (SI) which provides
guidance to the process participants use to make meaning of their use or non—use of
technology. Additionally, the research process was informed by Empowerment theory
which provided a framework to examine how participants use technology to access
resources and participate in their community. Finally, the Uniﬁed Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT) offers a framework for understanding the participants’
decision to use or not use technology. Principal methods used in this phase included
surveys and focus groups.

Chapter Four presents the ﬁndings from Phase I of this study. Included in this

discussion are the participant demographic information and the actual statements of the

53

participants as expressed during data collection. The ﬁndings are organized around the

technology user group proﬁle developed from initial survey responses.

54

CHAPTER FOUR
Findings — Phase I

This chapter will provide a discussion regarding the ﬁndings for the initial
participant survey, staff survey, the participant focus groups, and a staff focus group. The
chapter begins with a discussion regarding the participant demographics, and concludes
with the ﬁndings from a staff focus group.

The participant focus group ﬁndings, which begin on page 61, are arranged by
each user group proﬁle (non-user, moderate-user, and power-user). It is important to note
that many of the participants exercised their right not to respond to particular questions.
As a result, there are several questions where the response rate is less than the actual
number of survey participants. Actual participant comments are provided in italics
whenever possible to allow the participants an opportunity to tell their own story. Each
focus group section ends with a discussion of the themes found through the selective
coding process, which assists in the process of theory development (LaRossa, 2005).
Participant Demographics

Based on the initial survey data, the participants in this study could best be
characterized as urban, ethnic minority women. In fact, twenty of the twenty-nine
respondents were African American women (Figure 4), and twenty-four of twenty-eight
respondents were under the age of 45 (Figure 3). As evidenced by the level of state and

federal assistance received by the participants, the vast majority were living in poverty

(Table 7).

55

- “an

Figure 3: Participant Age Range

 

 

 

 

 

   

l4 I3
12
IO
E 8
‘3’ c
U 6 I 5
4 - 3
2
2 I ' I
0 1 , , _ , 1-- ,
18- 24 25- 34 35—44 45-54 55 or older No response
Age
Figure 4: Participant Ethnicity
r
25 ]
20 j
,_. 15
c
a l
L; 10
5 l
2 1 1
0 W
White African American Mullicthnic Other No Response

 

 

56

 

As an indication of the participants’ level of poverty, twenty-two of twenty-seven
respondents reported receiving food stamps. Further, sixteen respondents reported having
an income under $10,000 per year. Table 7 shows the types of public assistance the
participants reported receiving from the state. Figure 5 shows the distribution of income
among the thirty survey participants.

Table 7: Level of Public Assistance

 

 

 

 

 

Social
Food Subsidized Security
Response Medicaid Medicare Stamps Housing Disability
Yes 20 6 22 1 0 1 3
No 7 21 5 l 7 14
No
Response 3 3 3 3 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Annual Income

 

m- m

Count

 

 

M 99 99 ea x
9s 3- s; p? 82
8. ISO 85 82 go
:3 :8 of: o 3’;

 

 

 

Despite the apparent low social economic status of this group, the participants
report a relatively high educational status. At least one third of the participants (n=10)

report having attended some college. Only one participant in this study reported no

57

education beyond middle school. The women in this study described living a transitional
life style. In fact, twenty-four out of twenty-e1 ght respondents either lived in rental
housing, transitional housing or were homeless at the time of the survey. There were two
‘no responses’ to the living arrangement question and two participants selected ‘other’ as
their living status.

Access to [C T s

Survey respondents were asked to describe their access to computers, cell phones,
devices with an lntemet connection, PDAs, MP3 players, digital cable and satellite
television. Of the twenty-nine responses to this question, nineteen participants indicated
having access to a laptop or desktop computer with lntemet capability.

With regard to cell phone ownership, twenty-three of the twenty-nine respondents
reported owning a cell phone. One participant reported that although she did not own a
cell phone, she did have access through family or friends. Fifteen of the cell phones
owned by the participants had text messaging capability, while only ﬁve of the cell
phones had lntemet access.

Other devices such as MP3 Players or iPods were less accessible to this
population, as only eight of the twenty-eight respondents reported owning one of these
devices. Additionally, there was a great deal of confusion over the term “PDA” on the
initial survey. Several of the participants were not familiar with this term. However, one
respondent did report access to a PDA through public sources. Interestingly, access to
digital cable television was slightly lower than the access rate for computers with lntemet
access (Figure 6). Satellite television was even less available to the participants, as only

two of the twenty-seven respondents indicated having access to this technology.

58

Figure 6: Digital Cable Television versus lntemet Access

 

16

Count
E
J!

   

Digital Cable Access Computer w "Internet Access

 

 

 

Purpose of [C T Use

 

The primary purpose for using technology among the respondents was to seek
information or education from lntemet resources (n=17). This activity was closely
followed by communication with family or friends (n=16), employment seeking activities
(n=15), and seeking online health information (n=12). Figure 7 shows the purposes for
which the participants used technology. Activities with less than seven respondents, such
as gaming (n=4) and other activities (n=3), were not included in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Purpose of Technology Use

 

_.._.__.___

(ount
OIJJBO‘OOOIJAOW
I w
I 4
- «
- ..
- °°
- ..
— =
— —.
_

A <5 t. . J N (s. Q _ Q o
{0‘ 46‘ os‘ as“ ~00 6“ 4° \s‘ 0“ 0° 5
O _, 0 c o \‘0 . 6‘ o a 6‘ . no (t
b S \3 ~5‘ \5‘ a" \x «3 xv . ~
0 e \ o (a ,. 4s \* § 9‘
‘ *3 Q’ U ° {Q «o \‘1‘
w- . \\ A x e
«0‘ _ 06‘ (‘0‘
\3 0

 

 

 

59

Phase I - Participant Focus Group Findings

As described in the methodology section, several items from this initial survey
were combined to create a user proﬁle for each survey respondent. The formation of
these categories was necessary to provide cohesion for focus group membership.
Following the protocol discussed in Chapter Three the following groups were developed:
(a) Power Users — eight participants (b) Moderate Users — eight participants and (c) Non-
Users - fourteen participants. Figure 8 shows the distribution of participants among the
three groups.

Figure 8: Participant User Proﬁle

 

Count

   

Power—Users Moderate—Users Non-Users

 

 

 

Participants in this study were assigned to one of three groups based on the
information they provided in the initial survey. Members of each group were invited to
participate in a small focus group meeting to be held at the agency site. Actual focus
group attendance ranged from a low of four participants to a high of six participants. The
ﬁndings for each focus group have been organized around the primary themes found

through the analysis process.

60

Non-user Focus Group Findings

The non-user group was characterized by a lack of reliable access to computer
with an lntemet connection or other devices that connect to the lntemet. Based on
responses to the initial client survey, fourteen women were identiﬁed as ﬁtting the non-
user proﬁle. Of the fourteen women identiﬁed as non-users, eleven expressed interest in
participating in a focus group to discuss their technology use. All eleven participants
ﬁtting the non-user proﬁle were contacted by phone and informed of the time, and
location, of the focus group meeting. Messages were left for four of the eleven
participants at the phone number they provided. Additionally, the agency provided
transportation and childcare for each focus group session. Of the eleven eligible non—
users, ﬁve participants (45%) attended the focus group session. The eight non-users who
did not attend the session all reported no access or use of technology similar to those who
attended the session. There was no follow up on the non-attendees to ascertain the
reasons for not attending the session. However, an effort was made to address potential
barriers to attendance by providing transportation and onsite childcare.

The focus group session began with an explanation of the project and a review of
the consent for participation document. After this introduction the participants interested
in continuing in the study were given a chance to ask questions before the start of the
focus group session. All ﬁve participants agreed to participate in the focus group session
and gave permission for the session to be audio recorded and transcribed for later
analysis.

The transcripts from each of the focus group sessions were initially open coded by

the researcher, then blind coded by the research assistant. After discussion and agreement

61

on the ﬁnal set of codes they were grouped into themes. These themes were reviewed and
discussed between the researcher and the research assistant for agreement before being
included in the ﬁnal set of themes. This three level coding was designed to provide
reliability and trustworthiness, while accurately reﬂecting the thoughts, feelings, beliefs,
and experiences of the participants (Richards, 2006). The ﬁndings from the focus group
sessions are organized around ﬁve themes uncovered through the research process. The
ﬁve themes developed from the non-user response were: (a) Logging On (b) Skills,
Training, and Support (c) Motivation and Belief in ICT ((1) Current and Anticipated Uses
(e) Privacy, Security, and Safety.

Presented in the following section are the themes found for the non-user group
and examples of how each of them related to the thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors of
the participants. Participant comments are in italics and appear as the participants spoke
them.

Logging On

One of the primary concerns expressed by the non-user group fell under the theme
of ‘Logging On’ to computers or other devices with an lntemet connection. This theme
includes the participants’ perception of the cost of hardware/software and their preferred
access locations. When asked about their lack of ownership of devices other than cell
phones, the non-user group cited the cost of the hardware and the cost of maintaining an
lntemet connection as a barrier to computer ownership. From the group’s perspective
current computer pricing was beyond the range of what they could afford. Additionally

the group was concerned with meeting their basic needs before considering a computer

62

purchase. Presented below is an excerpt from the participants’ conversation on this topic.
Actual participant names have been changed to protect the participants’ identity.

Cindy: Make them affordable for low-income families.

Ann: Well there should be a discount for people that you know get Disability and SS].
Kendra: Yeah ‘cause people on Disability they can’t afford it. They get paid once a
month you know what I ’m saying? They income is not that high. Then you still gotta pay
your lights, your gas, your rent.

Mollie: Shoot, I’d say about $100 or less.

Cindy: Is there any way we can go about buying one of those computers that the guy is
taking overseas for $200?

Tammy: With a payment plan maybe, a cheap one.

Kendra. I’d have to have a payment plan.

As part of the cost discussion the non-user group discussed the fact that a lntemet
connection is an additional expense to the initial computer purchase. There was some
confusion about what hardware is needed to connect to the lntemet by two of the
participants. As the conversation below shows the other group members were aware that
the cost of the computer does not often include access to the lntemet.

Cindy: Yeah you know. We were calling for one of my girlfriends to get a phone and they
offered her $12 a month. I thought wow that’s the cheapest one I’ve ever heard for the
Internet to be on your phone line. ‘Cause everybody else wants a lot of money and a lot
of people really can only just aﬂord a basic phone line. So make it you know where it
can be an affordable computer and aﬂordable Internet access in your home you know
what I mean.

Ann: Well I had the Internet, but after I was paying for the bill I found out that there ain ’t
a modem in there so I was paying for something I couldn’t use anyways.

In addition to the cost of hardware/software and an lntemet connection, the non-
user group had a tenuous pattern of access to computers and lntemet devices. As a part of
the discussion regarding access, the group expressed frustration with access through
public sites. The group was aware of access to computers and the lntemet through public

sources, such as the public library system and some community agencies. However each

of these potential access points presented challenges for the group. For example,

63

accessing services through the public library without having a picture ID was
problematic. Similarly, the library’s policy of allowing patrons only one hour on a
computer was equally problematic for the non-user group.

Researcher: If you didn ’t have a computer, are there computers that you would use in the
community?

Cindy: Library.

Ann: I mean it’s easy to get a library card.

Kendra: Do you have to have a library card?

Tammy: Ain ’t got no picture ID?

Mollie: You can get you a library card

Cindy: And that ’s something I know because I just got one. If you have ID you know they
won ’t give it to you that day, but they ’11 give you some type of paper and then send you a
card. That 's easy.

Ann: The ﬁrst one is free, but if you lose it I think it ’s like $1 or $2 or something like that.
Ann: Yeah, but the only thing if you don ’t know how to use the computer at the library
you only get a hour on there so by the time, me with my slow self using the computer, so
by the time I get to it my hour be up.

Some of the participants have been fortunate to receive donated computers from
local churches or community organizations. However, these computers lacked access to
the Internet because of a missing part or because the computers needed upgrading. For
the women in this group, donated computers did not represent a realistic opportunity to
access the lntemet.

Ann: Yeah, well they had won it through a church and I was gonna get the modem put in
it. They won it through a church doing Bible speeches and stuﬂ like that, but I ’mﬁxing
to just get them an updated one so I’m not even gonna put the modem in it.

Skills, Training, and Support

A second theme uncovered through this analysis of the data was Skills, Training,
and Support. This theme included the participants’ perceived computer skill level, their

interest in learning computer skills, and the type of support needed when accessing the

lntemet. According to the participants in this group one of the reasons for their minimal

64

use of computers or no computer use, was their perception of their computer skill level as
inadequate. In fact, three of the ﬁve participants cited their low skill level as a primary
reason for their minimal use of ICT.

C inaiv: I don ’t know how to work one.
Ann: Nope. I know how to turn them off and that ’s it.
Kendra: Don ’t know how to get to web sites.

Additionally, two of the ﬁve participants expressed a fear of using computers and an
overall ambivalence toward technology. This fear was in part related to the participants’
perceived lack of adequate computer skills.

Mollie: Cause sometimes if you don’t know about something and you don’t wanna learn it
and that would be me. I mean because I don ’t know how to use a computer, I mean not
that I haven ’t tried because as a kid I used a computer in school. And as an adult I just
remember one time I used a computer I was at the YWCA and at the beginning I didn ’t
even know how to turn the computer on. My sister had to turn it on. And at the end I was
on a web site. Now how I got there I don ’t know, but I started doing things and I don’t
know what I had did but I was doing some things. But as of now, I’m not saying that I
wouldn’t be willing to learn, but because I don’t know you know it ’s just a little fear
when it comes to technology things. Even with my phones. Both my phones do so many
things and because I really don’t know about all the technology I don ’t wanna figure it
out. I just know how to talk

Tammy: I just ain ’t interested in one.

To overcome the lack of computer skills, participants have had to rely on children
and other family members to provide technical support and modeling with regard to their
technology use. Ann, one of the participants who own a computer, provides a good
description of the role her children play in supporting her access to the lntemet.

Ann: Well once my kids is there they show me then I know how to go from there, but if I
was getting started, you know. I have but it’s been a while ago ‘cause when I was in
school, I was going to community college, I had to use the computer, but it ’3 been so

many years since I’ve been out that I lost touch of that so even though I have one at home
it ’s just sitting there ‘cause my kids ain’t home.

65

Despite some reservations, the non-user group was in favor of learning how to use
a computer and the lntemet. However, there was a concern over having a teacher who
would “be patient.” Even participants who were somewhat resistant to learning expressed
more interest if there was a patient teacher.

Kendra: I mean if somebody showed me I ’d be willing to learn.

Cindy: I see right now we could learn a lot of stuff on this Internet or computer or
whatever. There’s a lot out there that we can learn.

Cindy: Because it would be something interesting to me because it’s something I don ’t
know about so that would be a challenge for myself and if someone was willing to be
patient with me and guide me through those steps I would definitely do it.

Ann: You know what? I always wanted to learn how to work it. I never took the time into
learning how to work a computer so I wouldn’t mindyou know getting a little teaching in
there.

Motivation and Belief in ICT

The third theme for the non-user was related to the participants’ motivation to use
ICT and their belief in how technology could impact their lives. There was an overall
sense from the group that being able to use ICTs was an important part of their lives and
especially the lives of their children. The group was aware of the technological changes
that have occurred around them and were hopeful about gaining access to this technology
to enhance their lives and the lives of their families.

Ann: My daughter’s always telling me, my I 0-year-old tells me ‘I ’m the only one in class
Mom that don’t have a computer and my homework would be so much easier... Oh yeah,
she would be in heaven. She knows how to work stuff

Kendra: ‘Cause that’s all they learning in school is computers. Everything ’s
computerized in school.

Tammy: Now that part I ’d be willing to learn you know for the sake of me and my
children.

Mollie: You know what? They ’re almost like a cell phone. A lot of people are fighting
for cell phones, not to have them on the job, but it ’s a way of technology, a way of life
these days. If your kid was hurt you can’t use your phone, and you ’re at a restaurant like
me, 90% of the time you’re getting your butt kicked, you can ’t answer the phone, you got
that cellphone right there. Computers are almost a way of living. You have access to so
much.

66

Along with the personal reasons for using technology, the participants discussed
how improving their technological skills could lead to improved economic opportunities.
The opportunities this group discussed ranged from developing online business to
working as a IT technician. The possibility of getting hired in the technology sector was
very appealing for Kendra and Mollie as illustrated by their conversation.

Kendra: Because I mean you can get a good paying job if you know technology as far as
computers and things like that and that would be an uplift, especially for me you know so
I can be able to take care of my children because working with computers that’s one of
the highest paying jobs out there besides doctors and things like that.

Mollie: I would see more value in ﬁxing them up ‘cause it seems like they always go
down. They always crashing and be getting a virus. 1 be hearing people ‘Oh I just lost
everything, the virus. ’ Sometimes you go to the court and the computer is down.

Current and Anticipated ICT Uses

The fourth theme uncovered through the analysis process for the non-user group
was the participants’ thoughts about how they would use technology if they possessed the
skill and physical access to technology. There was a range of activities the group
discussed from activities that were designed to meet the participants’ safety needs to
greater participation in the community through electronic postings. As presented in the
conversation below, the group was very interested in using the lntemet to access
information that would increase their safety.

Cindy: I’d look up sex oﬂenders first thing. Yep. And then I’d look up every ﬁ'iend I hang
out with. No, I ’m just kidding. [laughter] I would see how many sex offenders are in my
area.

Kendra: I would be like her too ‘cause there’s a lot of sex oﬂenders in our area. That
would be the ﬁrst thing I would look up too. Even though we’ve got police down the
street and whatever still that ain’t got nothing to do with all the kids in the neighborhood.
Mollie: That’s really funny that she says that ‘cause there was a time my husband worked

with this guy for some years and the neighbor was divorcing him so she just decided she
wanted to pull some people in the neighborhood on the Internet and the guy that my

67

husband was working with for six years, my daughters used to go over there and play in
the backyard, turned out to be a sex oﬂender. That made me like oh that ’s why I never let
them go in the house. There was just something about that guy that shaded me, but if it
wasn ’t for the Internet we would’ve never known. We were devastated. My husband
worked with him for six years and there was a side you just never seen. The Internet
made that possible. They didn ’t go look it up in the library, you know what I mean. They
don ’t have open ﬁles for people, which they should for people like us that don’t have it so
we can go in there and look Know who ’s who.

Similarly of interest to the group was having access to jail and prison websites
that contain inmate information. The group discussed how access to inmate information
over the lntemet would allow them to keep in touch with family and friends, in addition
to knowing what is going on in the community.

Ann: You know also I used to like to look up like when my brother was in prison and
when my husband was in prison you know I used to always every night have somebody
look up when their out date is and checking up so that’s good too, especially with the ’
teenagers and stuﬂ coming up you know.

Mollie: And that is an advantage ‘cause you know there’s a few people that aren’t right
that’s incarcerated and I know one of the things that I did do with one of my ﬁiends
because when I first found out that he had got locked up, ‘cause prior to that that’s when
I was in my addiction so I didn’t know. But when I found out I had just got clean. I was
down there at [Agency Name] and I knew they could get me on the computer so I asked
them. I had his ﬁrst name and his last name and you don’t have to have a prison number.
You don ’t have to know their prison number long as you know their ﬁrst name and their
last name. It might be, not their date of birth but the year they were born or something
like that so I was able to ﬁnd him. And this was like 2006 and this was June, and right to
this day I still write him. He’ll be home next month, but I mean that ’5 just how
technology is. It helped me ﬁnd my ﬁiend because he was my ﬁiend and I continue to
write him.

Other potential uses discussed included engaging in civic activities and informing
community ofﬁcials know their opinion on topics of concern. Two examples from the
focus group highlighted this potential use.

Tammy: I would like to use it for the school system with these teachers some of them out
here now, the way that they’re manhandling these children. That’s what I would like to
be able to have access to you know what I mean? ‘Cause I’ve seen some things with

these teachers lately. I mean I was at the Museum and watched two of them drag one out
by her arm sockets and I was like excuse me, where do you work, what’s your name? So

68

to be able to have Internet access to report something like that you know what I’m
saying? Then the lady had the nerve to say ‘I ’ve been certified for 7 years ’ and blah blah
blah and I said well I think you better go back for another 7 years ‘cause you ever yanked
my kid out like that we’d be in the street. You know I wouldn’t beat her up, but I sure
would let her know how I felt about her. So to be able to have access to report stuﬂ like
that with a quick response instead of having to go through where is the school and how
do [find this ‘cause I had to go through a lot to try to ﬁnd that school and get to that
person to report what I saw. There was 6 ladies standing there and with the Internet it 's
faster.

Mollie: I’d like to use it to make a complaint about the Driver Responsibility Fees ‘cause
that ’3 just ridiculous and see how I could go about signing that petition. Or if I could
personally talk to Governor Engler.

Cindy: Granholm.

Mollie: Look I paid $2800 for my tickets and you [Secretary of State] still want $3000
[reinstatement fee] ? You should just drop that of and let me get my license. I ’m on
Disability. 1 cannot afford to pay $3 000, but I do want my license.

With regard to the economic impact of using ICT, the group highlighted several
activities they believed would be of ﬁnancial beneﬁt to them. These activities ranged
from starting an online business to paying the bills online.

Kendra: Me, I would like to try to start up my own web site because I actually went you
know, this was some months ago, not too long ago though. 1 had went to this program,
me and my sister, to the Hilton Hotel. They were doing advertising and things like that.
But they were talking about just how for instance like I braid hair and if I can design
certain types of hairstyles and place myself with like customers on the Internet, people
would buy those hairstyles. And that was one thing I learned and I mean I was going to
do it, but I was like ok where would I start. It ’s just small things that people do on the
Internet that can pay oﬂ later on and that was just something that I did see and I was like
wow.

Cindy: I would pay my bills.

Ann: Yep, and that ’s a shame. I don’t even know how to do that on a computer. That
would save me from having to send a stamp.

Cindy: Actually a coworker is. He gets on the Internet to pay his bills, you know for his
cable bill and things like that because you know me and him talk and I couldn 't even
agree because the only thing I could say is I send a check.

Tammy: I know one thing what I would love to do on a computer, because I mean both
my sisters they know about computers. They work with, well my youngest sister was
working with computers and my older sister she still do, but I would love to be able to
print oﬂ pictures on the computer you know. Because my younger sister knows how to
hook her digital camera up to the computer and me I love taking pictures. I got so many

69

pictures and I mean it 's a wonderful experience for me to be able to take pictures now
with my life, but to be able to not have to buy this little trinket camera at the store and
inconvenience myself to have to take the camera back to the store, go pick up the camera.
That’s another $10/$15. And if I could print them off on the computer I can get any size
picture. But then I would have so many pictures I wouldn ’t even have enough room for
them... I had a little picture of my 3-year-old son who I don’t have custody of and she
blew it up to an 8x10.

As indicated in the above statement, the need to maintain social and familial
connections was important to several participants. This was especially true for the
participants hoping to locate children who had been adopted outside of the family or
placed with relatives through the child welfare system. As a part of a need for family
connection, one participant described how the use of the lntemet could help her ﬁnd
siblings that she never knew and trace her family tree.

Tammy: Another thing I would do is look up people in the family that you ain ’t seen in
years because my cousin did that and come to ﬁnd out my stepbrother had died out in
California and we just found out. Didn’t nobody in the family know, not even his mom,
his dad, none of us. And he’s been gone for like four years.

Kendra: I think so. T hat ’s just like me. ‘Cause my dad, I got some brothers and sisters I
never knew and I’m the oldest out of all of his kids. I’d like to go through the Red Cross
or Maury [television talk show].

Mollie: My sister’s kids that were adopted out that I’d be curious to see what they look
like. They’re better oﬂ where they ’re at, but I’d be curious to see what kind of life they

live.

Ann: I want to learn how to ﬁnd out...1 don ’t know. I wanna look up my son. Uh huh. I
wanna find where he at. I know he in, what ’3 that in Canada somewhere.

In terms of the participants’ use of ICTs and their recovery from chemical
addiction, the group described wanting to use ICT to share testimony, locate meetings,
and to develop supportive friendships with others in recovery. Most of the group was
interested in participating in online support activities if it did not involve sharing their

personal information.

70

Cindy: With me, like far as if I go out of town or something, just trying to go on the
Internet to ﬁnd different locations for meetings I can go to.

Kendra: T o hear someone else ’5 testimony or story, yeah that 'd be awesome.

Tammy: I don’t know about telling my story to anybody either you know cause I don’t
really trust, I go to NA meetings but I’d rather come to this meeting before I go to an NA
meeting and really talk because you got too many people trying to tell your story but they
switch your story around. And then you got too many of them that’s there trying to be
cute looking for a man so I wouldn’t want to be involved

Cindy: No. I ’d probably do that if I didn’t have to use my name or my face.

Mollie: For me it would be beneﬁcial if you could talk to somebody that you would you
know maybe sometime in your life meet down the road and establish a friendship, or like
recovery friendship only and be able to spill them things that you can ’t spill to anybody.
You got someone that you never see or never know. To me that’s recovery because there
might be something that girl can give me that I can learn ‘cause I learn something off of
everybody.

Privacy/Security/Safety

Overwhelmingly, the non-user group was hesitant to share or post any personal
information online. In fact, all of the participants felt they already had negative
information about themselves on the lntemet and were generally not interested in having
a personal online presence. Many of the participants’ concerns were based in their
negative experience with having their personal information searched used in a negative
way.
Kendra: Yeah because I deﬁnitely know that for the simple fact I ’ve been in prison. So
they can go type me up at any given time and I know it ‘cause my kids’ adoptive mother
did that and I mean it might have showed my crime or whatever, but I really don’t know
because I never pulled myself up because you know that’s not me no more. I served my
time, I ’m home now, I ’ve been home. But a person don ’t understand that a tale, true this
is the date I went in and this my tale, but once I finished paying my restitution I’m done
with it, but you know I don ’t know if I ’1] stay in there or for how long or once I’m done
oﬂ parole, but I know I’m home but yes I’m in the computer. And I have been looked up.
I have been told.

Tammy: You know what ’5 embarrassing though is when you go for a job interview and
they go to the back and they pull your name up on the computer and they come back and

71

they say, ‘Sorry, you can ’t have a job because you ’re not bondable. ' What does that
mean? ‘Well you ’re on bond right now for possession with intent to deliver. You can’t
have a job. ’ You feel this tall. . . They’re using it as job discriminating issues kind of
thing. Regardless of the situation, it was later dismissed, but for them to hold it against
me and not hire me because of that. They didn’t know the circumstances, I was never
found guilty. T 0 me they held that against me before the situation was ever resolved.

Kendra: And I don ’t like that. There should be certain things that they shouldn’t be able
to look up. If you ain’t working with that agency or if you not a Protective Services
social worker, I don ’t feel that you should have the right to be able to go in there and dig
up somebody else ’s history, they background you know, especially if you not dealing with
these people ’s kids. How is you gonna dig up somebody else 's background and then
throw that in these other kids ’ faces? Certain things should be on there. They shouldn’t
be able to have access to that unless they in that field, in that job ﬁeld

In addition to their emotional safety online, the group was concerned about
individuals online that could endanger their physical safety or the physical safety of their
family. As a result, the group was leery of posting information online that could be used
by “stalkers” or “predators.”

Tammy: But now it’s not really safe to be telling too much of your business on the
Internet. You never know they might have some kind of way to ﬁnd out where you live,
try to come do something, ask you some questions, you might have messed with
somebody. No, that ’s a scary sight right there.

Cindy: Stalkers.

Kendra: A lot of these young girls meet these wannabe photographers and they go out
and chop them up.

Tammy: Use it, but use it with caution. Use the computer with caution.

Ann: Now what they call it when them men be meeting those young girls. . .Yeah
predators.

Non-user Focus Group Summary

The use of selective coding in GTM provides an opportunity to build theory
through the examination of common themes or variables (LaRossa, 2006). Using
selective coding to uncover the experience of the non-user group, it was clear this group

experience was exempliﬁed in their struggle for technological empowerment on many

levels. The participants expressed frustration, excitement, fear and embarrassment in our

72

discussion of technology use. Whether it was not being able to use their computer
without the assistance of their children, or being unable to access the public library out of
concern for not having identiﬁcation or a lack of time to actually use the computers, this
group expressed a range of emotions about their technological disenfranchisement.
However, despite the non-users’ feelings of frustration they remain hopeful that ICTs can
help make their world safer, and offer opportunities for economic empowerment through
technology sector jobs and online business.
Phase I - Moderate- User Group Findings

The moderate-user group was characterized by use of computers and/or the
lntemet in a pattern that ranged from weekly to monthly use. Moderate-users typically
did not have personal ownership of a computer, but did have computer access through
family, friends, or public sources. Based on the ﬁndings from the initial client survey
there were eight participants identiﬁed as moderate-users. Of the eight identiﬁed
moderate users seven participants indicated an interest in participating in a focus group
meeting to discuss their technology use. The researcher invited all seven to participate in
a focus group meeting scheduled to take place at the agency’s main ofﬁce. The focus
group session was attended by four of the seven interested participants. Follow up on the
non-participants did not occur so the reason for their lack of participation is unknown.
However, in anticipation of barriers such as transportation and child care, all participants
were informed of the availability of transportation and onsite child care for each focus
group session.

Similar to the analysis process for the non-user focus group, data from the

moderate-users focus group was transcribed and coded at three levels (open coding, axial

73

coding and selective coding) by the researcher and a trained research assistant.
Participant responses in this section are organized around the themes found as a result of
the open coding and axial coding process. The themes uncovered from the moderate-user
group were the following: (a) Logging On (b) Training and Support (c) Social and
Economic ICT Use ((1) Importance of ICT (e) Privacy, Security, and Safety.

Logging On

Similar to the non-user group, in the moderate-user group the theme “Logging
On” was prominent in the focus group discussion. The ‘Logging On’ theme included the
cost of ownership or regular access to a computer with an lntemet connection or other
devices with an lntemet connection. With regard to the cost of owing a computer, the
participants found current computer pricing to be out of reach for their families, even
though they perceived having access to technology as important.

Karen: Yeah, if I could aﬂord it. . . Well, about my baby ’s, I just saved the money. I put
$10 aside, sometimes $5, and it took me a year, but he’s got a laptop. It’s not a regular
laptop like we would use, but it’s a children’s laptop that teaches him things. So I would
do the same thing. . . I would just save, unless I had someboay that would donate one.
Sherry: I don’t have Internet. I mean I could, but.

Karen: But she could come over and use mine, if we ever figure out how it goes.

One of the participants had investigated the possibility of purchasing a computer
through a program advertised on television. However, she ran into some unanticipated
barriers like needing a checking account and a home phone to qualify for the program.
Sherry: Yeah, cause they’ve had this advertisement on TV. I think they said it was like
$35 a week or something. . . Something like that yeah. You just have to have a checking
account and a home phone. . . That’s another thing too with computers unless you have a
separate phone line, if you ’re on the computer it messes up your house phone.

Nicole: 1 got it [laptop] through Financial Aid, which I thought would be a good
investment because if I had waited until I got the money I would’ve never got it. Because

I would ’ve had good intentions, but some people say good intentions is the pathway to,
you know. So I decided to get it through school. And at Community College they have

74

like four to choose from so I got the hi-tech one... I feel good. I feel like I can do
whatever I wanna do as far as having one. I can keep up with what ’s going on. I don ’t
know all the stuff that I have on it. See that’s the thing, I don’t know a lot of stuﬂ My
dad, ‘cause I took it home with me and he looked at it, I got a lot of memory on there that
I could use, and burners, and a calendar. Everything, it’s a 2007.

With the exception of Nicole, the lack of personal computer ownership among the
group meant they had to ﬁnd other access points for using technology. Whether it was the
public library or the home of a relative, the access points discussed by the participants
each had speciﬁc limitations. For example, having a family member as an access point
was positive as long as there was no conﬂict between the parties and provided that
transportation could be arranged. The excerpt below illustrates how relatives oﬁen
provided both physical access and technical support.

Karen: I can ’t afford one. My mother has one so whenever I go over there, like I said,

my son shows me stuﬂl don’t know, but certainly when he gets of age there’s stuﬂ that he
ain’t gonna know how to do that I want to be able to help him with. . . “Well, one because
I can ’t get over to my mother ’s house to use it or she has an attitude. If she got an
attitude I ’m hit. If my brother’s over there though and he’s doing stuff on the computer
then he ’11 put it where I need it to go. He even shows me what I can ’t get. ”

When the participants were asked about their level of access to computers through
public sources, the group described access through the public library as problematic
because of limited hours of operation, transportation difﬁculties, and often having to wait
to use the computers.

Sherry: No not always ‘cause they’re not open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Luckily
there is a library within walking distance of my house, within a matter of less than a mile
or so, but you know before I got my vehicle I ’d either had to walk or take the city bus.
Well, because most of the time it takes you two to three buses to get you wherever you
need to go and something that you could do in your own vehicle in a matter of a few
minutes takes several hours on the bus. It’s time consuming to have to depend on public
transportation when you don ’t have transportation of your own.

Sharon: Well, if you don’t know what you doing, you just hit. You ain ’t got nothing

coming if you don ’t know what you doing. And like she said, it’s a lot of people ain ’t got
money that can buy a computer. Or even if you go to the library ‘cause my brother took

75

me up there. everybody was on the computer so you couldn’t even get on the computer at
the library.

Related to the time it took participants to travel to public access sites, time to
actually use the computer was also a concern for the participants. Time was a concern
especially for the participants who perceived their computer skill level as inadequate and
who were involved in educational or work related activities.

Sherry: It’s very time consuming you know and if you ’ve got other obligations that are
more important then that’s one of the things that kind of get put on the backburner so to
speak

Nicole: And see I don ’t want that on the backburner with me because I only have one
semester to go to complete my GED, but 1 ’m not gonna let that put me off and I’m not
gonna let this because my son is the one I ’m gonna turn to when he needs to get his
education. And my baby ’3 going to college. But he can’t get there unless he got good
grades so that means I gotta go back to school and learn how to use the computer.

Mary: But that’s ok because it goes aside with my schedule. 1 work third shift Monday
through Friday and I ’m in school right after work ﬁom 9 to 11. I’m also involved in self-
help groups for me and I do service work so my schedule is busy.

Karen: If] did it probably like an hour and a half a day or an hour a day every day. See
I’m quick to learn and so is she, like I said she just lazy. If I had that then I think that I
would be more encouraged, ‘oh I got that. ’

In contrast to the non-user group, the moderate-user group expressed greater
frustration about the lack of access to technology. Sharon summed up the sentiments of
the group well in the following statements:

Sharon: It is ﬁustrating because you know like there’s so many different things now that
require you have to go onlinefor this or go online for that, website for this or website for
that. It ’s like, Dang people, not everyone can afford a computer for #1 and #2, even if we
could we wouldn’t know what the sam hill we ’re doingl. . . Yeah, because it used to be for
diﬂerent things they ’d just have you call toll-free numbers or whatever, but now it’s
website this and online this or that.

Computer Training/ Support

The second theme for the moderate-user group was the participants’ perceived

computer skill level and their perception of the type of support needed to become more

76

proﬁcient using a computer and the lntemet. All of the participants expressed some level
of interest in receiving computer training but were very cautious about who might teach
them. The participants emphasized that they would be willing to learn from people that
were “trustworthy” by which they often meant “patient.”

Sherry: It’s like with me when I was trying to learn how to drive a stick shift car it was
very frustrating because the husband that I had at the time was trying to teach me and
got frustrated. After stalling it out at the same corner three times in a row, he ’s like,
‘Forget it. Get out. I’m driving. ’ And how I ended up learning how to drive a stick
actually was on my own because my second husband, we had two vehicles, one was an
automatic and one was a stick and we lived in [the country] and he worked in [city].
And knowing I couldn’t drive the stick he takes the automatic to work. So it was like If I
had to go anywhere I had to make myself learn.

Mary: That ’s why you don’t want to do the Internet, I mean the computer?
Sherry: That’s a big part of it.
Karen: Yeah, my brother hollering at me. Like she said, nobody wants to be hollered at.
You know especially if I ’m trying and telling you I don ’t know what this arrow going to
this means. What does that mean and you ’re not telling me, you ’re just telling me to go
to it. Yeah, someboafv that won’t holler at you ‘cause you’d be surprised when somebody
is teaching you how to do that how angry they get that you ’re not getting it.

Computer support was an important consideration in deciding to use technology.
In fact, three of the four participants in this group reported needing some help during
their last lntemet session. According to the participants, support for their technology use
most often came from their children or other family members.
Sherry: I ’d have to follow the instructions or read what it said.
Karen: And sometimes the directions is confusing. So I ’d probably go get my brother or
tell my baby, “Show me how to do this. ”
Sherry: I ’d go get my 18-year-old son.
Sharon: No ‘cause I kept on trying to do it. See I’m persistent, she’ll tell you. It has to
be right you know so since it wasn’t I kept on doing it like eight times and it didn ’t work

and I had to tell my baby to come do it. It kind of like made me feel ‘dang you can’t do it
and your baby can do it. ’

77

Nicole: Yeah, that’s another thing. Like if I look up something, somebody else can come
behind me and look it up fast because they know a shorter way than me. So if I had
somebody, like a laptop partner or something like that, that could work with me. I want
to be more advanced with it, I do. I feel like I 'm on a good start. I don’t beat myself up
about it because 1 ’m not where that person is. I just go on my own pace. I could call my
daughters and ask them stuff

Mary: So basically it’s like both ways, half and half because yeah I think it’s kind of
good because you can hurry up and do stuff [using technology] you know, but then it
ain ’t because if you ain’t got it [lack skill] or don’t have the teacher that can explain it to
you like you guys[ researcher] then how we supposed to know? So that means in like
2000 something we hit [disenfranchised by the lack of skill and access].

Current and Anticipated ICT Use

The third theme for the moderate group included their current and/or anticipated
ICT activities. The primary lntemet activities for the moderate user group were e-mail
and searching the web for job opportunities. Both of these activities were in part related
to enrollment in a mandatory welfare-to-work program designed to aide recipients
receiving public assistance. This program was a source of considerable concern and
frustration for the participants. Among the concerns was the program’s requirement for
participants to show hard copy evidence from job searches done online. For the
participants, not having access to a printer in public locations meant they would not
receive credit for some of their job seeking activities.
Sherry: That’s one thing that ’s frustrating for me is because I applied online at [local
store], but I didn’t get credit for it because they evidently don ’t have like a printer or
whatever hooked up to their computers and unless... Yeah, credit for applying online at
[local store] because with [welfare-to-work] you have to show them written proof that
you’ve applied and when you apply at a place like that there’s nothing that you can print
out to prove that you know? So to me it was like a total waste of time to even make the
eﬂort to apply online because 1 couldn ’t prove to [welfare-to-work] that I had done it.
Karen: And a lot of places that only do that now like [local store] and [national drug
store], [national retail store]. You don ’t get a paper application; you gotta do it on the

computer. And a lot of temporary agencies doing it too. And I know what that ’s gonna
do ‘cause I went down there.

78

Sherry: And that ’s why I don ’t think that that [welfare-to-work] thing is very fair because
they expect you to show them written documentation, 1 did such and such and if you do it
online there ’s no way of proving that.

In addition to the frustration over not being able to access a printer, some of
participants felt that the online job application process may be “intimidating.”

Nicole: I think that kind of scares people from ﬁlling out an application when they see
that. Just anybody that might go into a place and it’s a computerized application.
Sherry: It ’s very intimidating.

Nicole: If you ’re not computer literate and you don 't understand that they ’11 just turn
away. It kind of discourages people.

Karen: I understand what she 's saying. There was three people in ﬂow of me when 1
went to [national retail store], but you know what? All three people they did it for a
while and they left the store. But when you know when I couldn ’t get on I kept on
bugging the lady, how I do this, how I do that, which by the time I was done with the
application she was ready to cuss me out. So I ain ’t gonna do that no more.

For the moderate-user group, employment searching, filling out online
applications, and checking email for correspondence from potential employers was a
signiﬁcant part of their technology use. The group was aware of the need for basic
computer skills to obtain and maintain employment.

Nicole: It was a number of things. T he job force, the workplaces is using them a lot and
I have to stay up with that, you know stay in the race with that.

Nicole: Yeah, when I ﬁrst came here. I ’mﬁ‘om Chicago so when I came here I didn ’t
know resources so I went to [welfare-to-work]. They used to be down the street. So 1
would go there and get online and job search.

Sherry: I haven ’t even really checked [e-mail] it since I ’ve had it. 1 just mainly got into it
because of [ welfare-to-work] and looking for employment. That was about the only time
I’ve ever really used it.

One moderate-user, Nicole, was enrolled in a college computer class and
described using Microsoft Ofﬁce applications. This participant reported a greater range of
computer use than the other participants, which provided an opportunity for the

participants to learn from each other. For example, the group did not know that pictures

could be uploaded to a computer and then printed out for personal use.

79

Nicole: Like my daughter now has a digital camera so she a cord where we can stick it in
my laptop. ‘Cause I have a laptop. See 1 ’m not against technology; it ’s just that I ’m old
school.

Sherry: I ’m so illiterate I can ’t ﬁgure out how to hook up a VCR or a DVD to a TV even.

Karen: Me either. Don ’t feel bad.

Nicole: She hooks her digital camera cord up to my laptop and like when me and her are
out taking pictures she puts them on my laptop.

Karen: Really? That’s good.

Most of the participants did have their own e-mail account as a result of their
involvement in the welfare-to-work program. However, the participants did not regularly
access these e-mail accounts.

Nicole: I know how to work it, but my friend from Chicago, she basically texts me crazy
jokes and stuﬂ and I ’11 just call her. Yeah, and e-mail because I e-mail people back in
Chicago. Because it’s cheaper than dialing collect, long distance. So I’m not against it
at all. It ’s just some things I don’t want to change.

Privacy/Security/ Safety

The fourth theme uncovered through discussion with the moderate-user group was
Privacy/Security/ Safety. This theme included the exposure of family members to online
pornography, personal safety concerns, and the participants’ desire to remain anonymous
online. Similar to the non-user group, the moderate-user group was very concerned about
family members being exposed to lntemet pornography. The group was not sure how to
address this situation, but one participant mentioned that users have the ability to block
undesired sites.

Sherry: Yeah, ‘cause there was one time when I was with my previous husband and we
were actually living with his father at that time, which his father professes to be a
Christian and used to be a Pentecostal preacher. We had this male friend of ours come
in and was showing us how to do different things on the computer and the main reason
why we got it was because when my 18-year-old son was younger we ﬁgured it would

help him with his schoolwork and stuﬂ like that, but when I looked at it they were looking
at, my husband and this friend of mine was looking at dirty pictures.

80

Karen: Yeah it is [embarrassing]. And not only that it’s degrading to women, to me. It 's
very degrading to women. But to each his own. Some of them women I don ’t knock
because you gotta get your money where you can get it, but I wouldn’t do it.
Mary: Me either, but I tell ya they got that blocking thing, you know. I have to help my
mother to block One day I went to the bathroom, came back and he[ husband] was
looking at chicks’ boobies. I said, “1 will kill you. ” And I didn’t know how to cut it off or
block it.
The moderate-user group was aware of the presence of online predators and were
cautious in their use of technology as a result of this concern.
Nicole: No, just by looking at it on television and the news and things of that nature. Like
I have a 1 7 and 16—year-old daughters back home that’s with their father so he has their
computers blocked for certain stuff They not really into that stuff, they’re really good
girls. It could be a help and you could experience some bad stuff on the Internet. So no,
I don ’t go on therefor dating. I don ’t use it for stuff like that.
This guarded behavior extends to other lntemet activities such as bill paying or online
banking.
Nicole: I’m not there yet. I ’m just basically old school. I don’t do my bills on the
computer because I don’t trust the system like that because there ’s so much identity theft
stuﬁ‘" going on so I ’m kind of really skeptical about stuﬂ like that.

Importance of ICT

The ﬁfth theme found through analysis on the moderate-user focus group data
was Importance of ICT. The moderate-users were aware of the importance of technology
and the impact technology is having on their lives. Although there was motivation by the
group to increase their use of technology, some members remained indifferent to using
technology.
Nicole: My daughters are into it and it made me feel bad. So my 21-year-old, 19-year-
old, and 1 7 and 16—year-old daughters are computer literate. Not only that in the work
force you ’ve gotta know Microsoft Word and all those other Microsoft stuff that goes
along with it.

Karen: Probably if I was more knowledgeable and was able to do it on my own without
having to ask someone else for help... That ’s what I said, especially nowadays because we

81

in 2008. What about when 2025 get here or when our babies are grown? No I’m talking
about as far as technology goes.

Sharon: Well, I personally don ’t feel that “modern technology " is all that it’s cracked up
to be because a lot of times like if the weather’s bad or something like that it affects
computers and stuff like that to where you ’re not able to access the information you need.

Moderate-User Focus Group Summary

The moderate-user group reported limited access to technology as a result of the
cost of hardware and their computer skill level. The group was aware of the technological
changes around them as evident by having to complete online job applications. The group
was concerned about obtaining the necessary technology skills, but felt apprehensive
about the process and the characteristics of the people providing support for their
technology use.
Phase 1 - Power- User Group Findings

The power-users in this study were characterized by daily use of the Internet.
There were eight power-users identiﬁed from the initial client survey. All eight indicated
an interest in participating in a focus group meeting to discuss their use of technology.
All eight women were invited to attend a focus group meeting at the agency’s main
ofﬁce. The focus group was scheduled to coincide with the agency’s weekly support
group meeting. Six of the eight power-users identiﬁed in the initial client survey attended
the focus group meeting. Despite being contacted by phone and invited to the focus group
two women did not attend the meeting. One woman indicated a potential scheduling
conﬂict at the time she was contacted by the researcher. There was no follow up on the
second women so the reason for her lack of participation is unknown.

The women attending the meeting were asked a set of preset questions about their

use of technology. Presented in this section are the ﬁndings of the power-users focus

82

group. These ﬁndings are presented under the following themes found through the data
analysis process: (a) Logging On (b) Empowerment (c) Social Connection and Support
((1) Importance of ICT (e) Privacy, Security, and Safety.

Logging On

In contrast to the previous groups, the power-user group reported having past
training in the use of ICTs through jobs and educational sources such as college or
vocational training centers. However, despite this training there was a degree of
dissatisfaction with their current computer skill level. Several women characterized their
computer skills as “rusty” or not being up to job seeking standards.
Darlene: Yeah I went to a computer technology center and then in like my sophomore
year I went to college in Chicago and we took college classes in high school and we
learned how to do Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel. 1 have had the Internet service
before, just browsing diﬂerent websites and I just taught myself It has been a while since

I use it last time.

Lynn: Back in 1980 something, I used to take a class, but I was basically typing on one
hand. When my computer is up I try to practice but I would like to take a class.

May: I worked on a computer most of my liﬁz, at different jobs. Sometimes you can get on
the Internet and sometimes you are not supposed to be on it (at work).

Darlene: I am not comfortable with Excel or Word, even though I have the certificate. I
don ’t feel secure enough to work into a job and tell them I could create a mailing list of
nothing. You know what I am saying?

Even though the power-users were able to access ICTs on a regular basis, their
computer skill level and the type of support they perceived available affected their pattern
of use. Similar to the other groups technology support often came from children or family

members.

Fran: I ain ’t scared to learn. I used to bogged down by fear but now I am not. I learn by
hands on. I can ’t sit up in no room and let someone talk to me. I have to do it by myself

83

May: There is a difference between having an instructor and a teacher. It was a struggle
to try to make hay, cause there was nobody but me. You know what I am saying

Joy: When I was in high school I learned how to type and MS Word and MS Excel in
Chicago.

Darlene: You know what ’s so funny though? Because my son is 7 years old and he can
tell you more about the computer than I can. Kids are really smart when it comes to
computers ‘cause when we were young going to school we didn ’t have computers in our
classrooms. Now all the schools got computers in the classroom, computer class that the

kids go to. So my son knows a lot about computers. Sometimes I ask him ‘Now what I go
to?’

Empowerment, Social Connection and Support

The second theme for the power-user group involved the use of the computers and
the lntemet to build and maintain a sense of community and personal empowerment
through the use of ICT. Further, lntemet use for the power-user group consisted of
communication with friends or family through the use of e-mail, job searching, and some
limited support-seeking activities.
Fran: I used it to get on my e—mail address to see if] have a lot of people who live
outside of the area and to see about a job and to see what is going on at church. And to
correspond with Christian people, I have to encourage my self

Similar to the ﬁndings for the previous groups, [welfare-to-work] was a pivotal
access point for job searching and other lntemet activity. Additionally, the lack of access
to a printer was a barrier for women wishing to use an access point other than [welfare-
to-work] for the purpose of job searching.
Lynn: 1 had to submit my resume. 1 was using them everyday at [welfare-to-work].

Joy: I checked my e-mail and did a job search through Monster and Mlive. If I can 1 try
to go online everyday.

Darlene: Not online as far as yet ‘cause I just recently started doing it [ﬁlling out
applications] online ‘cause I usually just go to the places where I have applications. But
I will continue to look online for a better job because my job I just got only lasts until
Jully...Like at [welfare-to-work] we have to do applications. It’s like a job site that you do

84

a little survey and it tells you what position you would be best doing. And that ’s how 1
came about that I want to be a social worker.

As expected, the power-user group engaged in a variety of lntemet related
activity. Among the participants in this group, visiting faith based sites such as Joyce
Meyers and Creﬂo Dollar were important activities. One participant tried to ﬁnd
Christian friends through e-Harmony, an online dating site, but was disappointed to ﬁnd
Christians posting revealing photos on the site.

Darlene: I did e-harmony, true dot. com something. The keep saying I got like 300 in my
mailbox. Some of them say they are Christian but they are up with pictures in their
panties. I don’t use it anymore cause I don ’t get down like that any more.

Joy: 1 get on to see Creﬂo Dollar. I use it to check my e-mail. I use it over there. At
[community agency]. I went on to Crazy Like a F ox to find information about a home-
based business.

Although this group sometimes sought out social support from faith-based sites,
they were not interested in using sites like Facebook, Bebo, or MySpace.

May: No, I am scared of that after watching 20/20.

Lynn: No, I have looked at them, but I don ’t join.

Darlene: Yeah, but I go to Yahoo Mail just basically specifically for jobs and important
things. I don ’t get into the MySpace and the Bebo. My nieces and nephews get into it.
Norah: I ain’t never been on none of those.

However, maintaining or creating family connections was an important activity
for the power-user group. Beyond the sites regulme accessed, the participants discussed
exchanging e-mails with relatives and using the lntemet to ﬁll in gaps from their family
tree.

Fran: I have a son 1 Iraq and that ’s the only way we can keep in touch. It’s like barn, at
the ﬂip of a key and we can connect. I think I have e-mailed him 2 or 3 times. I don ’t do

too much communication with him a lot because of their location, but if something jumps
of] can e-mail him and he will get back to me.

85

Joy: 1 am struggling with my family tree. I keep going through my Bible and I can ’tﬁnd
out why I am the way I am. I am not the youngest and I don’t look like anyone else. I
don’t know anything about my father ’s side of the family. I want to know who I am.

Unique to the power-user group within this theme was a focus on ICT use for
empowerment and support. For the power-users, seeking spiritual support through
Christian websites was an important activity. For one power-user having her voice heard
online was an empowering experience. In fact, this participant sent messages to President
Bush, criticizing his No Child Left Behind policy, and a message to Senator Obama. The
other participants from this group were less enthusiastic about engaging in civic
activities, but seem impressed by the activities modeled by one of their peers.
Fran: Yes, 1 have wrote Mr. Obama letter. I have no problem letting them know how they
feel. The President was in town. Just this summer I was at a leadership conference. I had
to tell them the truth. There are certain things you are supposed to do as a Christian. So
if I see an opportunity to encourage a brother or sister, I am a Christian so I have to tell
them the truth. Like No Child Left behind, what are you really doing to make sure
children are not left behind? Do you know what it feels like to sleep hungry? Or to
maintain yourself without falling? . . . It makes me feel good. It makes me feel that I
matter. It is important for me that I am validated. But I am not scared to let people know
how I feel. I am Christian so I have no problem telling people how I feel. . . . I sure do,
because if I don ’t they will not know how we feel. I am tried of having other people speak
for me. Like at the leadership conference I had a chance to sit down with Debbie
Stabenow and a whole bunch of other people. For me it was a step in faith because .1 used
to let people speak for me. People need to know how hard it is to maintain.

Privacy/Security/Safety

Another theme for the power-user group was a concern for their physical safety in
the community, and their online security and privacy. To address this safety need the
participants used sites that provide information about jail and/or prison inmates. Similar
to the other two groups, the power-users were interested in using the state’s sexual

offender registry to address the safety needs of their families.

Darlene: I go to the jail thing to see who got locked up.
Norah: Find out who is in prison. Yea. Look up everyone I meet.

86

Fran: Check the sex offender registry. I want to be aware of what is going on in the
community. Since I was molested, 1 would want to know what is going on. There is so
much going on so the neighbors should step up and watch the babies.

In addition to personal safety concerns, the power-user group was aware of the
need to protect their personal information online to prevent identity theft.

Norah: Then there is that mortgage stuﬁ’ where they try to get your information. There
are lots diﬂerent e-mail and advertisements that you just don’t address.

Lynn: 1 am scared to do any kind of purchasing. With all the stujf going on, I haven ’t
tackled that one yet.

Motivation and Importance of ICT

In comparison to the previous groups, the power-users expressed less
disenfranchisement, while retaining some of the same optimism about technology use as
the other groups. This acceptance of technology is portrayed through comments such as,
“with a click of a button you can do anything” or “it used to be the phone, and computers
were ofﬁce things, and now computers are a big part of our lives.”

Lynn: I remember see the pager on my doctor when I was little. It has changed so much.
I don’t know anything about the new funny phones but I am intrigued. Click of a button
you can do anything.

Fran: One, it has an impact but it [technology] comes out so fast I do not know how to
work it. The CD players with the DVDs, I am still struggling with the cell phone. The
information has just gone beyond me. My granddaughter can teach me [how to use
technology]. It [technology] has had a great impact. It is like wait up [the pace of
technological change]. I had just got it [ a technology] down pat and then all the sudden
barn, how do you record.

Darlene: I ’m just finding technology is getting more and more being a part of life. My
boyﬁ'iend he has an iMac computer and he had it before they even started the
commercials on TV. So it’s like wow just to know all the technology that’s on the
computer. We made movies. We took pictures. Like he raps so he can go on there and
make beats. We recorded songs. I mean it’s a lot of things and that ’s without the
Internet. . I ’m writing a book, I mean there ’s just so much you can do on a computer. 1
think technology is really a strong part of our world now you know. Not like it used to
be. I mean phone and television used to be the major things, and printers, stuff like that.
And computers were office type things. Now it’s like your kids need a computer to get

87

through school. You need a computer to get through work. So I think technology is a big
part of life.

Power-Users Focus Group Summary

Technology for the power-user group seemed to be ingrained into their lifestyle.
Even when this group encountered a barrier such as limited time on the computer at the
public library, the lack of a printer, or a bad. experience on e-Harrnony, the participants
were not deterred and have continued their use of technology. Further, the power-users
engaged in a wider range of activities than the other groups and expressed less concern
about their current skill level. Similar to the other groups the power-users were aware of
the technological changes around them.

Phase I - Staff Survey Findings

All agency staff volunteered to complete the initial survey. Staff completing the
initial survey, were likely to own a desktop or laptop computer with Internet access
(n=4). One staff person did not own a computer but reported access to a computer
through family and friends.

In terms of other technology used by staff, all staff reported ownership of a cell
phone. The majority of these phones had access to text messaging, while only two phones
had lntemet access. Only one of the staff participating in this survey had access to an
MP3 player, a PDA or access to satellite television. Three staff indicated ownership and
use of digital cable television.

With regard to frequency of use, the majority of staff accessed the lntemet and
used their cell phones daily. The purposes for which staff used this technology ranged
from seeking housing, health information, and support, to communicating with family or

friends, as well as for entertainment.

88

L4.

C(I

V‘.

,4
5,

Table 8 shows the staff technology use pattern. Interestingly, only one staff used
technology to seek employment and no staff used technology to purchase goods or
services, or to participate in gaming activities. Staff reported having conﬁdence in their
technological skills. In fact, all staff ranked themselves as having some experience or as
having signiﬁcant experience on the initial survey.

Three of the four staff indicated having referred clients to a web-based resource in
the past. However, their survey responses lacked sufﬁcient details about this type of
referral. Referral details such as a web address or company name were not entered into
the space provided in the survey. Detail about the nature of staff referrals for clients to
use web-based resources were explored during the staff focus group session reported
below.

Agency staff were asked to give their perception of how their clients used
technology. In general, staff completing this survey over-estimated the level of client
computer ownership, personal computer access, and public access to technology. The
staff” 3 view of technology as having impact in the lives of their clients and their overall
belief that client use of technology is important explain their overestimation.

Table 8: Purpose of Staff Technology Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose Count %
Seek Housing 3 60.0
Health Information 2 40.0
Comm. w/Family or Friends 4 80.0
Meet New People 0 0.0
Entertainment 3 60.0
Seek Employment 2 40.0
Purchase Goods/ Services 1 20.0
Information/ Education 2 40.0
Seek/Offer Support 2 40.0
Gaming 0 0
Other 1 20.0

 

 

 

 

89

Staff perception of client use is illustrated in Table 9. Overall, staff perceived
their clients as engaging in online searches for housing, communication with friends and
family, seeking employment, entertainment activities, and social networking at rates
considerably greater than those reported by their clients. This ﬁnding indicates a gap
between staff’s perception of their client’s technology use and reported client technology
use.

Table 9: Perception of Participant ICT Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Reported

Client Use Percent Client Use Percent
Seek Housing 5 100 8 26.7
Health Information 3 60.0 12 40.0
Comm. w/Family or Friends 4 80.0 16 53.3
Meet New People 3 60.0 7 23.3
Entertainment 3 60.0 8 26.7
Seek Employment 4 80.0 15 50.0
Purchase Goods/Services I 20.0 8 26.7
Information/Education 3 60.0 I 7 56.7
Seek/Offer Support 3 60.0 1 I 36.7
GaminL N/A N/A 4 13.3
Other 0 0 3 10.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase I - Staff Focus Group Findings
F our agency staff and the agency director participated in a focus group designed
to follow up on the staff and client initial surveys and the client focus groups. Staff
members participating in this focus group were generally considered power-users based
on their daily use of the lntemet and cell phones. The meeting began with an overview of
the client survey results, followed by a discussion of the client focus group ﬁndings.
Staff had a mixed reaction to hearing that half of the thirty participants had

regular access to technology. The one staff who underestimated client access to

90

technology was shocked by this ﬁnding and staff over-estimating client access to
technology were equally shocked that more clients did not have access to technology.
Through the discussion of this ﬁnding, the staff came to consensus that the use of
technology was important for the empowerment of their clients.

The next discussion focused on the ways in which clients are using technology or
wish to use technology. Again, staff indicated being caught off guard by client use of
technology to look up sexual offenders. Staff expressed some awareness that many
clients use technology to access information about friends or family who may be
incarcerated in jail or prison. As veriﬁcation of this activity one staff commented that
they had witnessed a client using the ofﬁce computer to look up inmate information. Staff
agreed that maintaining this connection with one’s community was an important feature
of client use of technology regardless of the client user typology.

Similarly, their clients desire to access the sex offender registry was a surprise to
the staff. The staff speculated that unsafe neighborhoods, past personal experience with
child abuse, and clients often feeling powerless to keep their children safe as possible
motives to access the sex offender registry. Staff commented that access to the sexual
offender websites could be made available through an agency website to support client
use of this technology. Further, none of the staff could recall an instance in which they
engaged their clients in a technology-related discussion.

When asked about what changes they would recommend to the agency director or
board of directors, the staff were interested in developing a computer room for their
clients, develOping an online intake instrument to streamline their work, and including

technology use questions into the initial assessment for new clients. Additionally, staff

91

were very supportive of the development of an agency website. This support was
demonstrated through the staff’s willingness to learn how to update a website as part of
their duties. The one staff with little computer experience was concerned about her ability
to learn how to use this technology. She received support and encouragement from her
peers about her ability to master this new skill.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the staff expressed a favorable opinion about
this study and thought the meeting was beneﬁcial to their work. The concluding
statements of the staff were consistent with the enthusiasm they displayed throughout the
focus group session.

Chapter Summary

. The results reported in this chapter were from 30 survey participants, three small
focus groups, a staff survey, and a staff focus group. The results show that the population
in this study as predominately ethnic minority women, living in poverty, with limited or
tenuous access to technology. Further this group seeks to improve both their technology
skills and their access to technology. The participants were hopeful about their future
technology use and view technology skills as essential for success. The agency staff over-
estimated the level of access and the skill level of the participants. Chapter Five presents

a discussion of these ﬁndings.

92

CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion

The following chapter is organized to provide a discussion of the ﬁndings from
two perspectives; ﬁrst the ﬁndings regarding each technology user group will be
discussed. The ﬁndings from each user group are organized around the themes uncovered
as a result of the coding and analysis process. Secondly, the ﬁndings for all three user
groups as they relate to the questions that framed the focus of this study will be
discussed.

Non-user Group

As predicted in the literature, access to technology was limited based on the
participant demographics (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschuer, 2003). The non-user group
struggled to access technology in part because of challenges associated with gaining
regular physical access to technology and in part because of limited technology skills. For
this group their perception of their own computer skills made the likelihood of using
technology lower, unless they were assured of having onsite support from a trusted
person. This ﬁnding is consistent with the UTAUT which links the intention to use
technology to the user’s perceived effort expectancy and facilitating conditions, such as
the perception of available technical support (Venkatesh, et al., 2003).

For non-users, computer ownership was not a realistic option. The cost of
hardware/software and the cost of maintaining an lntemet connection were beyond their
economic means. The use of pubic access points as a alternative to computer ownership
was limited by the reality of public transportation in addition to computer use policies

that increase the anxiety of this group and ultimately contributes to their non-use. Policies

93

such as requiring a library card, limiting computer use to one hour, or the lack of access
to a printer each provide sufﬁcient rationale for an apprehensive user simply to choose
not to use.

The non-user group was responsive to using technology in order to meet their
basic needs. For example, their safety need was met through using websites that provided
information about family, friends, and even predators who may be in jail or prison, or
who may be scheduled for release. Additionally, the use of sexual offender websites
offered awareness to some of the participants about their immediate surroundings.

Similar to the ﬁndings in Bakardjieva (2003), this vulnerable population was very
interested in using technology to develop and maintain family connections. Participants
who no longer had custody of their children envisioned using the lntemet to locate their
children or ﬁnd information about their child’s well being. Other participants wanted to
use the lntemet to connect with relatives or trace their family tree.

Interestingly, the non-users found out through experience that the search power of
the lntemet works in both directions. At least two of the ﬁve members of the non-user
group reported being the recipient of an Internet search. For one participant this search
was conducted by a foster-parent, while a potential employer conducted the other search.
In both cases these searches negatively affected the participants. Undoubtedly this
experience or the potential of having this type of negative experience contributed to the
group’s apprehension at having an online presence.

Non-user Selective Coding Themes

To further illuminate the experience of the non-user group selective coding was

used to arrange themes into an overarching framework (LaRossa, 2006). Figure 9 is a

94

visual representation of the overarching themes involved in the non-users’ group struggle
to access and use technology. On the one hand, the non-user group lacked regular access
to technology and the skills to take advantage of technology. Further, the non-user group
was concerned about using technology in a way that would compromise their physical
safety or online privacy. On the other hand, the non-user group recognized the
technological changes happening around them and could envision how technology could
beneﬁt them socially and economically and provide them with opportunities to
participate in their community. The group perceived these potential uses of technology as
empowering but felt powerless as a result of the complex access barriers, privacy and
safety concerns.

Figure 9: Non-user Selective Coding Themes

      

  

Participaﬁo“

Moderate-user Group Findings

For the moderate-user group, the experience of using technology was linked to a
desire to improve their socioeconomic conditions. This was evident by the group’s focus
on using technology to seek employment and job skills. Some of their technology use

was mandated by welfare-to-work programs, but even without this mandate the moderate

95

users perceived the use of technology as a way to access employment opportunities and
improve their ﬁnancial standing.

This group has experienced additional pressure to obtain basic technology skills
and secure access to technology because of the emphasis on using technology to improve
one’s economic situation and the shift on the part of employers from paper applications to
online applications. Of the three user proﬁles, the moderate group expressed the greatest
level of frustration over their lack of digital inclusion. The moderate-users discussed
feeling frustrated because they were not given “credit” for ﬁlling out online applications
by the welfare-to-work program and were similarly frustrated by the amount of time it
took to access computers through the public library.

The moderate-user group was well aware of the technological changes around
them and understood the implications of not having access to technology for themselves
and their families. On this topic one participant commented, “What about when 2025 get
here or when our babies are grown?” This awareness of the technological changes around
them and a lack of consistent access to technology was a source of anger and ﬁ'ustration
for the group.

However, the disenfranchisement felt by the moderate-user group did not
diminish the group’s belief in the importance of ICTs. In fact, the group expressed a
willingness to participate in computer training provided the trainer was someone they
trusted — meaning someone who was patient with their learning challenges. Currently the
participants’ siblings or children are ﬁlling this computer-training role on an as needed

basis.

96

Moderate-user Selective Coding Themes

For the moderate-users there was a distinct tension between their required use of
technology and their perceived computer skill level. Often this tension resulted in the
participants passively ﬁlling out online employment applications or accepting website
referral information from a helping professionals, while knowing they lack the skill and
access to complete these tasks. In a sense these participants felt victimized by the
technological changes around them and felt powerless to respond.

Figure 10 shows the experiences of the moderate-user group with technology as
uncovered through the selective coding process. One moderate-user provided a good
summation of this group’s experiences with technology during the focus group session:
It is ﬁustrating because you know like there’s so many different things now that require
you have to go online for this or go online for that, website for this or website for that.
It’s like, Dang people, not everyone can afford a computer for #1 and #2, even if we

could we wouldn 't know what the sam hill we’re doing!

Figure 10: Moderate-user Selective Coding Themes

   

 

 

Empowerment

Econonﬁc
Needs

Social Needs

Technology
Use

 

Access

Skill Level Community
__ Participation

a."J»' r,

   

a" ‘ti ‘2‘
.-

\W a it

97

Power-user Focus Group Findings

The power-users in the study were characterized by daily use of technology. The
majority of power-users had beneﬁted from past computer training. However, despite this
training the group was not conﬁdent in their computer skill level. Similar to the
moderate-user group, the power-users frequently used technology in an attempt to satisfy
their economic needs such as educational purposes and seeking employment. The power-
users distinguished themselves from the other groups through their use of technology to
access online support networks. These networks often consisted of interactions through
faith-based websites or searching for connections with individuals of a similar faith
through friend matching sites.

Despite some advancement in the range of their lntemet activities, the power-
users were not comfortable accessing social networking sites requiring identifying
information. Sites such as MySpace, F acebook, or Bebo, were of no interest to this group
of technology users. However, the group was very interested in maintaining family
connections using e-mail as the primary tool.

Also unique to the power-user group was the use of technology for empowerment.
Empowerment for the power-user group ranged from sending e-mails to President Bush
criticizing his No Child Left Behind policy, to e-mailing Senator Obama (now President
Obama) and Senator Stabenow. For members of the power-user group, having their voice
heard was a source of pride that re-enforced their desire to continue engaging in
community dialogue.

Interestingly, the power-users also felt empowered by having access to sexual

offender websites and jail/prison websites. The use of websites that allowed the

98

participants to feel personally safe or safe as a community was common to all three
groups. For example, Fran (from the Power-Users group) made the following comment:
I check the sex offender registry. I want to be aware of what is going on in the
community. Since I was molested, I would want to know what is going on. There is so
much going on so the neighbors should step up and watch the babies.

Power-user Selective Coding Themes

For the power-user group, the use of technology occurred on a regular basis.
However, their perceived computer skill level limited the range of activities they engaged
in on the lntemet. The power-users felt empowered through the use of faith-based
websites and through engaging in community participation. Further, barriers that impeded
technology use for the other groups did not discourage the power-users because of their
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for using technology. Figure 11 shows the selective coding

themes that illustrate the power-users experience using technology.

Figure 11: Power-user Selective Coding Themes

L

 

         
 
 
  

Economic
Needs

IT

Technology
Use

‘

Communitvj

 

Partr' cipatidn
ﬁﬁ

Discussion of the Research Questions
The following section is a discussion of the overall ﬁndings from Phase I. For the

purpose of this discussion themes from across all three-technology user proﬁles were

99

included. Framing this discussion are the research questions that were used to guide this
study. To accomplish this goal the research questions are used as headings in this chapter.
While there is some overlap, the use of the headings will help to place the ﬁndings in
their correct context.

How do women in recovery from addiction view the importance of using ICTs?

The survey and focus group data from this study clearly highlights the fact that
though the participants lived in poverty and struggled to meet their basic needs, they
understood the importance of possessing adequate computer skills and having consistent
access to technology such as computers and cell phones. The women who were caring for
children expressed the importance of access to technology and the use of technology, not
only for their beneﬁt but also for the beneﬁt of their children. Included in this sentiment
was the participants’ concern for their children’s ability to develop skills that would make
them successful in life.

The participants in this study acknowledged the necessity to use computers and
the lntemet to gain access to employment resources and job readiness skills. This
viewpoint was quite interesting, as none of the women in this study had ever secured
employment as a result of submitting an online application. Nonetheless, these
participants were convinced of the importance of job searching online. Some participants
who were forced to seek employment online by welfare-to-work programs expressed
little animosity about ﬁlling out online applications, but were concerned that the lack of a
printer in many of their access locations eliminated the possibility of receiving credit for

their job seeking activities.

100

Another example of the importance oftechnology for the participants was the
ability to seek and remain in touch with family and friends. Accessing sites to ﬁnd out if
a family member or friend was in jail or prison, and/or searching for children that have
been adopted out through the child welfare system were important activities that satisﬁed
some of the belonging needs of the participants.

Interestingly, inmate information searches seemed to take on two primary forms:
1) seeking release date information for a signiﬁcant other or family member and 2)
checking inmate information as a way to keep track of individuals that may pose a threat
to the safety of the women and/or their families. Because these participants were in a
recovery program, using the lntemet to check inmate information was an alternative to
frequenting places where similar information might be available such as local bars or
drug houses.

While technology is an important feature in the lives of the participants, their lack
of access to computers and a lack of computer skills were sources of frustration and even
resentment. Several participants commented on feeling “vulnerable” when it came to
technology use. Others described feeling “bad” because they were not able to guide their
children’s technology use. In fact, often the children of the participants functioned as an
IT help desk, assisting their parents in the use of technology.

The participants in this study were well aware of the technological changes
around them. For instance, the transition from the using toll free phone numbers via a pay
phone to now having to access the lntemet to ﬁnd a speciﬁc website was an example of

how technological change can lead to barriers for vulnerable populations. In essence, this

101

information or resource previously accessible by a free phone call has become
inaccessible for some participants in this study.

For the participants in this study, becoming versed in the use of a computer and
the lntemet was an important goal toward their empowerment as a person with intrinsic
value and worth. Although the range of lntemet activities for the participants was limited,
the value attributed to the independent use of technology was very high. In fact, within
each focus group there were times when the participants were in awe of one another’s
lntemet activities. This positive reinforcement often led to greater disclosure of their
lntemet activities and modeling of lntemet use for the rest of the group. This dynamic
was particularly true for the moderate-user and power-user groups, although it did occur
within the non-user group as well.

What are the type, frequency, and purpose of ICT use for women in recovery?

With regard to the types of technology used by the participants in this study, the
participants used cell phones and computers as their primary technologies. In general, cell
phone usage occurred on a daily or weekly basis while computer use occurred
inconsistently. While cell phones were the most frequently used technology, there were
periods of time in which this technology was unavailable to the participants because they
had exhausted the minutes available to them through their pre-paid cell phone plan.

Overall, the participants used technology mainly to meet their basic needs,
especially social, educational, informational, and economic needs. Many of these needs
were met through activities such as e-mailing friends or family, looking up health
information, or seeking employment online. Interestingly, very few participants used

technology to support their recovery from chemical addiction. The greatest objection to

102

using technology in this manner was a concern over online privacy and security.
However, the participants were willing to engage in online recovery support services
through their current service provider, if such services were made available.

For one subgroup of users, the power-users, technology was used for empowering
activities such as connecting with other members of the faith community. Additionally,
these participants found expressing themselves online to local and national ofﬁcials a
rewarding activity. Equally empowering for the participants was the ability to seek
information about sexual offenders or predators that may reside in their community. For a
few participants, past victimization and/or the victimization of their children was a
driving force behind their desire to keep their neighborhood safe.

What are the factors that inﬂuence use or non-use of ICTs for women in
recovery?

Clearly the participants in this study ﬁt the proﬁle for what the literature describes
as individuals who are affected by the digital divide (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer,
2003; 2004). However, the nature of this digital divide can be attributed to multiple
factors including lack of computer skills, physical access to technology, available content
and motivation to use technology. For example, regardless of the skill level, the majority
of participants had or would engage in locating inmate information websites or sexual
offender websites. In this example the usefulness of these sites for the participants was an
overriding factor for any barrier encountered. Similarly, one participant in the power-user
group accessed the lntemet from the public library on a daily basis, but rarely used
functions beyond e—mail. For this participant, the value of corresponding with friends,
family, and potential employers outweighed other access concerns. Drawing from the

TAM, the participants were likely to use technology if they perceived the use to be within

103

their range of skills (Perceived Ease of Use), and if they perceived value from engaging
in the activity [Perceived Usefulness] (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh, et al., 2003).

As expected, the cost of computers and lntemet access was a signiﬁcant barrier
for many participants in this study. However, this factor alone did not limit the use of
computers for participants who felt more conﬁdent in their computer skills. It should be
noted that accesses to public sources, such as libraries, were not without accompanying
barriers. Limits on the amount of time to use the computer, library hours of operation,
and the complexity of using public transportation were all viewed as barriers to using this
type of access solution.

Additionally, access to technology through family and friends was possible for
some of the participants; however, this type of access was inconsistent as it was
dependent on relationships that often ﬂuctuated. For example, a power-user described
how she used to access the Internet daily on her boyfriend’s computer until they broke
up. Now she no longer has access to this technology.

As mentioned earlier, all of the focus group participants felt they would beneﬁt
from computer skill training and would be willing to attend such training. For the non-
user group, a lack of computer skills was the most signiﬁcant factor in the lack of
technology use. For these participants, working on the computer was intimidating and
even embarrassing. Although the non-users recognize the importance of technology, their
inexperience with computers posed a major barrier to expanding their use of technology.
However, the optimism of the participants with regard to online job seeking was an

interesting ﬁnding, especially, since using the lntemet to seek employment was both a

104

mandated function and a voluntary function, and since none of the participants had
successfully obtained employment using this process.

Privacy and security on the web is of concern for a number of groups in our
society, but this was especially true for the participants in this study. Many of the
participants report having led transitional life styles that often had legal and
socioeconomic consequences (Lapidus, Luthra, Verman, Small, Allard, & Levingston,
2004). As a result, this group has learned to protect their personal information as a way of
avoiding stigmatization. For these participants, the registration process for websites that
we take for granted is an intimidating experience. In fact, this process may reinforce
feelings of inadequacy for many of these Internet users.

How does addiction agency staff perceive the role ICTs in their client's lives?

In general, the staff in this study perceived their clients as having greater access to
technology and more extensive use of technology than they actually report. Much of this
over-estimation may be due to the fact that with the exception of one staff, the staff
would be considered power-users of technology. Staff was not aware of how their clients
used technology and the role they have played with regard to client technology use. Staff
assumption that the participants had access to technology and were regular users resulted
in a lack of attention to the participants’ technology needs.

The staff and participants were generally in agreement about the importance of
technology. However, there was a clear disconnect over the scope of activities the
participants engaged in when using technology, and the staff perception of their
technology use. For example, staff believed that all of the clients were using technology

to seek housing. The actual percentage of clients who reported using technology to seek

105

housing was 26.7% or eight of the thirty respondents. Similarly, staff overestimated the
participants’ use of technology for entertainment purposes, to meet new people, and to
give or receive online support. This ﬁnding explains why some participants reported
being referred by professionals in their lives to websites they did not know how to access
or navigate. Staff over-estimation of participant access and utilization of technology was

an enlightening and motivating ﬁnding for this provider agency.

Chapter Summary

Based on the ﬁndings from the surveys and focus group sessions, it is clear that
the participants in the study value the use of technology, not only for themselves but also
for their families. For the non-user group and the moderate-user group this understanding
of the importance of technology and their reality of limited access was a source of
frustration and even anger. Despite this frustration, the participants continue to have
optimism over the potential uses of technology to improve their economic, social, and
community conditions. While agency staff was in agreement with the participants on the
importance of ICT, they often over-estimated the participants’ access to technology.
Further, staff perception of the types of online activities participants engage in was
inaccurate. Phase II of this study examines the agency’s effort to support the participants’

access to technology and their skill development.

106

CHAPTER SIX
Research Methodology - Phase 11

Based on the ﬁndings of Phase I of this study, there were multiple factors that
inﬂuenced the participants use or non-use of technology. Two frequently highlighted
barriers to expanded computer use for the participants were (a) the lack of computer skills
and (b) the lack of access to hardware/software. However, despite the low level of use,
staff and participants both had a strong belief in the importance of technology use. The
discussion with staff over the initial ﬁndings sparked staff interest in reducing barriers for
the participants to access technology. This staff concern led to the development of an ICT
intervention for the participants. The intervention selected by the staff was the
deployment of computers accessible to the participants in their community and an eight-
week hands-on computer-training program. The nature of this intervention and its affect
on participants, staff, and overall agency functioning will be explored in this phase of the
study.
Theoretical Framework — Phase 11

Cost, Procedure, Process, Outcome Analysis

To understand the effect of this intervention on the participants, staff, and overall
agency functioning a Cost, Procedure, Process, Outcome Analysis was implemented
(Thyer, 2001; Yates, I996). The Cost, Procedure, Process, Outcome Analysis (CPPOA), A
according to Thyer (2001) provides a framework for analysis of the relationships between
program resources (costs), procedures, processes, and outcomes. Further, CPPOA is an
appropriate methodology for evaluation at a program level or for use at a client level

(Yates, 1996). CPPOA as a methodology in this stage of the study will be used to

107

examine the cost, procedure, process, and outcomes speciﬁcally related to the agency’s
development of computers for participant use within an agency-run supportive housing
facility. According to agency staff, these computers are accessible to residents of the
supportive housing facility as well as others seeking agency services (Personal
Communication, July 11, 2008). The focus of this second stage of the study is to provide
initial information to the agency about the impact of this new intervention in relationship
to the program costs, procedures, process and participant outcomes (Thyer, 2001; Yates,
1996). Figure 12 shows the CPPOA process used in this study.

Figure 12: Cost, Procedure, Process, and Outcome Analysis. Adapted from Thyer, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

Costs Procedures Process Outcomes
- Staffing 0 Structure 0 Training 0 Computer
0 Space 0 Intervention - Support ACCCSS
- Equipment 0 Computer
Ilse
- Computer
Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CPPOA, as used in this study, was implemented at an individual level, with the
intent of providing a beginning qualitative evaluation of the overall effect of deployment
of computers in the supportive housing facility for participant use (Yates, 1996; Thyer,
2001). Although CPPOA has application as a quantitative evaluation tool, the short
duration of this CPPOA evaluation (60 days), and small sample size, limited the use of
this tool. Further, the CPPOA evaluation as implemented in this study relied on a
mixture of actual cost and estimates by the agency staff and participants. This process as
described by Thyer (2001) produces a general picture of program functioning sufﬁcient

to allow agency management to understand how resources are used with respect to the

108

intervention goals. Thyer (2001) describes the CPPOA model as having the following
steps (a) develop an initial understanding of the program’s operations through
“conversations with staff" (b) make “subjective estimates” about the program costs (c)
use “objective data” to analyze trends and (d) compare objective data with the subjective
data (p. 236).

The ﬁrst two steps of the CPPOA process as described by Thyer (2001) were the
focus for the second phase of this study. Using the CPPOA model in the manner
described above produced what Yates (1996) labels “interim outcomes” (p. 85) which
have the ability to aid leadership in determining the need for procedural changes, desired
modiﬁcations in the intervention process, and/or undesired outcomes to be avoided.
Phase 11 Sample Selection and Recruitment

The ﬁndings from phase 1 of this study led the agency to consider ways to
improve participant access to technology. To this end, the agency deployed computers for
participant use in their supportive housing facility. The remaining chapters of this study
seek to understand the effects of increased participant computer access and computer
training in relationship to the agency costs, procedures, process, client and agency
outcomes, and the overall agency functioning.

The location for this intervention is a supportive housing facility run by the
agency. This facility had a maximum capacity of eight residents. To be eligible to live
there, participants must be women in recovery from chemical addiction and receiving
services from the agency. Additionally, potential residents must have a comprehensive
biopsychosocial assessment preformed by the agency intake worker, a Licensed Master

Social Worker (LMSW). The supportive housing facility was recently renovated through

109

funding from a local foundation, which has increased the facility’s capacity to house
multiple women/families while at the same time operate as a ofﬁce for the agency staff
(Personal Communication, July 11, 2008). Programming delivered in the supportive
housing facility was historically targeted for the residents of the facility. The renovations
to this facility allowed for services to be extended beyond just residents to other clients,
and for the purpose of this study all active clients of the agency were invited to
participate.
Phase II Instrumentation

Instruments used in phase II of this study consisted of a staff survey; two
participants surveys; interview protocols for the executive director, staff, and participants;
and a focus group protocol for the agency board of directors. The instruments for this
study were developed based on relevant literature and adapted from instruments used in
previous studies. All the instruments used in this study were previewed for content,
clarity, and accuracy prior to use in the study. Four local college students were recruited
to preview the instruments. The focus of this review was to assess the reading level
necessary to complete the surveys and to eliminate confusing questions. The design of the
instruments was to allow them to be read by anyone with at least an eight-grade
education. As a result of this review three words were change on the computer self-
effrcacy (CSE) questions. This review process was the same for all instruments used in
this study.

Participant Survey Instruments — Phase II

The initial participant survey administered during the second phase of the study

consisted of 16 items and one follow-up question (17th item). The same survey was

110

administered at the beginning of Phase I I (baseline) and after four weeks of computer
training (Appendix L and Appendix M). However, one item was added to the follow up
survey that was not included in the initial survey. This additional item assessed the
participant’s frequency of computer use over the previous thirty-days. Structurally, both
the baseline and follow up survey were the same.

The ﬁrst three questions on the phase 11 surveys were identical to the ﬁrst three
questions used in the initial Phase I participant survey instrument. Participants were
asked to respond to a three-part technology use question followed by one lntemet interest
question and six lntemet knowledge and skill questions. The ﬁnal six questions seek to
understand the role the agency played in supporting technology use.

The ﬁrst three questions of this survey were adapted from Horrigan’s (2007)
technology user survey. Information gathered by Horrigan (2007) led to the development
of ten technology user typologies. Similarly, responses to the ﬁrst three questions in this
survey led to the development of a participant technology use proﬁle later used to assist
the researcher in the design of the computer training. As a part of this proﬁle
development, questions one through three examined the devices participants used to
connect to the lntemet and the frequency that these devices were used. Together,
questions one through three provided a technology-user proﬁle that was used to plan the
type and scope of the computer training needed for the potential participants.

Using the same protocol from Phase I (Table 3), survey participants were placed
into the following categories: (a) Non-users (b) Moderate-users and (b) Power-users.
Individuals responding afﬁrmatively to personally owning a cell phone with lntemet

capability or a desktop or laptop computer in response to question one (Q1), and daily use

111

of the lntemet in response to question two (Q2) were categorized as Power-users.
Individuals indicating no personal ownership of a laptop or desktop computer or a cell
phone with lntemet capability (Q1), and who have access to a laptop or desktop computer
or cell phone with lntemet capability through friends/family or through public sources
and who indicate use ranging from weekly to monthly Internet use in response to Q1
were categorized as Moderate-users. Individuals who do not have access to a laptop or
desktop computer or cell phone with lntemet capability through personal ownership or
through ﬁiends/family or through public sources (Q1) and indicate no current use of the
lntemet (Q1) were categorized as Non-users. It should be noted that the term Non-user
does not mean that these individuals have never used ICTs. Rather, this term indicates no
current use or access to ICTs. The ability to determine the participant’s technology-user
proﬁle assisted the development of an appropriate computer-training course.

Items ﬁve through ten were adapted from Thompson, Campeau, and Higgins
(2006) study of an integrated model for predicting intention to use technology. The
proposed model integrates concepts from a decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior
(Ajzen, 1991) and TAM (Davis, 1989). Adopted from this model, question four through
nine examine the participants’ Computer Self Efficacy (CSE) related to lntemet use,
while question ten seeks to understand the participants perception of the Intemet’s ease of
use (Thompson, Campeau, & Higgins, 2006).

The remaining survey questions were designed based on the CPPO analysis
model (Yates, 1996). These questions examine the intervention procedures, process and
outcomes from the perspective of the participant. For example, question eleven inquires

whether the participants have read the agency’s computer ‘acceptable use policy’. As a

112

part of the program evaluation process, understanding the agency protocol for orienting
the participants to the program provided valuable information.
Research Process- Phase 11

The design of this study was shaped to uncover the experiences, attitudes, and
purpose of technology use among women in recovery, and the agency’s efforts to engage
participants in increased use of technology. The process used for this exploratory study
consisted of two phases. The ﬁrst phase described above used an exploratory approach to
understand how women in recovery use technology and their technology needs. The
second phase focused on a qualitative evaluation the agency’s deployment of computers
for participant use in their supportive housing facility. To assess the effect of this
intervention a Cost, Procedure, Process, Outcome Analysis (CPPOA) was used (Thyer,
2001; Yates, 1996). The steps used to evaluate this intervention are described in the
following section.

Step One

As discussed above, the primary focus of the ﬁnal phase of this study was to
evaluate the cost, procedures, process and outcomes of the computer deployment and
computer training. Following the Cost, Procedure, Process, Outcome Analysis model as
proposed by Yates (1996), this evaluation qualitatively analyzed the relationships
between the agency’s use of resources, the procedures, processes, and the participant
outcomes of this intervention.

All agency clients were invited to participate in the study. To recruit for this
research opportunity, ﬂyers describing the study and re-introducing the researcher were

posted at the supportive housing facility, the agency main ofﬁce, and distributed at

113

agency events during the month of July. Individuals interested in participation were
directed to attend the August, 2008 support group meeting. At the August, 2008 support
group meeting the study was explained to potential participants. Any person intending to
use the agency’s computers or wanting computer training, were invited to sign the
consent for participation form and complete the initial survey.

Participation in this study had no connection to eligibility for services being
received through this agency or scheduled to be received through this agency. Of the
ﬁfteen women in attendance at the August, 2008 support group meeting, seven women
(47%) agreed to participate in the study and completed the initial survey. Because there
was three months between Phase I and Phase II and because of the rapid turnover in the
agency’s clientele, the researcher anticipated that most of Phase 11 participants would be
new. As it turned out, ﬁve of the seven participants had also participated in Phase 1.

Participants choosing to participate in the study and who completed the initial
survey and attended the computer training were asked to complete the thirty-day follow
up survey in September, 2008. The initial survey and the follow up survey were linked by
the use of a participant code. Participant identities were only known to the researcher and
not recorded on the actual surveys. Agency staff was not given information about who
participated in this study.

Participants who completed both the initial and the follow up survey were offered
an opportunity to participate in an interview designed to explore their use of the agency
computers and their experience from the computer training. Participation in the study was

voluntary and in no way affected participation in agency services. Survey participants

114

who completed both surveys were given $15 gift cards. Participants who complete two
surveys and an interview were given a $25 gift card as a token of appreciation.

To triangulate the responses from the participants, archival information collected
from the lntemet use history was collected to permit verifying computer usage patterns.
The opportunity to access this archival information is an important method to triangulate
staff and participant responses. As agreed to by the agency, individual study participants
were not linked to the archival information and archival use information was not shared
with the agency staff.

Step Two

Similar to the participants in this study, staff was invited to participate voluntarily
in the study. Staff agreeing to participate were asked to complete a brief initial survey at
their staff meeting on August 1, 2008. The focus of this survey was to determine the
degree and scope of staff involvement with the participants’ use of agency computing
resources.

At the conclusion of the intervention, staff were invited to participate in
individual interviews designed to explore the staff role in engaging and/or supporting the
participants’ use of technology as a result of the computer deployment and computer
training. The interviews were to take place at the convenience of the staff. Staff were to
be invited to participate in an interview through an introductory letter from the executive
director explaining the purpose of the study and giving permission for staff to participate
in an interview during work hours. Unfortunately, changes in the agency’s funding source

. and staff turnover eliminated the ability of the researcher to gather staff input as a part of

115

this evaluation process. Design changes to this study will be discussed in detail later in
this chapter.

In order to develop a comprehensive CPPOA model, the agency executive
director was invited to participate in an interview addressing the costs, procedures,
process, and outcomes of computer deployment. Information provided by the executive
director about the intervention outcomes was used to triangulate against the ﬁndings from
the participant surveys and interviews. Additionally, archival budget and expense reports
from the study period were examined to support the estimated use of resources.
Interpretation of the Data

All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for coding and analysis. To
ensure inter-rater reliability, the transcripts were coded ﬁrst by the researcher and then
independently coded by a research assistant. Discrepancies in coding were discussed and
processed until there was agreement on the coding structure (Rosenblatt & Fischer,
1993). Interview data was coded using the open coding process (LaRossa, 2005;
Richards, 2006). The data from the open coding process was grouped into themes using
the axial coding process (LaRossa, 2005). The coding and analysis process for the second
phase of this study was conducted using word processing software and a spreadsheet
software program.

Survey data from the participant and staff surveys was entered into SPSS and
analyzed using descriptive statistics. Participant surveys were linked to a speciﬁc
participant via a code only know to the researcher and entered into SPSS. This code was

used to link baseline survey information to survey information provided after four weeks

116

of the intervention and individual interview data at the conclusion of the study. Results of

the data analysis process are reported in Chapter Seven.

Computer Training

According to Davies (2007) the four components of Accessibility, Connectivity,
Education, and Content are essential to the expansion ICT use by individuals facing
economic and social challenges. While the primary focus of Davis’ statement extends
beyond the boundaries of the United States, his premise has been echoed by other
scholars with respect to individuals living in poverty and economic distress in the United
States (Miller-Cribbs, 2001; Warschauer, 2004). As was found in Phase I of this study,
physical access to technology and training/user support were key factors in the limited or
no-use of technology by the participants. In response to this ﬁnding, the ﬁnal phase of
this study included a voluntary eight-week computer training as well as open access to
agency computers with onsite user support.

Participants were invited to take part in an eight-week training designed to
improve their individual computer skills and introduce them to a new technology access
point. The need for computer training was based on the results from phase I, where the
majority of the participants expressed their desire for a computer training to increase their
comfort and skill using computers and the lntemet. Additionally, the demographic
information from Phase I showed that the ability of the participants to read and write
would vary. This was evident as several participants required assistance reading the
survey questions. Finally, because of the voluntary nature of the computer training, the
researcher had no way to predict how many participants would show up for the initial

training session or the computer skill level of the attendees. For these reasons no

117

predetermined computer-training curriculum was selected. Instead the plan was for the
researcher, acting as one trainer and a research assistant acting as a second trainer, to
assess the participants’ computer skill level during the initial session and from there
determine a computer training strategy.

This computer training design was adapted from Sandberg, Gardelli, and Stubbs
(2005). In their study of ICT use to empower twelve individuals with a mental or physical
impairment, Sandberg, et a1. (2005) provided ten sessions of computer training that was
individually designed, practical, and designed to motivate the user. Following this
training model, the current study provided an eight-week hands-on computer-training
course for the participants. The participant to trainer ratio was 2: 1, which provided
opportunities for one-on-one training and support.

To further tailor the computer training to the needs of each participant, the trainers
asked participants to identify something they wanted to accomplish on the computer at
the beginning of each session. For example, during session six, two participants requested
to learn how to register to vote online. While this was not a part of the plan for these
participants, their request was incorporated into the training. By the end of the training
session both participants were able to register to vote online for the upcoming
presidential election. The incorporation of participant-directed activities allowed the
training to be tailored to the individual’s interest. As Davies (2007) states, “Local,
relevant content encourages continued use of the technology — sustainability. The
technology is not the goal itself, but a means to accessing information that can be used to

improve people’s lives” (p. 25).

118

The overall goal of the training was to increase the participant’s skill level in the
following areas:

Identiﬁcation of key computer parts (tower, keyboard, mouse, and monitor)
Understand the purpose of the Internet
Understand what is the World Wide Web
Demonstrate the ability to log on a computer and access the lntemet
Complete basic information searches using Google
Complete speciﬁc information searches using Google
a. Health Information
b. People Searches
c. News and Information
d. Entertainment
7. Establish a personal E-mail account
8. Demonstrate the ability to send and receive messages
9. Demonstrate the use of the computer for empowerment/inclusion

.O‘SJ'PPJS"?

a. Social Networking

b. Civic participation

c. Advocacy

(1. Employment

e. Family/Friend Involvement

The computer training was scheduled to take place every Thursday evening for one and a
half hours for eight consecutive weeks at the agency’s supportive housing facility. The
training began on August 7, 2008 and was completed on September 25, 2008.
The Setting for the Intervention

The supportive housing facility is a renovated inner city home that is owned by
the church next door to the facility. This church has developed a partnership agreement
with the agency to provide services to women in the surrounding community who are
affected by substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health challenges. In 2006
the agency and church secured grant funding from local foundation to renovate the
church property with the intent to provide housing assistance to women in recovery from

chemical addiction. Renovation of the supportive housing facility were completed in

119

 

early 2008. The facility is a two-story home with the capacity to house up to eight women
and their children.

At the time of the study the agency had not received city zoning board approval to
have more than four unrelated people living in the facility. In fact during the course of
this study only two residents occupied the facility. Both of these occupants chose not to
participate in the study. Interestingly, both residents had left the facility prior to the
second week of computer training. Because of the lack of residents living at the facility
the agency’s primary use for the facility was as a place to hold their weekly support
group meetings and as an ofﬁce from which new clients could come to seek services.

Inside the facility there were several meeting rooms, a family room, kitchen and
formal dining room. The formal dining room was partially converted into a library and a
computer lab. Across from the dining room table were two computer desks with a two-
drawer metal ﬁle cabinet and a plastic ﬁve-drawer storage cabinet in between each desk.
On each desk was a refurbished desktop computer with a keyboard and mouse (Figure
13).

Figure 13: Supportive Housing Computer Area

 

Both computers used by this agency were donated by a local community college. In fact,

there is a third computer from the same donor in an upstairs room. The actual processor

120

speed of the computers was not known because the previous owner had modiﬁed them.
The computer on the left side of Figure 13 used the Windows 98 operating software and
the computer on the right used the Windows 2000 operating system. Prior to the week
ﬁve training session the computer on the left crashed and was replaced with a computer
from an upstairs room. The replacement computer was donated by the same source but
used the Windows XP operating system. All the computers at this facility used an
Ethernet cable to link to the agency’s cable modem. All the computers used a broadband
connection to access the lntemet. Printers were available for each computer. However,
neither printer was working properly during this study period.
Methodology Adjustments

As often cited in the literature, agency based research can have its positive
attributes as well as some challenges (Richards, 2006). Phase II of the study was marked
by challenges that required adjustments to the original methodology. Several of the initial
expectations for which the methodology was built did not occur as expected

The computers in the supportive housing facility where for clients to use. It was
anticipated that by the time the study began there would be eight potential participants
living in the supportive housing facility and one fulltime house staff. Shortly before the
agreed upon start date the executive director reported that the employee who was going to
manage the house had relapsed and was not able to continue her duties. Additionally,
because of a funding deﬁcit the agency was not able to ﬁll this position. The lack of
onsite staff signiﬁcantly limited access to the facility computers outside of the computer-
training schedule and eliminated the opportunity for staff to interact with the participants

with regard to their technology needs.

121

The initial focus of Phase II was to evaluate the agency’s attempt to engage and
empower their clients through the use of technology available at the supportive housing
facility. Of particular interest was the impact of this access and support on the residents
of the supportive housing facility. There were two events that altered this original focus.
First, the agency and partner church were not able to secure city zoning board approval to
have more than four unrelated individuals living in the facility. Second, in the weeks
prior to the start of the study there were two women living in the home. However, by the
start of Phase 11, there was only one resident living in the supportive housing facility.
This particular resident opted not to participate in the research beyond the completion of
the initial survey. By the second week of Phase II, the only resident living in the
supportive housing facility abruptly moved out. Fortunately, the original decision to
include both residents of the supportive housing facility and non-residents of the facility
proved to be crucial to the continuation of this project.

Finally, the system speciﬁcations of the agency computers proved challenging,
particularly the outdated operating systems on the agency computers that limited the
researcher’s ability to deploy monitoring software to analyze the participants use patterns
during open use times. Since open use time only occurred four times during this study
period the computer’s lntemet history was used to triangulate with survey, interview, and
observation information.

Chapter Summary

The second phase of this study sought to evaluate the deployment of agency

computers and computer training for the participants. Using the Cost, Procedure, Process,

Outcome Analysis (Yates, 1996) this study provides a preliminary examination from

122

which the agency leadership may determine ﬁrture status of this intervention. Participants
in this study were provided with eight weeks of hands-on computer training tailored to
meet their individual learning needs. Survey data, interview data, and archival agency

ﬁscal information were used to assess the intervention’s outcomes.

123

\

I" H

s‘

, .5.

CHAPTER SEVEN
Results

The Phase II research process began with each participant completing an initial
survey designed to provide information about her technology use habits. This proﬁle was
used to determine the initial starting point for the computer training. This chapter reports
the ﬁndings from the initial survey, 4-week follow-up survey, four participant interviews,
an executive director interview, and weekly training observations from the researcher and
research assistant.
Phase II — Initial Survey

Fifteen women attended the initial recruitment meeting, of these attendees seven
women (47%) agreed to complete the initial Phase 11 survey. The initial survey questions
were used to establish a baseline technology use proﬁle for each participant. Survey
results showed that while ﬁve of the seven respondents owned a computer, when
considering access to a computer with an lntemet connection the count dropped to four
out of seven respondents. The most frequently reported technology owned by the
participants was the cell phone. Figure 14 shows the number of participants reporting
ownership of common devices. Only one of the seven participants did not own a cell
phone. Interestingly, only three participants reported making cellular calls on a daily or
weekly basis. Table 10 shows the reported frequency of use for several common

activities.

124

Figure 14: Type of Technology Owned by Participants

 

Cell Phone w/Intemet
[Pod/MP3
C ell Phone w/Tcxt

Computer w/Intemct

Type of Technology

-
—
—
I
Lamp/PC _
_

Cell Phone

Technology Ownership - Count

 

 

 

Table 10: Frequency of Technology Use

 

 

 

 

 

Pai’itsfm Cain]? E-mail Text Messaging lntemet
Daily 1 1 0 1
Weekly 2 2 0 3
Other 1 0 1 0
None 3 4 6 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the initial Phase II survey participants were asked to indicate which activities
they engaged in while on the lntemet. Seeking information on the web and meeting new
people were the activities participants reported using most often by the four lntemet

users. Figure 15 shows the percent of respondents for each activity.

125

Figure 15: Purpose of lntemet Use for Baseline Survey Respondents (n=7)

 

3.3 4.0
gig 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
E 225
o 2.0
U 1.5
1.0
0.5 U.U U.O
0.0 , . , -
2.5.\¢\~Dw¢oq¢'¢go&ybo
.29 09 0Q v.3 0 e. o \Q 2; .2? g,
0 c4" :59 ~2~° '9 13$ Wis as 0 (940$
Q)

a“ '6‘ \q .
S a
Q) {.966 age (sf -\‘5 6°60

Internet Activities

 

 

 

Based on the Phase II survey-I results, the intervention participants were likely to
have some access to computers and the Internet, but were less likely to use the lntemet on
a daily basis. The participants were characterized by infrequent computer use (weekly or
less often) with access to computers through ownership (n=4) or through family/friends
(n=1). Only two participants reported no access to computers and no use. Both of these
participants met the non—user group proﬁle criteria (Table 11).

Table 1 1: Initial Survey Proﬁle — Phase II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proﬁle Moderate Moderate Non Power
User User User User
Use .
Pattern Weekly Use Weekly Use No Use Daily Use
Own Friends Own
Access Computer Family No Access Computer ‘
Count 3 1 2 1 Total = 7

 

Computer Training Setting and Pedagogy
The setting for the eight-week training was the agency supportive housing facility.

On the ﬁrst ﬂoor of this remodeled inner city residential home there are two refurbished

126

desktop computers (Figure 13), one computer was an Hewlett-Packard running Windows
98, the other was a Dell running the Windows 2000 operating system. There was a third
agency computer located in a second ﬂoor apartment. The apartment was occupied by a
transitional living resident during the ﬁrst two computer training sessions.

All three computers were refurbished prior to being donated to the agency.
According to the director, the agency was so “thankful” to get the computers that they did
not ask about the system speciﬁcations. Therefore information about the processor speed,
hard drive size, and memory capacity were unknown. Prior to this study the supportive
housing facility was equipped with cable television and broadband lntemet access
through Comcast. All three computers used Ethernet connections to link to the Comcast
lntemet service. The agency had purchased a wireless router for the house but it was not
functioning during the study period. The wireless router is visible in Figure 13 sitting on
the small black ﬁle cabinet in the center of the picture.

Located in the same room and approximately three feet from the computer
stations was a full size dining room table and four chairs. This area was utilized by
participants waiting their turn to practice on the computer and by participants who had
completed their practice time and were observing and providing encouragement for their
peers. The table was primarily used to place food for the evening meal. At the direction
of the agency director each week an light potluck style meal was provided for the
participants. Either prior to the start of the training or during the training the participants
helped themselves to a plate of food. The director provided the food on some occasions,

the participants brought food for the group periodically, and the researcher brought food

every other session. Based on the amount of leftovers each session, there was adequate
food for everyone each session.

As discussed in Chapter Six, computer training session were scheduled for
Thursday evenings, from 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM. The trainings took place as scheduled
each week for a total of eight sessions and twelve hours of formal training time. The
initial plan was to have open use computer time for the participants 2-3 times each week.
Each open use time was planned for three hours, based on participant feedback from
Phase I about the perceived time constraints for using the public library computers. The
plan was for agency staff to provide computer support during the open access times.
However, because of a staff shortage open access time was not available as planned. The
director and the researcher agreed to make open access time available upon request of the
participants. The RA agreed to provide computer support for the participants during
scheduled open access times. The participants were made aware of the availability of
scheduled open access times during the ﬁrst session and were given reminders each
subsequent session.

The pedagogy used for the training was derived through literature reviewed,
discussions with the agency director, Phase I experience with this population, and the
researcher’s thirteen years of direct social work practice with this population and similar
populations. Because the researcher observed literacy issues during the completing of the
Phase 1 survey, the decision was made to not use written training materials. The use of
formal training materials may have increased the formality of the training and take
attention away from the hands-on focus of the training, as participants would have tired

to digest the written material during the session. Therefore, each topic covered in the

,lv-
:7.
'51!

.mL. 1m“ At“ ... an ilk .1.» .1.“

F.i

training was introduced in a lecture format while participants sat at the dining room table
and at the two computer stations. This same information was repeated individually with
each participant as they practiced on the computer. The role of the trainers was to teach
the concepts discussed through hands-on use by the participants. This meant that trainers
were not to perform activities for the participants, with the exception of demonstrating an
activity when this type of modeling was appropriate. For example, when teaching skills
such as changing font size it was sometimes helpful for the participants to see the
researcher highlight their text in order to better understand the highlighting concept. After
seeing what a correctly highlighted text looked like the participants were often able to
recreate this activity without assistance. In summary the training pedagogy consisted of
(a) group instruction (b) individual instruction (c) and modeling if needed, followed by
((1) practice. There was no formal homework given to the participants, in part because of
anticipated access issues uncovered in Phase I, and because of the unknown nature of the
level of support they would receive outside of the training and open access time.

One accommodation that was not discussed prior to the training but became a
regular occurrence was the modiﬁcation of the language the trainers used to give
instruction to the participants. As the researchers gave instructions to the participants,
their verbal and non-verbal responses indicated that they did understand the direction. As
a result the researchers gave the instruction using less computer jargon. This real time
adaption led to the development of a training vocabulary between the researchers and the
participants. Table 12 is an example of the phrases that were modiﬁed and the new

language created between the researchers and the participants. It should be noted that this

129

r 1:7

~1‘l

language adaption was not a planned part of the study but developed as a result of the
researcher’s attempts to communicate directions to the participants.

Table 12: Examples of Language Adaption

 

 

 

 

Beginning Language Adapted Language

Open up your lntemet Click on Firefox

Browser

Log in to your G-mail Open your e-mail account
Account

Enter your login name Enter your e-mail name

Enter your e-mail address
Enter your user ID

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark this page Save this web page with your bookmarked pages
Dot (.) Period (.)
Search for Google

 

Eight- Week Computer Training Observations

Four of the seven women who completed the initial Phase 11 survey attended the
initial computer training. After the initial training session, the researcher linked the four
participants to their technology proﬁle, based on the ﬁrst Phase 11 survey. Three of the
training participants at this ﬁrst session were moderate-users and one participant was a
Non-user. The Non-user participant, LaShaun, was both a client of the agency and a
volunteer peer staff. In her volunteer role she assists the director in arranging and running
group activities and helps manage basic ofﬁce functions. While her participation in the
study was as an agency client Chapter Eight discusses the effect of the training on her

role as a peer volunteer.

130

Table 13 shows the proﬁle of the training participants. The names listed in this table are

not the actual names of the participants in this study.

 

 

 

 

Table 13: Computer Training Participant’s User Proﬁle (not actual names)
Participant Nina Shela Tara LaShaun
Proﬁle Moderate-user Moderate-user Moderate-user Non-user
Use Pattern Weekly Use Weekly Use WeeklyUse No Use
Access Own Computer Own Computer Access through No Access
Method Friends/Family

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the initial survey, this meant that one Non-user, one Moderate-user, and
one Power-user chose not to participate. It is unknown why these participants did not take
part in the training. However, shortly after the start of the training the Power-user who
did not participate beyond the initial survey moved out of the supportive housing facility.
She did not remain in contact with the agency so her whereabouts were unknown. The
other two women who completed the pre-training survey continued to receive services
from the agency but did not attend any of the training sessions. Thus there is not enough
infomiation to know ifthe three who chose not to participate were different from those
who completed the training in any way relevant to the variables under study.

It is important to note the overall participation rate from both phases of this study
relative to the number of enrolled agency consumers. Because this grassroots agency
does not require attendance for any of its services. the actual number of active clients can
vary month to month. Figure 16 shows the overall participation rate and the number of

potential participants for each phase.

131

Figure 16: Overall Study Participation Rate

 

r 1
Phase I

30 Survey Participants
Agency Census 2 40

 

 

 

 

r
Phase II

7 Survey Participants

 

Agency Census 2 15
L

 

 

 

r
Phase II

4 Training Participants

 

Survey Participants 2 7
L a

 

 

The observations reported in this section are the result of researcher and research
assistant’s ﬁeld notes and weekly debrieﬁng sessions. Because the RA was unable to
attend the ﬁrst session as scheduled, it should be noted that the researcher alone made the
observations reported for this initial training session. Similar to the process used
throughout this study. inter-rater reliability was achieved through independent review and
editing of ﬁeld notes, followed by the researcher and research assistant meeting to discuss
and resolve any discrepancies.

Session One August 7, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

The initial training session was attended by the four participants discussed above
and described in Table 13. There were two agency computers available for use during the
training session and throughout the study period. In response to the previously identiﬁed
learning needs of this group the researcher began the session with a basic orientation to

the computers. This ﬁrst session brieﬂy covered the following areas:

1. What is a computer?

2. What are the components ofa personal computer (e.g. keyboard, tower,

screen, mouse, etc.)

3. What is the Internet?

4. What is the World Wide Web (www)?

5. The role ofthe browser in accessing the web.

6. Introduction to Google searches.

At the start of the training the researcher described the basic components of the
computer (tower, keyboard, monitor, and mouse) in a lecture format to the group. This
information served two purposes: it indentiﬁed the basic components of the computer,
and provided a common language for the remaining training sessions. As mentioned
earlier in this chapter, having a common language with the participants was an important
feature of the training experience.

Individually the participants were asked to point to the basic computer
components. They were instructed to look for the power button on the tower and it was
the ﬁrst place to check for a CD or DVD player. In pairs the participants were asked to sit
at a computer and demonstrate how they turn on the power and log onto the Internet. The
researcher was not sure how many participants would be able to accomplish this task but
it was an important indicator of the participants’ skill level. Only one of the four
participants was able to log on to the lntemet using the Firefox browser without
assistance, but she was unsure where to go once she accessed the comcastnet home page.

The other participants expressed a great deal of anxiety over trying to log on to

the lntemet but were very relieved to have support from the trainer. When participants

I33

were able to log on to the Internet, with some assistance, they immediately celebrated this
accomplishment with a word of praise or a gesture showing their excitement.

From this initial task it became clear that the four participants lacked. basic
computing skills. Based on this initial exercise, the researcher thought that all four
participants ﬁt the Non-user proﬁle. It wasn’t until after the training that the research
learned that three of the four participants fell with the Moderate-user category based on
their pre-training survey. In addition to the need for basic computer skills, the participants
struggled with computer terminology, conceptual information about the operation of the
computer and the Internet, navigation skills, basic typing skills, and literacy issues. In
fact, during this initial session Nina disclosed she attends a local literacy program and
Tara reported recently completing a similar literacy program. As each of the participants
took a turn on the computer the researcher noticed that they moved within 4-5 inches of
the screen at times to read the captions and see icons. The researcher‘asked if anyone
wore glasses and was surprised that three of the four participants wore reading glasses but
had either forgotten them at home or did not own a pair of reading glasses. The
participants were encouraged to bring glasses with them to each session if they needed
help seeing the screen. To compensate for this need. the researcher increased the size of
the icons on the screen and adjusted the font size to 14-point whenever possible. While
the participants observed this process it was not a part of the formal ﬁrst lesson.

To teach the concept of lntemet searches and to practice this activity. each
participant was asked to perform a Google search for her favorite singer. As discussed in
Sandberg, et al (2005), generating interest in Internet content is an important element of

keeping the participants engaged. Immediately. LaShaun expressed an interest in

134

searching for the gospel singer Marvin Sapp. Nina also thought this was a good idea and
also wanted to search for Marvin Sapp. With some assistance, LaShaun and Nina were
able to open the Firefox browser and using the Google toolbar perform a search to ﬁnd
sites containing Marvin Sapp information and videos. The participants were surprised to
ﬁnd a recent interview from the Today show for singer Marvin Sapp and a YouTube
performance of his Grammy award winning song. LaShaun commented “I just saw this
interview this morning on the Today Show. How did it get there so fast?”

The session ended with two of the four participants completing at least one
Google search with minimal assistance. The other two participants required signiﬁcant
assistance to complete this task. LaShaun was the most apprehensive about using
computer and spent least amount of time getting familiar with the computer. She did
become more engaged when searching for information on Marvin Sapp. Despite some
initial hesitation, all four participants were enthusiastic about the training and committed
to return the next session.

Session Summary

Overall, the ﬁrst session appeared to be a success. The atmosphere of the training
seemed to put the participants at ease. and they came to the session eager to learn. Based
on the observed skill of the participants they would all fall within the Non-user range.
However based on the survey proﬁle only one participant was a Non-user and the other
three were Moderate-users. Based on the participant response to Phase I. and the number
of women completing the initial survey, the director and the researcher anticipated that at
least seven or eight women would participate in the computer training. It was

disappointing that the number of participants was below the anticipated level.

135

Session Two August 14, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

True to their word all four participants from the previous session attended the
second computer training session. They arrived early and were eager to begin the session.
No other participants attended the session. The director and peer volunteer made an
announcement at the support group meeting on August 12, 2008 reminding everyone that
computer training is available on Thursday evening in the supportive housing facility.
Despite this additional recruitment attempt, only the same four participants attended the
ﬁrst ﬁve sessions.

This was the ﬁrst session that the research assistant (RA) was able to attend. The
women were a little suspicious of her and asked about her education, background, and her
experience having the researcher as a teacher. This session was difﬁcult for the RA as she
had no previous contact with this population. Even with pre-study training the RA was
struck by the cultural differences between her and the participants. She struggled to
understand the language ofthe participants. This was particularly true for her interactions
with LaShaun, who tended to use more slang than the other participants. Fortunately
everyone was early for the training so there was time to perform introductions and have
informal conversations before we began the session.

It was discussed with the participants during the initial meeting that because of an
agency stafﬁng shortage that childcare would not be available during the computer
training sessions. Nina did not have child care available for this session but did not want
to miss the session so she brought her daughter (age 8) to the training. Just behind the
computer area there was a playroom for children. This room was equipped with a

television and VCR, a small shelf containing approximately 10 videos and several toys

136

and board games. Nina asked her daughter to stay in the playroom but she repeatedly
came in the computer area to see what her mother was doing. The researcher tried to
normalize the child’s behavior by talking to her about how hard it must be to stay in the
playroom when she is hearing laughter and discussion from the other room. At one point,
responding to the child’s request for help. the RA walked the girl back to the playroom
and put on a video for her.

It was clear that Nina found her daughter’s appearances in the computer room to
be disruptive. Despite her obvious irritation, Nina did not discipline her daughter.
LaShaun and Tara were distracted by this sequence of events. Both commented to Nina
about what they considered a lack of parenting. The comments by LaShaun and Tara led
to a brief exchange of words with Nina. As the intensity of the conversation grew, the
researcher redirected the group to focus on the training. The three women immediately
involved in this exchange of words all agreed to get back to learning computer skills.

The focus of the second session was to continue practice with Google searches
and to work with the participants on their navigation skills. Based on the skill observed
the previous week, it was clear that additional time on navigation skills was necessary. To
reinforce our common language about the computer components, the Internet and the
Web, we began the session with a review of what we learned the previous week. This
review took place around the dining room table as a group lecture. Only one participant
(Nina) was able to accurately describe the Internet and the web based on the lesson from
the previous week. Because the participants were not able to communicate what they had
learned from the previous week, the researcher reviewed the information again with each

individual as they began their computer practice time.

137

The remaining time was spent with participants taking turns practicing navigation
skills on the Comcast home page. This included learning to use the arrow keys, left and
right mouse clicks, and using the scroll bars on web pages. Navigation proved to be a
signiﬁcant struggle for the majority of the group. The participants struggled with
independently moving their ﬁngers to perform a right or left mouse click. Adding to this
challenge, ﬁnding the scroll bars on some web pages was difﬁcult for the participants.
This was especially true for web pages that were laden with advertisements, sponsored
links, and popup windows. For these participants who have limited experience with web
pages and who struggle with literacy, learning to read a web page using traditional left to
right reading rules without the presence of clear borders was problematic.

Midway through the session one of the two computers would not go beyond the
Comcast home page. Because of this technical problem we decided to teach two women
how to navigate using MS Word and PowerPoint. This proved to be a really good
exercise on the computer. One participant, Nina, made a ﬂyer using PowerPoint for
which she received praise from the other participants and her daughter. Her daughter
commented to the group, “my mom made that?” “Good job mom”!

On the other computer Shela was bored with practicing navigation skills and
wanted to look for people on the Web. She Googled a few names of people she knew
without success. The researcher explained to her that often former classmates could. be
found through a website called classmates.com. She became very excited about trying
classmates.com. With some coaching Shela was able to ﬁnd the website, although she
required a lot of assistance to navigate the site. One of the primary problems was the

busyness of the screen. which was distracting and hard for her to understand. The

138

process of registering to be a member of this site provided opportunities for Shela to
practice her navigation skills. Pointing and clicking on text boxes was a challenging skill
for her. Midway through the registration process, she was required to enter an e-mail
account. Since she did not have an account yet, we opened another window and created a
G-mail account. Because she had a lot of difﬁculty entering and re-entering her password
and replicating the security word, the registration activity took the remaining session
time. Shortly after 8:00 PM we were ﬁnally able to get Shela registered for her G-mail
account. She was very proud of having her own e-mail account. She immediately wrote
down her address so that she could give it out to others. The other participants all
requested to have help getting an e-mail account during the next session.

Through the course of the evening two of the four women seemed to be more
comfortable with the RA’s presence than the others, who remained guarded and only
interacted with the RA when the researcher was not available. The RA also was more
comfortable with the women by the end of the session. Later in our debrieﬁng the RA
commented on her struggle with the noise level in the room and the lack of formality.
While she could see that this environment was comfortable for the participants, it was
very different from the learning environments she had experienced. The session ended
with all the women wanting to return next week. for the third session.

Session Summary

The second session provided an opportunity for the group to continue their work
in getting comfortable with the computer and improving their navigation skills. The
session was disrupted by technical difﬁculties with one of the two computers but we

adapted the learning plan to include learning navigation skills in an ofﬂine environment.

139

The introduction of the RA, while not disruptive, did give the women some concern.
Similarly, the lack of childcare assistance for the sessions led to brief distraction for the
group. The enthusiasm of the group toward learning was incredible. While the researcher
knew that having an e-mail address was important, the level of importance the
participants placed on this goal had not been anticipated.

Session Three August 21, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

Again, despite another recruitment effort by the peer volunteer (LaShaun) no
other women have decide to join the training. The same four participants attended the
third session. While on the one hand having a small group was disappointing, on the
other hand it was positive in that it allowed the participants additional computer time.
This was particularly important because open access times that allowed the participants
time to practice were limited. Surprisingly, one participant decided to bring food to share
with the group. The researcher also provided chicken wings at the request of the director
and participants. As with each session. the food was placed on the dining room table and
people helped themselves when they were ready.

The participants came to the session very excited about establishing an e-mail
account and learning how to send and receive e-mails. One participant (Nina) had her
own Yahoo account but did not know how to get beyond the Yahoo home page, and
another participant (Shela) had established her G-mail account the previous week.
Because the session ended just as Shela was able to complete the registration process for
her new G-mail account, she did not have an opportunity to learn how to send or receive

e-mail. The remaining two participants were eager to establish their own e-mail accounts.

140

Again, it was amazing to see the importance the group placed on having an e-mail
account.

Even though the group was still struggling with basic navigation skills and lacked
a conceptual understanding of the search process and the Web, the decision was made to
focus the session on establishing e-mail accounts. Nina and Shela were the ﬁrst to sit
down and begin working on opening e-mail accounts. The researcher was concerned that
these two women had dominated the computer time last session and that the other
participants needed equal time and attention this session. Again, although Nina had her
own Yahoo account, she had not been able to log into this account for some time. She
had forgotten the password and did not know how to navigate the Yahoo home page. It
was clear that both Nina and Shela would require a lot of assistance logging in to their e-
mail account. The challenge would be to give then adequate time while still allowing
time for the other women to practice.

Surprisingly, in the middle of the session LaShaun requested to have some
individual help from the RA. She contacted the director by cell phone about using an
upstairs computer. Since the room was now vacant the agency director was ﬁne with that
computer being used for the training. LaShaun reiterated to the RA that she felt further
behind than the others and needed additional help. Since this request was a surprise, the
researcher encouraged the RA to honor this request. LaShaun and the RA went to the
upstairs room to work on a third agency computer. The RA and LaShaun worked for over
an hour on basic web navigation and establishing a G-mail account for LaShaun. The
process of establishing a Gmail account took multiple attempts because LaShaun had

trouble entering her registration information and remembering her password.

141

Interestingly, even though the passwords LaShaun was selecting were things and names
familiar to her if she had to add a number or letter to make the password the acceptable
length she was not able to replicate the password. Eventually, out of frustration the RA
had to write down LaShaun’s login information to help her avoid having to re-register
each time.

The training downstairs continued with the remaining three participants. The
range of activities covered during this session was limited because the participants had
signiﬁcant difﬁculty with navigating and completing the online registration. The process
of pointing and clicking in a text box was difficult for them. Equally challenging was
using the tab keys to navigate the form. Once the form was complete, the next challenge
was to establish a memorable password. While this seems to be a routine part of the day
for regular technology users, for the participants in this study the concept of creating and
remembering a password was problematic. Added to this challenge was the participants’
limited typing and literacy skills. These limitations became evident as all three
participants spent most of their computer time correcting login and password typos.
Despite several occasions when the Gmail or Yahoo system would not take their login
attempts, the participants remained enthusiastic and focused on the goal of establishing
an e-mail account. It is important to note that both the researcher and the RA struggled to
remain patient, as each trainee required multiple attempts to establish their e-mail
account. While it was tempting to logon for them, the researchers only provided
assistance and support for the participants.

Because of the signiﬁcant trouble logging into the their e-mail system. the

researcher encouraged each participant to write down their password and to use one of

142

their peer’s e-mail address as a secondary address. Both of these strategies proved helpful
as two of the three participants forgot their e-mail address immediately after logging off
the computer.

Upstairs LaShaun and the research assistant had a very similar experience. The
following excerpt is from the research assistant’s ﬁeld notes from her private time with
LaShaun:

LaShaun told me that she wanted to set up an email account, so that is what we did the
whole evening. She/blind the websitefor G-mail, and I helped her navigate through the
questions and blanks. It took us a little longer because she had to re-do her registration
form several times due to typos in her password and several other things...She also had a
difficult time understanding what her email address was opposed to her Log-in name and
password ...I was so encouraged by LaShaun ’s eagerness to learn and master email. She
wrote down step-by-step how to get to the G-mail page and log into her email. After I
walked her through it, 1 let her try it one time by herself without me telling her what to

do. She did make one mistake, and when she realized it, she knew exactly what she forgot
to do. 1 did help her fix it, but then she continued on independently. I was so excited for

her when she successfully logged in to her email! I did get a little discouraged when she
came downstairs and seemed confused about the information we hadjust gone over.

Session Summary

The third session was a more focused work session that session two. The women
were focused on establishing their own e-mail account and learning how to send and
receive e-mails. U nt'ortunately, because of their limited skill level we were not able to go
beyond the registration process.

Session Four August 28, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:15 PM

The four regular participants attended the fourth session. LaShaun had
transportation problems but received assistance from Nina in getting to the session. Once
again the researcher provided a light meal that was waiting for the participants on the
dining room table located in the same room as the computers. The participants were

thankful that the researcher provided the food for them. Even though having food at the

143

session was a regular occurrence, the women went out of their way to acknowledge the
researcher’s efforts to provide them with food. It appeared there was a symbolic meaning
attached to providing food for the group that went beyond the simple need to eat. For this
group, the meal had more to do with respect for them as people than simply satisfying
their hunger. Because the researchers were “outsiders” the offer of food for the group
helped to build trust.

Session four proved to be challenging for the researchers because right from the
start one of the computers would not go beyond the Comcast home page. This was the
second time this computer had become locked on this home page. Despite multiple
‘ attempts to ﬁx the computer it was determined that the problem needed to be ﬁxed by the
lntemet service provider. Unfortunately, this would have been a good opportunity to
demonstrate how to problem solve a computer performance issue, but the agency director
was the only one with the account information necessary to make the repair call. Instead
we left a message on the director’s voice mail alerting her to the problem.

With only one computer connecting to the Internet we decided to work on logging
in to G-mail on one of the computers and on the other practice using the navigation skills
with Microsoft Word. Using Word. Tara and LaShaun worked on changing font size.
highlighting text, changing font color, and the copy and paste functions. Tara seemed to
grasp these tasks much more easily than LaShaun. In fact LaShaun seemed distracted
much of the session. Overall, both women did much better than they did the previous
week in using the mouse and keyboard functions. Part of this improvement may have
been working with a screen that was not as busy as some of the web pages we had visited

previously.

144

As the group was able to perform activities with more steps, they spent more
uninterrupted time at the computers. Having women at the computers for long periods of
time raised a concern over the ergonomics of the computing area. For example. often
participants struggled to ﬁnd adequate space to move the mouse from one side of the
screen to the other. Additionally. their chairs often rocked back and forth forcing the
participants to readjust their body position continually. At times this looked as if the
women were ﬁdgeting in the chairs when they were actually trying to maintain or ﬁnd a
comfortable position. Compounding the situation, the use of an older style computer
monitor on a narrow desk forced the placement of the keyboard to be off to one side,
instead of straight ahead (Figure 17 and Figure 18). To compensate for the position of the
equipment the participants had to look down and to the right (or left) to see the keyboard
and up and to the left (or right) to see the monitor. In addition to the placement of the
keyboard and monitor, the desk height was a concern, especially since the chair height
was not adjustable (Figure 13). Despite these challenges none of the trainees complained
and they seemed to just make do with what equipment was available. It may be that
because they had such little computer experience there was no awareness of the need for
ergonomically appropriate equipment.

Figure 17: Computer Monitor

 

145

Figure 18: Computer Desk, Keyboard, and Monitor

 

During this session Nina and Shela had a chance to login to their email accounts.
Similar to the previous week both participants had signiﬁcant trouble with the login to
their accounts and required several attempts. One participant had to have her password
reset after several failed attempts. Most challenging for the women this evening was
getting past the security word that must be retyped as it appears on the screen. Identifying
the security letters for the trainees was a challenge, but it was especially problematic for
the Tara and Nina who struggle with literacy and vision issues. However, even the one
participant lacking literacy and vision issues struggled with replicating the security code
word. Despite this challenge all the women remained positive and continued trying to
access their e-mail accounts.

This was the ﬁrst session that all the women had an e-mail address, so they began
experimenting with sending each other e-mail messages. The messages were very simple
and encouraging of the other participants. LaShaun struggled to login to her e-mail. She
had misplaced the notebook containing her e-mail address and password. After ﬁnding
the notebook and managing to navigate the login there was not enough time in the session

for her to send a message.

146

Both the researcher and the RA noticed that there appeared to be a competition
developing between Nina and LaShaun. Throughout the evening LaShaun would
comment that “Nina knows how to do this because she has a computer at home.” The
other participants gave nonverbal acceptance to these comments but never initiated this
type of conversation. Nina never responded to the comments and continued to work at the
task she was doing. In many ways LaShaun viewed herself as the leader of the group. Her
status as a peer support volunteer along with a dominating personality enhanced her
standing in the group. However, LaShaun’s attention seemed drawn to Nina, the most
passive group member who was progressing slightly faster in her computer skill
development. Interestingly, at the end of this session, LaShaun asked the research
assistant to schedule an open use time for additional assistance. The RA and LaShaun
were scheduled to meet for 2:00 PM — 3:30 PM on September 4, 2008.

At the end of this session the participants were asked to complete the four-week
survey. All the participants agreed and completed this survey. Each survey was collected
by the researcher and stored for analysis. Survey data was linked to the initial Phase 11
survey through the use of a unique ID.

Session Summary

The fourth session was the ﬁrst session where it was evident that the participants
were making improvement in their computer skills. They expressed that they were very
excited to get e-mails from each other. Once again technical issues prevented us from

accomplishing a lot on the Web, but the enthusiasm of the group remained very high.

147

Open Use Time September 4, 2008 2:00 PM — 3:30 PM

At the request of LaShaun, the RA agreed to provide a one-on-one training at the
supportive housing facility. The training took place as scheduled on September 4, 2008.
To the surprise of the RA LaShaun arrived for the session with a young child she was
watching for a friend (Al-years-old). She stated that the child would not “bother us”
because it was her nap time. This did not turn out to be the case as the child often
required LaShaun’s attention. Despite LaShaun not remembering the RA’s name, the
training proceeded with LaShaun attempting to log on to the computer and to open
Firefox to access the Internet. Logging on was made easier as LaShaun remembered to
bring the notes she had made the week before.

The main goal for this extra session was to strengthen LaShaun’s navigation skill
and to work on accessing her G-mail account. Similar to the struggles reported in the
previous sessions. LaShaun had a great deal of trouble typing her user ID and password
for her G-mail account. Once her correct user ID and password were conﬁrmed LaShaun
then practiced logging in to her account several times. After she was comfortable with the
login process. LaShaun wanted to learn how to read and send e-mails. The RA explained
the process for checking mail in her Inbox and LaShaun wrote down key words to help
her remember the steps. LaShaun felt that writing down the verbal instructions was the
best way for her to learn. She was the only participant to record anything other than
passwords and user IDs. After a few minutes of trying to log in to her in box, LaShaun
became confused and asked the RA for assistance. The RA referred LaShaun back to her

written notes but the notes were not helpful for LaShaun.

148

The session ended with an agreement to continue working on sending and
receiving e-mails at the next session. It should be noted that the RA observed that
LaShaun seemed very distracted during this session. For example, LaShaun engaged in
paper shufﬂing and attending to the child she was watching for a friend, all of which
lessened her attention to the task at hand. She also talked about many topics from faith to
differences between African Americans and European Americans.

Session Five September 4, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

The four regular participants attended the ﬁfth session. All arrived on time and
were eager to get started. The goal for the ﬁfth session was to have all the women
become comfortable with logging in to their Gmail account and sending and receiving e-
mails. Nina and Shela were the first two to practice on the computers. Nina logged on to
her G-mail account with ease. From her account she sent several messages to the other
participants. The messages were kind and designed to be uplifting for her peers. For
instance, on message sent to Shela asked how she was doing and then stated “you’re
doing great in the training.”

On the second computer. Shela struggled to login to her account and needed
assistance from the researcher to access her G-mail. Similar to previous sessions, Shela
required several login attempts (four) before she successfully logged in to her account.
The primary problem for Shela was the spelling of her login ID and password. Even with
this information written down it was challenging for her to replicate the information on
the computer screen. Once she logged in Shela was excited to have an e-mail waiting
from Nina. The two—line message seemed to energize Shela. She immediately wanted to

respond, so the next task was learning how to reply to a message. Navigating the reply

149

text box was not easy for Shela. She struggled with ﬁguring out where to begin typing
because the original message was so close to the top of the text box. Once she learned to
move the original text down by using the enter key, she was able to type a brief reply to
Nina. The task of formulating a simple two-sentence response took approximately ﬁfteen
minutes to complete. After completing this task Shela typed a new message to both Tara
and LaShaun. She was able to complete the task much quicker than before, but she still
struggled with her spelling.

Similar to Shela, Tara spent her time on the computer leaming to respond to e-
mails from her peers. Tara had trouble with the login to her e-mail account because she
had forgotten her e-mail address and lost the paper on which it was written down. She
eventually got her e-mail address from Nina, who had a copy of an e-mail Tara sent her
the previous week. Tara was delighted to see the e-mails in her inbox. She responded to
Nina and Shela with brief messages. Tara needed some help with her spelling and ﬁnding
the send button but overall appeared much more comfortable navigating through her e-
mail account. She inquired about the chat button on the left side of the screen of her e-
mail account. We tried to open a chat window but the computer froze. forcing her to log
off and start all over again.

Meanwhile, Nina was felt so comfortable with using e-mail that she wanted to e-
mail Senator Barack Obama. One participant in a focus group during the ﬁrst half of this
study described e-mailing Senator Obama last spring. Apparently. the participants had
heard about this use of e-mail for this purpose and wanted to try it themselves. It is likely
that this information came from comments made during one of the Phase I focus groups.

After searching without success several times Nina asked for help ﬁnding Senator

150

 

Obama’s website. The RA assisted Nina with this task. The reason for Nina’s lack of
success was that she had spelled the senator’s last name wrong. She spelled “Odoma”
instead of Obama. Once she had the correct spelling, Nina found Senator Obama’s
website without problem; however, the process of registering her address and contact
information required a few attempts because she could not type her password without
errors.

As Nina typed her e-mail to Senator Obama she made many spelling and
grammatical errors. Some of the errors she was able to catch while others she did not
seem to notice. Even with the use of spell check the process of writing her e-mail to
Senator Obama took approximately forty-ﬁve minutes. It became obvious that Nina was
going to dominate the entire session, leaving LaShaun with no time to practice. In fact,
while Nina was still composing her e-mail to Senator Obama, LaShaun stated that she
wanted Nina to use the rest of the time and that she would use the computer later. When
she completed the e-mail she insisted that everyone read it before she clicked the send
button. In her e-mail to Senator Obama, Nina wrote about being a single parent ofa
“biracial child” and her struggles with getting child support because the father of her
child is receiving Social Security-Disability. She went on to inform the Senator how
thankful she was for having this agency in her life and to have God in her life. She
included the agency name and contact information in case he wanted to share this
infomration with others. The other participants were impressed and congratulated Nina

on her accomplishment.

151

As time was running out on the session, Tara and LaShaun requested to have an
open use time in the afternoon before the next training session. The RA agreed to meet
both participants on September 1 l. 2008 for open use time.

Session Summary

The ﬁfth session was highlighted by the women engaging in computer mediated

.. L’—

communication, e-mail. There were still struggles with the login process, but once into
their e-mail account the women were enjoying sending and receiving e-mails. As they

engaged in more time-consuming activities it became more difﬁcult to make sure that 1'

 

everyone had equitable time to practice. k
Open Use Time September 1 l, 2008 2:00 PM — 3:30 PM
When the RA arrived for this session, LaShaun was already present and working

on the computer. She had managed to log on to the lntemet and search for G-mail but

was stuck on the next step. Once the RA reminded her to click on the G-mail link she

knew the next steps. Once again the log in process to access her G-mail account was
problematic. LaShaun acknowledged that she was not able to access her account since

September 4, 2008 because she was stuck on this one step. LaShaun spent the remainder
of the session creating and responding to e—mails from friends.

The RA recorded the following in her session notes:

1 let her (LaShaun) do as much as she could before I stepped in and helped her. She
realized that the part she was getting stuck on was actually clicking on the Gmail
website. She knew how to search/or Gmail, but sheforgot to click on the website. Once
I helped her with that part, she was able to do everything on her own. She was really
frustrated that sheforgot that one small part and because of that, she couldn’t access her
email. 1 was ﬂustrated also because if she had someone to ask earlier in the week, she
could have accessed her email much earlier. Instead, she had to wait a whole weekfor‘
us to come and help her with that. I wish that someone could have been at the house at

some point during the week to help her, or it would have been helpful ifshe had someone
to call with questions.

On the other computer, Tara was having trouble logging in to her Gmail account.
She had forgotten her password and failed to login after trying several combinations of
passwords. Eventually, she was assisted in creating a new password that would be easier
to remember. The RA wrote down the password for Tara to keep in her purse. Just after
Tara was able to log on the computer crashed. Since this computer has had problems
during previous sessions, LaShaun called the executive director, who was next door at the
church. She came over and moved the upstairs computer downstairs to replace the
computer having problems. This allowed the training to continue with two working
computers.

One final observation by the RA was that because of traffic in the house during
the day the training environment was loud and distracting for the trainees and the RA.
While the beneﬁt of having an open computer area was the interaction with others in the
house, the challenge is that there are days when normal business activities can create
signiﬁcant trafﬁc.

Session Six September 1 l, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

The regular four participants attended our sixth session along with two new
women who heard about the training through the agency weekly support group meeting.
The group welcomed the new participants and they were able to participant in the
training, although there was an initial tension in the room as the regular participants
recognized that additional people meant less computer time. The new participants
changed the trainee to trainer ratio from 2:1 to 3:1. Because there were only two sessions

remaining the researcher did not collect data on the new participants.

153

The addition of two new participants forced the researcher to change strategies
and have the RA to work with the new participants. The focus of the RA’s training was to
assess the level of computer skill for the new participants and to assist them toward
establishing an e-mail account. Lori was a quick learner with some basic computer skills.
Lori reported having accessed computers at the public library, but not being conﬁdent in
her computer skills. In contrast to Lori, Michelle had never used a computer before. In
fact, she reported being afraid of computers but was encouraged to come to the training
after hearing how much support was available. Based on her observation the RA
estimated that Lori was a Moderate-user and Michelle was a Non—user.

While Lori and Michelle worked on one computer the other participants worked
with the researcher. The ﬁrst task for each participant was to log on to their e-mail and
send a message. Nina and Tara were the first to use the computers and had little trouble
accomplishing this task. It should be noted that this was the ﬁrst time the participants
were able to login to their e-mail accounts with minimal assistance. Both Nina and Tara
were very proud of their accomplishments tonight.

When it was LaShaun’s turn. she asked about registering to vote. “I heard you
could register to vote on here, cause I ain’t never voted.” LaShaun said the site she heard
about was “blackamericawebeom.” She Googled this site and found the register to vote
link without trouble. LaShaun then proceeded to complete the online registration form
but experienced several errors on the ﬁrst page and had to repeat the process three times.
Eventually, the site accepted the information she provided on the first page and allowed
her to move to a second page where she was asked for more personal information, such

as her driver license number. Because LaShaun does not have a car and hasn’t driven in

154

years, she did not know her driver license number. Additionally, because she does not
drive she does not carry her license with her. LaShaun was frustrated with getting so
close to registering, but abandoned her quest, vowing to try it again at the next session.

In the time while LaShaun was working on her registration, Nina and Shela
became very interested in registering to vote. Although time was beginning to run out for
our session, both Nina and Shela were able to login to the registration site and register to
vote. They were both very excited and spent the rest of the time talking about Senator
Obama. LaShaun shared in the excitement of the other women, but it was obvious she
was disappointed at not being able to complete her registration. At the end of the session
Michelle and LaShaun asked the RA to join them during the open use time next week.
Open use time has become a regular feature each Thursday afternoon. In fact the RA has
now set aside this time to be at the facility.

Session Summary

The addition of two new participants required the researchers to make some
adjustments, but overall the session went well. While e-mailing each other was still an
exciting task for the group, two of the four regular participants were beginning to expand
their use into other areas. The online voter registration provides a good example of how
the Web could offer the women a tangible beneﬁt.

Open Use Time September 18. 2008 1:00 PM — 2:30 PM

LaShaun and Michelle came to the session as promised and the RA was available
to assist the participants. At the beginning of the session LaShaun graciously insisted that
the RA help Michelle set up an email account. Michelle was really eager to set up her

email account. She did fairly well on the computer for a beginner. She was improving

155

on her mouse skills, and she seemed to have a better grasp on what to click and how to

scroll down a page. She had some difﬁculty with typing. Adding to her difﬁculty typing

was the length of her long ﬁngernails, and a fear of pushing the keys too hard. Michelle

did well with ﬁlling out the registration form to get an email account. She practiced

getting out of her email and then logging back into her account. She practiced two or

three times, and each time she needed some assistance. She would sometimes forget

where to type the Gmail website address or what to put for her Usemame and Password.
Interestingly, Michelle learned about the value of computers through her sisters

that use computers. She had also heard about some jobs online that she wants to apply

for. At the end of the session. Michelle said that she was really thankful for the training

and that she likes the one-on-one style of teaching because she learns better that way.
LaShaun spent most of the session sending and receiving messages from the

director and her adult daughter. LaShaun seemed content to allow Michelle to receive the

support today. It was a sign ofprogress that LaShaun was able to work independently the

majority of the time today. Near the end of the session LaShaun asked the RA if she

could e-mail her. The RA gave LaShaun and the Michelle her e-mail address and they

exchanged the following e-mail:

l.m happy that I have you and Jim as my con-zputer instruter. Im very happy

because every one to teach me they never have time. Thais ok because I now

have you..Remember when a door is closed another one is open,

I woud like to show you about the black culter dont be scarde I will protect you. imfor

real we shoud hang out some time maybe I will take you to chuch one day so dry so

you can hear some real real preachin.

Reply>Hi, LaShaun!

I do want you to learn more because 1 know you can, and I want you to feel

comfortable with using the computer. I’m excited. for tomorrow! I’ll see

you at 1 pm. Thanks for the emails this week. They have been encouraging to
me. 3) 1"m so excited that you can get to your email by yourself and

156

respond to people. See you soon.’

Session Seven September 18, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

Tonight was bittersweet as the participants began to realize that this was almost
the last session. The regular four attendees were present and ready to get working. The
new participants left word that they could not attend tonight but would return next week.
The session began with a review of everything that we had taught up to this point. We
discussed how to access the Web using Firefox, how to ﬁnd their e-mail account,
bookmarking sites (saving sites). and how to search for information using Google. Nina
recapped that she came to the training not knowing how to get into her own e-mail
account, but now she is e-mailing Obama. LaShaun echoed this sentiment and recounted
that she did not know how to turn on the computer the ﬁrst session and now she has an e-
mail account. She went on to say how “blessed” she felt at having this training and
working with this agency.

One of the last tasks we discussed with the participants was getting them
comfortable with ﬁlling out online job applications. The RA worked one-on-one with
Shela showing her how to job search on Mlive.com. Shela did very well navigating
around the web pages. She needed some direction to know where to click and what key
words to use in her search for jobs. Because Shela was not currently looking for a job,
she found this activity boring. Interestingly. throughout the evening, Shela talked about
buying a laptop. This is interesting because of all the participants Shela seemed the least
interested in learning the computer. She spent some time learning how to do things, but
was pretty quick to get off the computer to allow someone else a turn. So as an alternative

to practicing online job search skills. Shela decided to search for affordable laptops.

157

On the other computer, Nina found an article online that she had read in the press.
She was offended that the person in the article had her arrest history revealed and decided
to e-mail the author. It took Nina most of the night to compose her e-mail. Her low
literacy level made this task very time consuming. However, Nina never became
discouraged and continued to use spell check to correct her spelling. Frequently, she
would turn to the researchers to make sure she was choosing the correct word from the
list the spell check program displayed. Eventually, her e-mail was completed. She read
her e-mail out loud, seeking afﬁrmation from the group before pushing the send button.
The other participants gave Nina some praise but did not show the same level of
enthusiasm as shown during previous sessions.

Tara and LaShaun spent most of the evening sitting at the dining room table
participating in general discussions with the group. Tara was preoccupied with the
possibility that she could reconnect with one of her siblings who had been placed outside
of her family by the child welfare system. When she did get on the computer, she
responded to a couple of emails and logged off. She still struggled with the login process
but was much more conﬁdent about her ability to get into her e-mail without assistance.
And she did! One of the improvements for Tara was to have a shorter more memorable
password that she created with the RA.

LaShaun displayed little interest in using the computer. She remained engaged
with the group but was not interested in practicing tonight. When she was not talking
with everyone she was sweeping the ﬂoors and cleaning the living room. She commented

about becoming a social worker someday. The researcher and RA encouraged her to

158

think about going to college. She seemed surprised about the support and asked for
conﬁrmation that we were serious several times throughout the evening.

Both the researcher and the RA agreed that this session was different than the
previous sessions. In fact, it seemed as though the participants had developed enough
independence in accomplishing basic activities that the role of the trainer had changed to
one of support and encouragement. Despite struggles with user IDs and passwords they
were able to navigate websites, search for information and realize when they had made a

mistake and correct their error. While this was a wonderful milestone, this independence

 

changed the feel of the session for the researchers. While the participants often directed
the activities of the training sessions the participant’s acquisition of basic computer skills
led to a shift in the balance of power. For example, Tara, Shela, and Nina all came to the
session with speciﬁc tasks they wanted to accomplish. For Tara the primary task was to
check her e-mail, Shela wanted to search and compare laptop prices, and Nina wanted to
give a local writer a piece of her mind for what she felt was an injustice. The change was
that rather than coming to the session to learn a speciﬁc skill, the group was now coming
to the session with the goal ofusing technology to achieve a speciﬁc purpose. For most
of the group their agenda consisted of sending and receiving e-mails.

Session Summary

In temis of their skill development the participants were beginning to become
consumers of Web information. Activities such as reading news online and shopping
were an expansion of the participants’ lntemet activity. As mentioned above, the
participants’ use of technology was becoming purposeful. It also appears that the group

may have reached a plateau in terms of learning new computer skills.

159

Open Use Time September 25, 2008 1 :00 PM — 2:30 PM

As planned LaShaun and Michelle attended the open use time this week. Because
Michelle is not comfortable doing things on her own, the RA spent the majority of the
time with her. Michelle worked on logging in and out of her email for most of the time.
Interestingly, when the RA stepped out of the room for minute she returned to ﬁnd that
LaShaun was helping Michelle with the login process. This was the ﬁrst example of a l
peer feeling comfortable enough to offer technical support to another peer. Previously,

the participants’ only offered verbal support and occasional verbal direction, such “click i -

 

over there” to their peers. In this instance. LaShaun was modeling how to login for
Michelle while adding verbal directions.

Michelle struggled with understanding how to use the arrows to move her cursor,
and did not seem to understand the concept of backspace. She made a lot of typing
mistakes when entering her username and password, so a lot of time was spent correcting
her errors. In many ways working with Michelle was a good reminder of where the rest
of the women were at the beginning of the training. Michelle did mention that her
boyfriend suggested that she cut her nails so that she could type better. While her long
nails were an issue the RA was concerned that Michelle may also have vision problems.
At one point she counted the keys to ﬁnd the number three. Near the end of the session,
Michelle showed the RA a pamphlet she had from the library for free computer classes.
She was intending to go to this training because the current training was ending.

On the other computer LaShaun was working independently. She did need some

assistance to open an attachment about AmeriCorps that was in a message from the

160

Director. She spent a lot oftime responding to director’s emails. The session ended with
both women acknowledging looking forward to the last session tonight.

Session Eight September 25, 2008 6:30 PM — 8:00 PM

Prior to the session the director informed the researcher via e-mail that there was
some signiﬁcant problems at the board level. but that it should not affect the training.
Because of this information the researcher decided to ask the participants if they would
like to participate in their post-training interview tonight. Even if only a couple of the
participants were willing to be interviewed this would preserve some data in case the
agency had to close its doors.

The four regular participants (Tara. Shela, Nina, and LaShaun) attended the last
session. Shela and Tara voiced their sadness about the training ending. In fact, Tara
wanted to know when she would get her certiﬁcate of completion for the training. When
she was informed that the researcher had forgotten the certiﬁcates (oopsl), she gave a
deadline of one week to get her certiﬁcate to her (we made her deadline). As mentioned
above, the participants were offered an opportunity to participate in an interview after
their computer time tonight. All the women agreed to be interviewed during this session.
In fact, Tara and Shela commented that interviewing tonight would save them gas money.
The individual interview process and findings are discussed later in this chapter.

For this last session the women were asked to “show off” for the trainers. The
participants were to access their e-mail and favorite sites without assistance. The point of
this exercise was to give everyone a chance to be praised for her hard work over the past
eight weeks. While we were fairly certain all the women would be able to accomplish this

task with little assistance, it was not a sure thing. In fact, Tara and Nina had to refer to

I61

their written user IDs and passwords to access their e-mail accounts but they
accomplished their login independently. LaShaun and Shela were able to accomplish this
task without assistance or the use of written login information. Each time a participant
completed her task, she received applause from the group. The women seemed to really
enjoy the acknowledgement of their improved computer skills.

Later in the evening, Shela logged on for a second time to continue looking up
computers to buy. She often asked the researchers their opinion about the computer she
was looking at, but she performed her searches independently. She had engaged in this
activity before but this time she seemed more serious about buying a laptop. LaShaun did
a search on Oprah, and knew where to click on the website to ﬁnd the information she
wanted. Additionally, she was able to access her e—mail independently.

All the women were very animated during this session. The atmosphere seemed to
be one of celebration for their newly acquired computer skills. There was a lot of
discussion of many different topics tonight. In fact, Shela shared how she used to be a
bitter person who swore a lot and was mean-spirited. She shared how she has changed
and how she works to control her speech and improve her attitude. LaShaun shared about
some of her struggles and how much progress she has made in her life. LaShaun
described getting off crack as one of the hardest things she had ever done. She credited
this accomplishment as giving her the belief that she can do anything. LaShaun attributed
much of her success to the support of the director and the agency. The other women also
shared how much the agency has meant in their lives and how important their
relationships are with each other. In many ways the conversation seemed to be an attempt

to explain how they got here and their optimism about improving their lives.

162

The session ended with a round of applause for all the work the participants had
put into learning computer skills. The researchers further acknowledged that LaShaun,
Tara, Nina, and Shela made it to all eight sessions. The participants were proud of their
accomplishment and requested to have another round of training in the winter or spring.

Session Summary

This ﬁnal session was a time to praise the women for their hard work over the
past eight weeks. In essence very little skill development occurred during this session as
the trainers and participants had discussions about how far they had progressed in the
training and in life. The participants wanted the sessions to continue and described
feeling good about what they had accomplished.

Participai-it Interviews

Post training interviews took place concurrent to the last session. The participants
increased autonomy on the computer allowed the ﬁnal session to be primarily led by the
RA while the researcher conducted structured interviews with each of the participants
after they had completed the task for the evening. Following the protocol approved by the
IRB and discussed in Chapters Three and Six, participants interested in participating in an
interview were asked to meet individually with the researcher in a room adjacent to the
computer area. All four computer-training participants agreed to take part in a post-
training interview. Each interview lasted approximately twenty-five minutes. All four
interviews were recorded and transcribed for coding and analysis as described in Chapter
Six. The interview ﬁndings in this section are presented under the four themes uncovered
through the coding and analysis process. While these themes are not mutually exclusive

to one another, they reﬂect the experience of the participants. The themes found through

163

the data analysis process were: (a) Technology Acceptance (b) Personal Empowerment
(c) Education and Literacy and ((1) Connectivity.

1. Technology Acceptance

All of the participants described feeling thankful for the training and expressed
positive feelings toward computers and technology. For example, women stated the
following about their experience:
LaShaun: [the Director] been telling mefor 20 years that she was gonna teach me how to
work on the computer. Godjust do things in his own time. When I heard about it, oh

yeah I jumped right on it. And yes, I love working on the computer now.

Shela: Oh yeah, I enjoyed it a whole lot. I learned a lot.

Tara.“ That ’5 why I am glad I got into this class. I want my own computer
so I can learn more about how toﬁnd diﬂerent things and how to really
work on the computer.

Nina: Very interesting... Learning how to get on websites and learning to
talk to people like Obama and Tyler Perry. ,I_ just clicked on one today,
House.

In terms of the frequency of technology use as a result of the intervention, the
participants reported accessing the computer more often than they reported on the initial
survey.

Nina: I ’d saytwo-three times a week. I'Vhen I am in the area I pop in.

Shela: Maybe twice, three times a day... Yeah, I never even messed with it
to be honest, you know before I started coming here.

LaShaun: Monday through Friday. and if I ain '1‘ got nothing to do I will
come down here on Saturdays... I I! come down here on .S'unday if I just
need to get away.

Tara: Just once a week. but I learned a lot out ofthat once a week so that was good.
2. Personal Empowerment
The participants consistently reported feeling empowered as a result of this
experience. The signiﬁcance of this experience was reflected in the participants’

comments.

164

 

fl
'1

Tara: I neverfinished school, I never graduated so this is the type of things that] really
want to learn how to do...Like it, love learning.

LaShaun: Okay, thank you Jesus, You hear that? Computer class, I've been blessed...1t
makes me have a lot of gratitude because I never took computer training and like I said
with my addiction I missed a lot.

Shela: Yeah, just didn 't know how to use it. You know I did when my son was there, but
once he was gone I was lost... Yeah, well I do want to say I had a great time in this class.
Had to say that. Just get better and won ’t have to take as much time to ﬁnd something.

Nina: It wasjust a good program and they need more. They need to continue... Yes, it’s a
good program ‘cause I knew just a little bit and now I know a big part.

For each participant there were parts of the training that provided them with a
sense of accomplishment and pride. For Nina. the experience of interacting within the
larger community was very meaningful.

Tara: I learned how to log in and passwords. See I didn 't even know that I had to do a
log and a password. I didn ’t know none of that so that was good I learned how to log
in, but I didn’t know how to get the newsletter and all of that, and the entertainment. I
learned how to read the things.

Nina: Oh man it was wonderful. I emailed Obama. Then I emailed the Press ‘cause they
had an article that I didn’t like in there and that was wonderful. Then I emailed Tyler
Perry today. I was like wow, I 'm not afraid to voice my opinion...It 's new. I 'm not
afraid to voice my opinion. I '1] let somebody know how Ifeel right then and there. And
you can look at websites and it 's more exciting when you have the support and when you
have, you know, hands on, one person at a time instead oflike a whole classroom. It ’s
easier. So I 'd say they need to have more classes.

The participants found a sense ofpride in learning how to search for information on the
web.

Shela: Learned how to do my email. Learnea’ how to use the Google. Learned how to
ﬁnd things that I wouldn’t have knew how to_ find if I hadn ’t came to this computer class
on the computer.

LaShaun: It ’s helping me to get connected to things I was never com-reeled to. It helped
me get an email. The computer is a directory far me ‘cause I can go in there and see

anything, read anything.

Tara: I learned how to go into Google to start off} And how to gofind the email, check
my email. I learned a little bit about MySpace. I don 't know too much. I learned a little

165

 

bit about to ﬁnd the newspaper, different articles about the news, how toﬁnd
entertainment. A lot of things I learned ...I really do. I want us to continue. I really
don’t want this to be the last day. I know I want to get my certificate and everything, but
I want to continue. I’m serious, I really do. I want to continue to work on the computer
‘cause I don’t have one and this is something that I’ve really want to dofor a long time.

3. Educational Achievement and Literacy

Interestingly, the participants" success in the computer training seemed to have
implications for their perspective on general education. In a sense. the participants
interpreted this successful learning experience as a sign that they can learn in other
settings. Additionally, for a few of the women the spell check function on the computer
helped them manage some literacy issues.
Tara: And another thing 1 really like is, ‘cause my spelling is not good, and I learned on
the computer if your spelling is not right it '11 correct you or it won "I go through if you ’re
spelling is wrong.
LaShaun: But yeah the computers have really helped me and I 'm still learning. Like
when I try to get on the computer and go somewhere I’m learning how to go somewhere
else. Ijustfeel blessed. And then it helps me to spell again. I mean leaving high school,
I don’t know how to spell a lot of stuff'or do a lot of things and the computer is helping
me with that, especially my spelling.

4. Connectivity

The final theme highlighted during the interview was the establishment of a
connection beyond their immediate surroundings. For Nina, this process included sending
e-mails to Senator Obama and the local press. For Shela this connectivity meant she
could look up news articles or other websites of interest to her. LaShaun experienced this
connectivity through the use of inmate websites and a sexual offender registry. She also
exchanged frequent e-mails with her adult daughter, and in her role as a peer support

volunteer exchanged frequent e-mails with the agency director. The participants also

found sending and receiving e-mail among themselves an enjoyable activity.

166

LaShaun: This is a bad thing, but one day I needed to look up my cousin in prison and I
called my daughter on the phone when I got there and she talked me through it. My
daughter is a computer wizard you know and I felt proud of myself. And then she showed
me how to do the sexual predators according to your zip code.

Shela: I just use them more of less for finding out things that’s going on in the world you
know. Anything that might pop in my head. I don ’t really use itfor games and stufflike
that, butjust informational. You know access around the world what ’s going on, stuff
like that.

Overall, the intervention participants experienced a growth in their comfort with
computers and their basic computer skills. For the majority of the participants the
computer training offered them more than computer skills. It offered them an opportunity
for personal growth and an opportunity to become empowered. The participants clearly
felt this was a positive experience for them. This was evident in their comments,
attendance, and desire to continue the training. All the participants reported an increase in
their frequency of computer use when compared to their initial survey.

Phase II F allow-up Survey

As described in Chapter Six, the training participants were asked to complete a
second survey after the fourth week of computer training. Following the approved MSU
Institutional Review Board protocol, all four participants consented and completed the
second survey. The purpose of the second survey was to identify changes in the
participants” perception of their technology use patterns and computer skills. specifically
Internet skills.

In comparison to the baseline survey. the follow-up survey showed the
participants generally engaged in greater use of computers with an Internet connection.

Additionally, three ofthe four participants went from no use of e-mail to weekly use of e-

mail (Table 14). Similarly. there was an increase in the participants’ perception of their

167

 

own ability to use the Internet “when no one was around”, “if there was someone
watching”, “if there was someone to call for help”, and “if there was adequate time to
learn (Table 15 & 16). When asked whether learning to use the Internet would be easy,
two of the four participants were more confident in their ability to learn at the follow-up
survey. One participant reported a decrease in her perception of the ease of learning to
use the Internet. and one participant reported no change in her perceived ability to learn
the how to use the lntemet (Figure 19). With regard to the purpose for using the Internet
there was an increase in activities reported on the follow up survey (Figure 20).
Participants increased their use of the Internet to seek information, job search, social
connections, meeting new people. seeking support, search for health information, and for

entertainment purposes.

Table 14: lntemet and E-mail Use Comparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Participants lntemet Use E-_m2_1i_l

Baseline Follow-up Baseline F ollow-up
LaShaun None Weekly None Weekly
Tara None Weekly None Weekly
Shelia Weekly Weekly None Weekly
Nina Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly

 

Table 15: Perception oflnternet Skills: No one around and with someone watching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Belief in use w/ No One Beliefin use w/Watching
Baseline Follow-up Baseline Follow-up
LaShaun None Unsure Unsure Somewhat
Tara None Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely
Shela Probably Probably Definitely Definitely
Nina Deﬁnitely Unsure Definitely Definitely

 

 

I68

 

 

Table 16: Perception of lntemet Skills: Call for help and time to use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Belief in use w/Call for Help Belief in use w/ Time
Baseline F ollow-up Baseline Follow-up
LaShaun Unsure Deﬁnitely Probably Probably
Tara Probably Deﬁnitely Probably Deﬁnitely
Shela Deﬁnitely Deﬁnitely Deﬁnitely Definitely
Nina Deﬁnitely Deﬁnitely Deﬁnitely Deﬁnitely

 

 

Figure 19: Perception of Ability to Learn Internet Skills

 

4.5 ‘

 

'—¢"" Baseline

Follow-up

 

Ease of Learning Rating

Participants

 

 

 

I69

 

Figure 20: Purpose of Technology Use

 

 

 

Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social
Job Srch
Health
SUPPort A 3.0
. . :2: 1.0 » DPhasell- 30 day
Emerm'“ — 3.0
Buy/Shep E 4 2.0 f IPhase ll - Baseline

Housing

 

 

 

New People
Gaming 00
OtllCl’ 00

Count

 

 

 

Agency Director Interview

The purpose ofthe interview with the agency director was to better understand the
structure, procedure, processes. and outcomes from this intervention. This one on one
structured interview lasted approximately 40 minutes and was audio recorded and
transcribed for analysis. The executive director interview occurred one week after the
completion of the training. The following discussion is a summary of the two primary
themes discussed by the agency director.

I. Program Costs and. Infrastructure

According to the director. the agency was the recipient ofdonated computer
hardware and software form a local educational institution. The computers at the time of

this donation were thought to be for shared use among the staff. volunteers, and clients.

170

 

The director searched the lntemet to find an existing “acceptable use” policy, which she

adapted for use at her agency.

CEO: Will we had initially kind of set up a generic use policy that we had received
somewhere and we didn’t really implement that very consistently to be honest. Other
than that we really kind of launched things through this project, is when it really began.
It was more that they were being used by staff prior to the project starting.

CEO: To be totally honest I think it wasjust copied off the Internet from some other ..
organizations or something that was Googled and found by one of our volunteer staff so
it was not real specifically adapted to [agency]. So I think we need to revisit that as we
look at our technology policies and technology as a service part of our outpatient
program.

As was discussed in Chapter Five, the use of donated computers can become
complicated and even expensive for the recipient. Additionally, this particular agency
struggled to obtain funds to make sure their ICT infrastructure was in place.

CEO: you know with an agency that is grass roots and has a very small budget. I mean 1
think that 's been kind of a problemfor us in terms of dealing with outdated computers
and not really having up to date technology and it’s kind of reduced the capacity to some
degree that we ’re able to use technology.

Because of their limited budget the agency has had to rely on donated technical support
time from community or church volunteers.

CEO: So there ’s really no technical support other than what you ’ve provided through the
project and the limited that I ’m able to do. We also have a couple of volunteers from the
church that have helped us when we first set up the computers in terms of cleaning them
out and getting them hooked up. But other than volunteers there ’5' really no tech
support... There’s no budget item for tech support at this point

When asked about future technology needs the director reported needing to address her
outdated equipment and revise agency policies. She said much of this would be

accomplished through the use of donated funds.

CEO: Well I think we would like to have some more updated systems you know that will
remove some of the barriers that we’ve had with access and the training that ’s hindered
some of that process because of you know not having current operating systems, running
so slow, not being to put certain software on there because they’re outdated. So I think a

171

huge need is just to have some real functional and up to date systems. We should start
there. I think we would need to look at some of our policies and procedures and really
building those into the outpatient programming that we provide and so that everything is
covered in terms ofthere ’s no issues far us in terms of liability.

CEO: I think what we would do is look/or some donations. We do have a current
contract that is pending that starts this/all. There is somefunding in there in the
category of information dissemination so as we look at that budget more carefully there
may be some fzmds in there that we could utilize. If not through that and through seeking
some donors, in 2009 trying to put a line item in the budget for that. Adding technology
as a budget item category.

CEO: Well I think it 's been quite evident that the main challenge has just been our
outdated technology and that provides some barriersfor the women and can create
frustration and additional confusion when you’re already trying to accomplish a new
skill. So that hasjust really shown the importance of having updated systems. It ’sjust
the struggle is with an agency that doesn’t have a lot of money to be able to provide that
and ﬁnd a cost effective way to do that. I guess seeing the importance of it now through
this project makes it more of a critical item that we need to address in terms of our
fundraising and adding it to our budget, where it hasn’t been one of the top priorities in
the past.

2. Impact of the Intervention on the Agency

The director was pleasantly surprised that the computer training was so well
received by the participants. She has observed changes in the participants and their
abilities as it relates to accessing resources and information via the Internet. Additionally,
she believed that the training was in line with the agency’s goal of empowerment.

CEO: I would say that it 's a shared use, but certainly that the project has shown us as an
agency that it ’s a really valuable resource for the clients and that they really enjoy it and
they find it very useful. I think that 's something real important that we ’re going to want
to continue to develop and keep in place now that the project is going to be done with
some more open access times. as well as maybe some otherfuture training.

CEO: Well I thought it would be a good thing. but I didn ’t think that it would have such a
huge impact on them. I think it has definitelyjust increased their confidence and
increased their knowledge. I think they feel empowered and that ’5 what Living Water is
all about. Empowerment, giving people knowledge and life skills so that they can
maintain their recovery and develop themselves personally. So I think it ’s been huge, I
mean much more than I anticipated. The things that they were able to accomplish I think
they just felt so good about it and maybe those are the little things that some ofus take

172

 

for granted. But just the ability to log on and have an email address and email Obama.
Those are huge, big steps in their lives.

CEO: Well I think that they have felt more infbrmed by the information that they ’ve found
on certain websites that they now are instituting into their daily life and checking out
certain sites to get information about news and current events, things that they’re
interested in. They’ve been able to connect with people and communicate in a different
way and on a different level. I think it 's helping them to develop, even like we’ve talked
about, the fine motor skills and things that they haven ’t had to do before, so those are
same examples.

CEO: one of our peer staff and she was so excited toﬁnally get her email to me. That
has deﬁnitely been helpful, especially with having two different locations and the fact that
I’m not always at the house. I 'm more often at the other location whereas the peer staff
is more often at the outreach center. That ’s deﬁnitely been a plusfor us to be able to
communicate things and we haven’t been able to do that before. I ’d say that I don ’t know
tons, like 70% of my communications with people, maybe even higher, other people that I
connect with as the executive director is through email so to be able to do that now with
my staff my volunteer peer staff, is going to increase the efﬁciency and effectivenessfor
our organization.

 

CEO: I think it also increases our ability to respond to our population '5' needs because
it’s deﬁnitely something that they ’re wanting and they ’re real hungry to get that I don’t
think they ’re, ﬁnding in other places. There may be points in the community where they
can access a computer, like the library or some other organizations, but they really need
the support to be able to do that so I think it '1] help us as an organization respond more
effectively to the identiﬁed needs (if our clients.

In the future, the director would like to see increased access to technology for her
clients and staff, in addition to a regular schedule for computer training. She commented
that it may be possible to incorporate technology use questions into the intake
information gathered about her new clients. This information would be used to
understand the client’s use of technology.

CEO: I think if we had the staffing levels and more ofa structure within our organization
in terms of providing the staffing that we could offer more open access times to support

the training. I think that ’s been happening infarmally now that they have come in during
some of our walk in times, but there really isn ’t the structure or the support there to make

it a technology open access time. I’ve heardfrom the women that’s something they really
want so I guess that would be another thing.

173

CEO: Well 1 would like to see this project continue in a way that there is periodic
trainings that are offered maybe at different points in time, even maybe quarterly
throughout the year. And that we staff open access times and kind of get them set up on a
schedule through our outreach center so that they can come in and use the computers,

but also receive technical support because 1 think that comes upfrequently. So it would
be hard to do open access without having somebody there that can guide them along.
And have the training that ’s offered be an entry level one, but then there may also be
another training that is a continuation for people that have gone through the basic
portion like the group that are completing now so that they can go to a next step or a next
level.

CEO: And maybe we can incorporate some of the assessment that was done in the
beginning before the project started so that if we are encountering women that are
moderate users or power users maybe their first training wouldn ’t necessarily be the
entry level one, but they could go to a higher level one based upon their skill and
experience.
CEO: Well I mentioned before that [agency] is strongly about empowerment, that’s one
of our core values and I think that 's basically what our mission is about for our clients.
This project has really totally operationalized thatfor them in a different way than we
have done in the past so that they are being given skills and their self esteem is
increasing, their conﬁdence. They are being prepared with life skills that they have not
had before to accomplish goals and things that they need to do because of their
involvement with other systems, but alsojust personal goals for their recovery and their
self development. So it’s very interwoven into our mission and that ’s been kind of a
surprise to me because I really didn ’t see it that way until at the beginning of the project.
Archival Data

The use ofarchival data such as expense and revenue reports provided a method
for analyzing the costs allocated for this intervention. These reports. along with
information provided by the agency director during her interview, formed the basis of the
cost analysis.

Based on information gathered through an interview with the director, although
the intent was to provide agency staffing for the twelve computer training hours and
during weekly open computer use times. several factors discussed in Chapter Six altered

this plan. Therefore. the director provided staffing support for this project. This support

was indirect in nature and consisted of opening and closing the facility. overseeing

174

in

lc‘r

hardware repairs, and overseeing operation of the facility. The director estimates that she
dedicated ten hours over the course of the eight weeks to supporting the project. At her
typical hourly rate of$29.00 per hour, the total staffing cost was $290.00. Additionally.
several of the line items for this project did not have a cost attached because the resource
was either donated or involved the use of a volunteer. This was true for the actual facility
space, which was donated by a nearby church; technical support, which was provided by
a church volunteer: and the donated computer hardware and software used in this study.
In order to show the potential cost of this intervention volunteer cost and the cost of
donated resources were estimated.

Agency expenses for the eight weeks consisted primarily of food and beverages,
and utilities. The cost for the food and beverages was $100.00. The cost for the portion of
the utilities allocated to this project was 18 hours or .06% of the total hours the facility
operated during the eight-week period. Therefore, the portion of the utility cost assigned
to the project was $44.00. For this phase of the study there was no transportation cost.
Participants either walked to the training sessions or found their own transportation.
There was no cost for the trainers because their time was donated. However, since future
trainings would likely have a fee associated with the trainers’ time. therefore a cost was
included in this analysis. The trainer cost is based on an estimated rate of$15.00 per
hour. This fee is slightly higher than the rate paid for student IT support at a local
University. The researcher recorded 12 hours of training time and the RA recorded 16.5
hours for a total of28.5 hours at a rate of$15.00 per hour. The total cost for the project
was $3021.50. Table 17 shows the cost allocated to this program for the eight-week

period.

 

Table 17: Intervention Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stafﬁng Trainers Space Tech Utilities Food Equipment
Suppon
$29.00 $15.00 Donated Volunteer 06% of $100 Donated
x10 hours x 12 hrs $0 $0 $395 x 2 $0

Estimate: Estimate: months Estimate:

$15.00 $100 per $20.00 3 desktop

x 16.5 month x 8 hrs computers
x2 =$200 $160 $600.00 ea. 1

$290 $427.50 $200.00 $160.00 $44.00 $100. $1,800.00 Total 1? " .

00 $3021.50 g
1.

Chapter Summary

 

Presented in the chapter were the findings from the eight-week computer training
and open access time for the participants. In total the participants spent twelve hours in
hands on computer training and four hours during open computer use time with technical
support present. Four participants attended all eight sessions. Based on training
observations and a post—training interview. the participants were very satisﬁed with the
experience. In general. the participants expressed an increased frequency of computer use
outside of the training as well as increased confidence in their ability to use a computer.
The participants expressed feelings ofjoy. excitement, pride and an overall sense of
empowerment as a result of the computer training experience. This was evident by the
perfect attendance at the trainings and confirmed in the statements by the executive
director.

From the agency perspective. the director was surprised at the positive effect the
training had on the participants. The director described the training as ﬁtting within the
agency’s mission of empowering its clients. Further. based on this project the director

was considering ways to elevate the agency‘s technology needs on their overall priority

176

an.

list. Overall, agency costs was $3021.50 for the eight-week intervention. Chapter 8

provides an in-depth discussion of the study ﬁndings.

I77

 

31
Ill

MPH» m ...I.

irrLl r n l o. .r.1

r r r. ﬁrvl .-b .u“ r... 1d

14. n ‘IN D. l 1w P ..1 . .. .— S... I I .

\i . . i“ 11. ..m c t ..4..
.. .

CHAPTER EIGHT
Discussion and Implications
This chapter provides a discussion of the ﬁndings from Chapter Seven, followed
by a discussion of the overall study ﬁndings and implications. The discussion of the
Phase II ﬁndings are organized around the model used to evaluate the agency’s
intervention, Cost Procedure Process Outcome Analysis [CPPOA] (Yates, 1996). The l ‘1
implications section provides a discussion of the importance of the ﬁndings in

relationship to the NASW and ASWB Standards for Technology and Social Work r A

 

Practice (2005), digital inclusion from the perspective of the study participants and the
agency, the strengths and limitations of this type of intervention model, and the overall
limitations of this study.
Discussion of Phase II Findings

As discussed in Chapter Six, the participants in this study were provided an
opportunity to take part in an eight-week basic computer training and arranged open
access times in which they could use agency computers. The following section presents a
discussion of the ﬁndings from Chapter Seven arranged around the CPPOA model.

Cost

According to Yates (1996), examining the cost of resources as a part of program
evaluation can provide the agency leadership with valuable information from which they
can decide the direction of the program. Analysis of the costs of the intervention provided
in this study shows two primary themes. First, noticeable in the data was the agency’s
reliance on donations and other outside support that provided considerable cost savings

for the program. For example. the agency space where the intervention took place was

178

 

w

153

lard

lid

ll");
“ Ll;

donated, as well as all of the hardware used by the participants. Therefore the actual
intervention cost for this agency was fairly low. Second, while the donated hardware
lowered the overall cost of the intervention, frequent computer crashes, limited processor
speed, and outdated software were challenges to having a successful intervention. The
use of donated hardware also meant that the agency was unable to have input into the
hardware speciﬁcations or request features that would best meet their population’s needs.
Additionally, the volunteer arrangement for tech support meant that the calls for
assistance lacked a predictable response. F inally, the agency was only able to implement
to a limited degree making open access time available to the participants. In fact, rather
than the intended twelve-hours-per-week, only six-hours of open access time was
available during the entire eight-week period because of a stafﬁng shortage. Having staff
available for regular open-access hours each week would have increased the overall cost
of the intervention, but likely would. have beneﬁted the participants.

Procedures

In terms of the procedures used for this intervention, the agency did provide each
participant with a copy of a generic acceptable use policy. This policy was not tailored to
the needs of the agency. In fact, the agency director reported,
T o be totally honest I think it was just copied off the Internet ﬁ'om some other
organizations or something that was Googled and found by one of our volunteer staff so
it was not real specifically adapted to [the agency]. ”
The use of a policy that was not tailored to the participants’ knowledge, skill and literacy
level may in part explain the participants’ confusion over the meaning of the acceptable

use policy. Additionally, the lack of written policies about computer use procedures, such

as what to do in the event of a crash, was evident as well as the absence of a procedure

179

 

for monitoring the participants’ use of the computers. The agency director acknowledged
that if they were to do this again. she would have the agency better prepared.

Process

The intervention process as described in Chapter Six involved the use of open-
access computer times and a structured eight-week computer training. One of the themes
found as result of this intervention was the need to have intensive support available for
the participants as they worked to increase their computer skills. For women in this
group, intensive support meant a low student-to-trainer ratio and the need for the trainer
to be physically accessible at all times. Ideally this support should be available each time
the participants used the computer, including open-access times. Agency stafﬁng support
during open access times would have expanded the opportunities for the participants to
practice their skills.

As discussed earlier, open access times had to be scheduled in advance to insure
access to the facility and the availability of support. Typically, open access times
involved the executive director or a peer support staff opening the facility. During the six
hours of open access time available to the participants, the research assistant (RA)
provided the onsite support. Having assistance available during these times provided
support for the participants continued practice using technology. In fact, for one
participant who was accessing computers off-site, the lack of technical support led to her
not being able to check e-mail for over a week, despite daily attempts to do so. When
support was available at the next open access time. the problem was found to be a simple

ﬁx.

180

 

 

a.
a.“ V,

‘3‘; E

Fortunately, this participant remained positive about her use of technology and continued
her participation in the intervention.

The computer training process itself was found to be very helpful according to the
participants. The elements of the training that appeared most beneﬁcial for the
participants were the low trainer/participant ratio, individualized training goals, and the
use of hands-on training techniques. During the post training interviews the participants
spoke highly of the immediate support they received when needed. Similarly, for three of
the four regular participants the use of hands-on training techniques allowed them to
replicate at home and at other access locations the skills they learned in the training. It
was noted above that two of the participants had home computers but were unable to use
them easily. One participant required support from a son, and the other participant was
not able to go beyond her homepage. After the training, both participants were able to use
their home computers as well as computers at other access points. This ability to replicate
their computer skills in multiple locations was an important milestone for the
participants.

For the participants, the individualized training allowed them a sense of control
over the training environment, and it supported their active involvement in the training
process. Asking the women what they wanted to learn each Week seemed to have
accomplished two goals: ﬁrst, it empowered the participants to take ownership over the
process, and second, it facilitated learning activities designed to meet each participant’s
unique needs. This process may explain why the participants felt a strong sense of
accomplishment at the conclusion of the training. In fact. one participant was adamant

about receiving a certiﬁcate of completion.

181

It should be noted that there was little input from the participants during the ﬁrst
two sessions. As the participants became more comfortable with the training process,
they became more active in guiding the direction of the training. For example, the initial
training plan was to work with the participants on establishing e-mail accounts during the
fourth or ﬁfth week of the training. However, because of the excitement generated by one
participant during session two over establishing her e—mail account, the other participants
wanted to work on getting their own accounts during session three. Similarly, during
session six, one participant wanted to register to vote online for the upcoming presidential
election. Eventually two participants were able to register online and one participant
completed all but the ﬁnal step of the online registration process.

Outcomes

The ﬁnal step of the CPPOA is to examine the outcomes of the program or
intervention (Thyer, 2001; Yates, 1996). This study examined intervention outcomes in
four areas: increased computer access, increased computer skills, perceived
empowerment, and the intervention’s impact on the agency. Each of these areas will be
discussed in detail.

Computer Access

Based on the ﬁndings from Phase 1, regular physical access to technology as well
as low participant skill level were barriers to technology use. In response to these
concerns the intervention was designed to increase physical access to technology and
increase the participants’ skill level. With regard to the former, the intervention did show
an increase in the physical access to technology for the participants. During post

intervention interviews all of the participants described an increase in their access and use

182

of technology. Additionally, the participants’ interview statements were corroborated by
the baseline and four-week survey data. Table I4 — 16 and Figure 19 show the
comparison of baseline and follow-up survey results.

Computer Skill Development

Along with the increase in computer access found in this study, the participants
also reported increases in their perception of their computer skill level. This perceived
gain in computer skills was reported throughout the actual computer training and the

post-training interview, and this perceived gain was conﬁrmed by the analysis of baseline

 

and week four survey. Together, this information paints a clear picture of the
participants’ perceived increase in computer skills. For example, Figure 19 shows the
change in the participants’ perception of their abilities from the baseline survey and after
four weeks of training.

Additionally, the perceived increase in computer skill level was followed by
increased access to computers outside of the training times, such as open use times. As
was discussed earlier, the lack of agency stafﬁng forced the open use times to be
scheduled in advance. The ﬁrst request for an open use time did not come until after the
fourth session which coincides with the participants’ ﬁrst report of increased computer
skills via the four week survey. More than a coincidence, this suggests that the perceived
growth in computer skills (computer self-efﬁcacy) was a likely inﬂuencing factor in the
desire for additional computer use.

From a group perspective, the participants were instrumental in supporting each
other toward the goal of increasing their computer skills. While the training participants

were familiar with each other prior to the training, the level of cohesion among the

183

members appeared to grow each session. The group celebrated as members completed
tasks each session and provided support for each other when tasks became difﬁcult.
Although there was little formal training support exchanged between the members, the
peer modeling and encouragement seems to have added positively to the learning
environment.

Empowerment

T‘

As the participants became more conﬁdent about their computer skills, they were

able to move beyond basic navigation and search skills to more interactive activities.

“11“" ID

These activities, such as contacting former friends through classmates.com; e-mailing
each other; or contacting elected ofﬁcials, seemed to lead to feelings of personal
empowerment. This was clearly evident when the ﬁrst participant was able to establish
her personal e-mail account. For this participant as well as the others, having a personal
e-mail account represented a connection to a world beyond the boundaries of their
immediate surroundings. This accomplishment was celebrated and was the envy of the
group. The other participants demanded to get their personal e-mail accounts the
following week.

Additionally, the importance of having an e-mail account was demonstrated
through the participants’ persistence in trying to login to their accounts. As discussed in
Chapter Seven, logging in to an e-mail account was an exhaustive activity for all the
participants. Despite the frustration felt by the participants and trainers, the women
worked at logging on each week, which is an indicator of the symbolic importance of

having a personal e-mail account. The importance of having an e-mail account for the

184

participants did not go unnoticed by the director who reported that the women felt
empowered as a result of the training. She further stated,
The things that they were able to accomplish I think they just felt so good about it and

maybe those are the little things that some of us take for granted. But just the ability to
log on and have an email address and email Obama. Those are huge, big steps in their

life.

Indeed, having a personal e-mail account and the skill to send and receive e-mails
independently was the centerpiece of the training experience for the participants. While
the researches knew having a personal e-mail account was important, the emphasis
placed on the acquisition of an e-mail account by the participants was unanticipated.

Agency Impact

The agency in this study was impacted in three primary ways. First, the agency
learned that its mission of “empowering” the women coming to them for assistance could
in part be achieved through the development and utilization of applicable technology
skills. Second, the agency learned an alternative way to communicate with and engage its
target population in positive recovery-oriented activities. Third, the agency learned that
although its funding is limited, it is important to devote attention to the development of a
technology plan that includes the creation and support of an adequate technology
infrastructure for staff and clients.

According to the agency director, the mission of the agency is to “empower” the
women served. She further characterized this empowerment as extending beyond
recovery from chemical addiction and including every area of the participants’ lives. To
this end, the director thought this study would provide a good opportunity for the women
to have exposure to a new area, technology. What she did not anticipate was the level of

enthusiasm and excitement experienced by the women and the sense of accomplishment

185

 

expressed by the participants. The director commented that this experience was consistent

 

with the agency mission of empowerment and acknowledged her surprise at how well the
use of technology ﬁt into the agency’s overall goals.

As with any human service agency, the importance of communication between
staff and clients cannot be overstated (Hackler & Saxton, 2007). Interestingly, this study
led to increased communication between the director and the participants, one of whom ,1
functions as a volunteer peer-staff. This communication took place via e-mail beginning

approximately in the fourth week of the training and extended through the entire training

 

period. As a result, the director reported increased communication with her volunteer

 

staff without the need to travel between the two agency sites. In fact, the case at which
the director has been able to communicate with the women has led her to consider adding
questions to the agency initial assessment forrrr with the goal of developing a technology
proﬁle for each new client. From this proﬁle she hoped the staff would understand the
best way to communicate with their clients as well as their technology training needs.
Such a change in perspective was not anticipated when the project was approved.
Finally, this study has highlighted the agency’s need for an investment in their
technology infrastructure. The agency’s reliance on donated hardware and software
proved to be problematic during this study. The unreliability of the computers from
session to session made it difﬁcult to plan for activities and often caused participants to
have limited time using the computers. F urther, the outdated software (Windows 98 and
Windows 2000) and slower processor speeds on the computers, limited the ability of

participants to experience some of the Web’s interactive capabilities. In addition,

186

features such as flash video were difficult to download and view based on the available
hardware and software.
Equally important was the fact that when there was a computer breakdown there
was no provision for technical support to correct the problem. While some assistance was
available from a church volunteer, the process for contacting this individual was unclear
and response time was uncertain. As the agency grows and comes to utilize additional
technology, delays in receiving technical assistance could greatly hamper agency Lﬂ

functioning and ultimately services to the women. The director herself noted that

r
- l

addressing the technology infrastructure should be a signiﬁcant priority for the agency in
the ﬁiture.
Theoretical Implications

While the impact of technology on our society is indisputable, the impact of
technology on vulnerable populations is an area that requires additional exploration. For
the social work profession, understanding barriers to technology use for vulnerable
populations can lead to the design of empowerment strategies to lessen the impact of the
digital divide. This study provides an initial exploration into the identiﬁcation of digital
barriers and the thoughts and feelings of members of one vulnerable population toward
the use of technology. Additionally, this study provides a preliminary evaluation of one
intervention strategy designed to overcome the lack of access to computer hardware and
the lack of computer skills reported by the participants.
Implications for vulnerable populations

At the micro level, as discussed by Miller-Cribbs (2001), Schoech (2002),

Warschauer (2003) and others, vulnerable populations such as the one in this study

187

consisting of low-income, urban, ethnic minority women with behavioral disorders often
lack access to technology and the skill to utilize technology. However, this case study
adds to the literature two important points relative to the participants from Phase I and
Phase II.

1.) This vulnerable population was aware of their lack of access and lack of skill
and expressed feelings of anger and frustration at times during this study. While these
feelings were expressed in private, publicly this group has remained passive and
practically invisible within our vast digital culture despite having little choice about the
nature and scope of their technology use. As employers and welfare-to-work programs
require the completion of electronic employment applications, or as referral sources
direct them to websites to access community resources, this group passively attempts to
participate without having the necessary access or skills to use the technology.
Alternatively, when attempting to use technology, this group relies on their children and
other family members to assist in overcoming access and skill barriers.

The vulnerability of this population with regard to their technology use may in
part explain the low participation rate in phase 11. When we were talking about
technology there was interest from a majority of the agency’s clients. When we
progressed to actually using technology the rate of participation dropped signiﬁcantly. It
is quite possible that even in this “safe” environment attempting to use technology was
too great of a risk.

2.) Given the opportunity to access technology and increase their technological
skills, this group of four women showed a strong interest utilizing technology. For these

participants this interest led to a demonstrated willingness to engage in our digital culture.

188

 

 

 

provided that the terms of this involvement met their unique learning needs. As
mentioned previously, the need for intensive support, low trainer- to- student ratio, and
individualized curriculum were critical for this group. This ﬁnding is similar to the
ﬁndings of Sandberg, et al. (2005) who trained a Swedish population of individuals with
severe functional impairments to use the computer for empowerment and to facilitate

independence.

 

Implications for Intervention Design

At the mezzo and micro level, central to the agency’s ability to engage the

a...”

I4 ' _v .

Ir ‘
5;

participants in this intervention was the trusting relationship between the staff and the
participants. The participants commented throughout the study how they credit the
agency for turning their lives around and how much they trust the agency leadership.
Without this trusting relationship between the agency and the participants it is doubtful
that many of the women would have participated. In fact, even with a strong agency
relationship, two of the Phase II participants did not attend any of the training sessions
and one left the agency’s program. For those who did participate the training location
provided a place that represented comfort and trust (Sandberg, et. al, 2005). Once inside
the facility, the potluck style atmosphere where food was available as needed on the
dining room table provided for the basic needs of the participants and was viewed as an
acknowledgement of their hard work. This was particularly evident through the
comments of the group when the researcher provided the meal for the sessions. The
participants expressed gratitude that their needs had been considered.

As mentioned in Chapter Seven, the low participant-to-trainer ratio was another

important element of the training. This low ratio allowed the trainers to assist with

189

literacy issues, recognize visual impairments, and offer individual encouragement to the
participants. All of these features were mentioned by the participants in Phase I as things
that would make computer training valuable for them. Similarly, the demeanor of the
trainers was an important consideration. In a sense this can be equated to a cultural
competency about the training needs of the participants. For instance the Phase I
participants were clear that they did not want to be trained by someone who would yell at
them or make them feel inadequate. Even for the trainers in this study, it was challenging
to remain calm and patient as the participants struggled with tasks that most of us
complete with out much thought or effort. However, remaining patient was a priority for
the trainers and was discussed during each debrieﬁng session.

One aspect of the intervention that was lacking and interfered with the learning
process was the availability of up-to-date hardware/software. Simple issues from slow
processors that require signiﬁcant waits to load a webpage to frequent computer crashes
were a regular part of the intervention. For this vulnerable group, disruption in the
learning process was problematic. In fact, the group may have been able to progress
further had technical problems not limited the computer time for participants.

While open-access times in theory should be enough to assist Moderate users and
possibly Non users, this study found that both of these groups required assistance as they
worked to improve their computer skills. Consistent with the ﬁndings of Sandberg et a1.
(2005) there is always a need for onsite support to facilitate the learning process and to
encourage the participants’ use of technology.

Further, the process of ﬁnding ways to address digital barriers will inevitably lead

to an internal examination of agency policies, procedures, and resources. As found in this

190

 

.1

study, the lack of attention to the technology infrastructure and the lack of technology
resources quickly became apparent. This internal examination goes beyond having the
latest hardware and software. For instance, even if the agency had been able to provide
up-to-date hardware and software, increasing the volume of computer users would likely
have led to greater need for repairs and computer maintenance which was often
unavailable. Additionally, the development of policies for non-employees without
limiting access to electronic resources for clients is a challenging proposition. For
example, several of the Phase I participants commented that computer use time limited to
one hour as a barrier for accessing the computers at the local public library given their
perceived low skill level and the amount of time it took to use the public transportation
system. While the library’s goal is to make sure everyone has access to the computers, for
this population the policy effect was to exclude them from this community resource. Of
equal importance to having adequate time to use the computer is the need for intensive
user support, which is often unavailable in public libraries.

Other considerations at the agency level are the development and implementation
of staff training about the use of technology, and discussion about their responsibilities
with regard to digital interactions with the population they serve. This is especially true
for the use of e-mail but should include text messaging and social networking sites as
well (Finn & Krysik, 2007). Outlining who responds to electronic communication from
clients, when they should respond, and how often to respond would assist staff in
developing appropriate boundaries within the context of their responsibilities. As Finn

and Krysik (2007) discuss, staff should have the ability to distinguish between solicited

191

 

and unsolicited e-mail and respond within the parameters of the agency policy and the
NASW Code of Ethics (1999) to electronic correspondence.

At the macro level communities and governments should be aware of the potential
of technology to empower some groups while at the same time disenfranchising others.
The assumption that if a community offers computer access through public libraries or
schools then access issues are greatly reduced for vulnerable populations was not the
experience of participants in this case study. From a policy perspective, ﬁnding ways to
invest in the technological infrastructure of trusted sites that vulnerable populations
regularly use, such as treatment providers, may be an effective approach.

From a funding perspective the recognition of providing access and training to
vulnerable populations as a reimbursable treatment support service would provide
incentive for providers to offer such services. Additionally, as provider and client
electronic interactions increase there is a need for licensing regulations to evolve in order
to keep pace. Current regulations that require practitioners to be licensed in each state in
order to deliver services ethically to a resident of that state, do not take into consideration
client self-determination. This state-by-state limit does not exist in medicine, for
example. The requirement for physicians to be licensed in each state does not prohibit
you and me from going to Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic to receive services. For
vulnerable populations who may lack the resources to travel physically the lntemet offers
them one option to receive the care of their choice.

While the responsibility for the digital divide does not rest with the social work
profession alone, it is clearly the role of social workers to advocate with other systems

and legislatures to lessen this barrier to full participation in society. Whether access

192

occurs through human service agencies or through public kiosks sites is less important
than the fact that vulnerable populations need access to this resource to prevent falling
further behind.

Implications for Research

Poor ethnic minority women in various stages of recovery from chemical
addiction represent a unique subset of our population. The ﬁndings from this case study
may not be representative of all women receiving substance use services or even all
ethnic minority women receiving substance use services. However, the ﬁndings from this
study do represent one agency’s struggle to understand how their clients’ lives are
affected by the lack of access to technology and how the agency may intervene to lessen
the digital divide. Much like the vulnerable population in this study, there are other
populations such as older adults, residents of rural areas, children, and others who
without the access and skills to facilitate a digital connection to education, employment,
and other community resources will likely become even more vulnerable (Bakardjieva,
2003; Blaschke, et al., 2009; Hick, 2006; Miller-Cribbs, 2001).

As a researcher, the opportunity to have a small glimpse into the world of these
women and to share their story was a tremendous honor. While there are many occasions
where large sample sizes that are generalizable into a broader context are valuable, there
are also times where small sample sizes that have limited generalizability can provide a
rich array of ﬁndings from which other research may grow. For this researcher this study
has deepened the belief that the digital divide represents a social justice issue which the
profession of social work has a responsibility to address through the tools at our disposal.

The need for a compilation of evidenced based practices for social work professionals

I93

and agencies to assist in bridging the digital divide while fulﬁlling our professional
mission is apparent in the literature and throughout this study.

Future research in this area should include an examination of the current digital
interactions between social workers and their clients, the use of human service agencies
as access points for their clients’ technology needs, and the availability of web-based
content suited to the needs of vulnerable populations. Along with these areas of study
comes the need to develop policies and procedures to guide the profession.

Consistent with the above research needs this researcher is currently in discussion

 

about a replication of Phase II with participants enrolled in a larger outpatient substance
use and mental health provider. After this larger replication, the next study would
examine how the profession could utilize emerging technology such as GIS mapping,
Twitter, Second Life, Care Pages, and other ICTs to empower vulnerable populations.
For example, can Twitter be used to support victims of domestic violence or be used to
support neighborhood safety? The focus of this research agenda will be on better
integration of technology into social direct practice.
Implications for Social Work Practice and Education

As was found in the ﬁrst phase of this study, there was a gap between the staff
perception of access to technology for the participants and the reality of their access to
technology. This overly optimistic assessment by staff led to the assumption that the
participants used technology at greater frequencies than they actually did and the belief
that the range of technology related activities was greater than it actually was for the
participants. This disconnect facilitated the agency’s continued focus on providing

services without considering the level of disenfranchisement experienced by the

194

 

 

participants as a result of their lack of access to technology and the lack of skill to utilize
technology. For the staff of this agency, developing an awareness of the participants’
needs led to an effort to empower the participants by assisting in bridging the digital
divide. The staff efforts were consistent with the NASW and ASWB (2005) standards for
technology in social work practice which among other things directs social workers to
make efforts to secure their own technology access as well as access to technology on
behalf of their clients (Standards number two and nine). [W

While the results of this case study should not be generalized beyond the

 

population of focus in the study, it does raise questions for social workers to consider
with regard to the populations they are currently serving. For example, how has the
population you serve been affected by technology? Do they have access to technology?
Do they possess the skills to use technology? What methods have you used to address
digital barriers on behalf of those you serve? Finding answers to these questions is
becoming increasingly important as community resources become available online
(Martin & Robinson, 2007). As Martin and Robison (2007) discuss, it is not only the fact
that vulnerable populations lack access to electronic resources, it is also the fact that other
segments of the population do have access, and beneﬁt from this access. which places
these populations at an increasing disadvantage.

From an educational perspective it is imperative that new generations of social
workers have an understanding of the important role technology can play in the
empowerment of their clients, and how to use electronic communication ethically in a
helping relationship (McFall& Freddolino, 2008). This means that schools of social work

will need to incorporate into courses information necessary for students to become

195

digitally competent social workers. For example, when teaching group therapy techniques
the inclusion of electronic support groups and process groups should be discussed with
attention to standards and ethical dilemmas. Alternatively, macro courses discussing
advocacy techniques should include electronic advocacy as one method to achieve policy
change. The infusion of technology information into the foundation of social work

training requires that universities take deliberate steps to develop technology competent

 

faculty and staff.

T‘l

Limitations of the Study

igJZr-T

This study, like others, has its strengths and limitations. As with any case study,
the generalizability is most often limited to the group or subgroup participating in the
study (Dudley, 2005; Richards, 2006). This study is no exception in that it is not
generalizable to all women in recovery. However, the study does accurately reﬂect the
experiences of one small Midwest, substance use provider and their clientele. Further, the
method of qualitative inquiry, in which the researcher is one of the instruments, poses
challenges for other researchers attempting to replicate the study and for reliability and
trustworthiness. Given the nature of the topic and the research questions guiding the
study. this researcher chose a qualitative methodology as the best approach to lend a
voice to the experiences of this population. To address reliability and trustworthiness
issues, reﬂexive memo writing and the use of a second coder was employed throughout
the study (Dudley, 2005; LaRossa, 2005; Richards, 2006).

Additionally, with community-based research there are inherent difﬁculties
(Thyer, 2001). Often the natural setting can be unpredictable, requiring adjustments to the

methodology (Thyer, 2001; Silverman, 2005). In the case of this study, an agency

I96

stafﬁng shortage limited the amount of open access time available to the participants. It is
unknown how the participants would have utilized additional open access times and the
impact this increased computer time might have had on the study ﬁndings. As discussed
previously, outdated computer hardware and software limited some of the activities the
participants could learn and practice on the computer, and shortened the time on the

computer for some participants.

Conclusion

In the context of providing services to vulnerable populations it is easy to remain
focused on providing evidenced based practices that relieve immediate suffering or
provide a foundation for additional growth. However, if these services are provided
without recognition that other barriers such as the digital divide are affecting those we
serve then we are missing a valuable opportunity for empowerment. As ICTs continue to
evolve, access will become synonymous with power and knowledge (Martin & Robinson.
2007)

Interestingly, a recent Pew Internet American Life study surveyed lntemet experts
and found signiﬁcant support for the prediction that by 2020, the telephone will be the
primary lntemet device world wide (Retrieved from www.pewintemet.com on December
20, 2008). As was found in this study, access to the lntemet via the cell phone was far
less available to these participants than access to a computer with an lntemet connection.
If this prediction comes true then the gap will continue to widen, leaving vulnerable
populations further behind in income, education, political involvement, and community
participation. If the one of the primary goals of social work is the empowerment of

vulnerable populations then we must ﬁnd effective ways to assist those we serve in

197

bridging the digital divide (NASW, 1999). As stated in Social Work Speaks, “Social
work practice must shape and be shaped by exponential growth of information

technology” (NASW, 2006. p.359).

 

198

 

APPENDICES

I99

APPENDIX A

Participant Survey Phase — I

Participant Technologz Survey
This survey is an exploration into your use of technology. Please take a moment to tell us
about yourself and the technology you currently use. The information you provide will be
conﬁdential. Your responses to this survey will be combined with the information
provided by other participants and reported in aggregate. This survey will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

Do you own or have access to one or more of the following devices?
(Please check all that apply)

 

Technology Devices

I own

Use through
Friends/Family

Use through Library or
Public Sources

No Access

 

Computer: Laptop or
Desktop

1:1

1:1

1:1

El

 

Computer with lntemet
Access

 

Cell Phone

 

Cell Phone with Text
Messaging

 

Cell Phone with lntemet
Access

 

I-Pod or MP3 Player

 

PDA

 

Digital Cable

 

 

Satellite Television

 

DDDDDDDD

 

DDDDDDDD

 

 

DDDDDDDD

DEIDEIEIEIEIEI

 

 

(Please check all that apply)

2. Please tell us how often you use the following functions?

 

Technology
Functions Used

Daily

Weekly

Every
Other
Week

Monthly Yearly

No
Use

 

lntemet/ Websites

1:1

1:1

1:1

 

Text Messaging

 

E-mail

 

Make Cellular
Calls

 

Watch Digital
Television

 

 

Watch Satellite
Television

 

DECIDE

 

DECIDE

 

DECIDE]

 

 

DECIDE]
[312113131]

 

DDDDD

 

 

200

' “2]
. R'-

‘1.
i

 

3. For what purpose do you typically use technology? (Please check all that apply)

DTo seek housing EITo seek employment
EITo seek health related information CITo purchase goods or services

DTo keep in touch with friends or relatives EIFor information or education

[:ITo meet new people |:IT0 seek support or offer support
1:] For entertainment 1:] For gaming
DOther:

 

Demographic Information:
4. Ethnic Background:
[:lEuropean American 1:] African American [:1 Latin American
1:1 Asian American E] Native American D Multi-ethnic 1:] Other
5. Highest Grade Completed:
DMiddle School [:1 High School DGED DCollege
6. Current Living Arrangement:
D Renting [:1 Own my home DLive with relatives DLive with friend

DHomeless DLive in shelter DOther:

 

7. Are you receiving any of the following services: (Please check all that apply)
[:lMedicaid DMedicare ElFood Stamps [Section 8 DSSI-D
EINot receiving any of the above services

8. Age Range:

Age: 18 — 24 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55 yrs or older
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 D

9. Estimated Annual Income:

$0 - $10, 000 $1 1, 000 — $20, 000 $21,000 — $30, 000 Above $30, 000
1:1 1:1 1:1 1]

 

 

As a follow up to this survey, we will be conducting small focus groups on this topic.
These focus groups will be held at this same location. Participants completing the focus
group process will be given a $10 Meijer gift card as a token of our appreciation.
Would you be interested in participating in a small group discussion about your
technology habits? DYes DNO

If yes, please provide us with your contact information. (Please print)

Name: Phone Number:

 

 

 

Thank you for completing this survey.

R)
O
Ix)

 

 

This survey is an exploration into your perception of client use of technology. Please take
a moment to tell us about the technology you currently use and your perception of client

use of technology. The information you provide will be conﬁdential. Your responses to

Staff Perception ofClient Technology Use Survey

APPENDIX B

this survey will be combined with the information provided by other participants and

reported in aggregate. This survey will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.

1. Personal Technology Use

1.

Do you personally own one or more of the following devices?

(Please check all that apply)

 

Technology Devices

I own

Use through
Friends/ Family

Use through Library
or Public Sources

No Access

 

Computer: Laptop or
Desktop

1:1

1:1

1:1

[I

 

Computer with lntemet
Access

 

Cell Phone

 

Cell Phone with Text
Messaging

 

Cell Phone with lntemet
Access

 

I-Pod or MP3 Player

 

PDA

 

Digital Cable

 

 

Satellite Television

 

 

DDDDDDDD

DDEIDCIDEID

 

DDDDDDDD

 

DDDDDDDD

 

 

2. Please tell us how often you use the following functions? (Please check all that

apply)

 

Technology

Functions Used Darly

Weekly

Every Other
Week

Monthly

Yearly

No
Use

 

a. lntemet/Websites D

1:1

1:1

[3

E1

13

 

b. Text Messaging

 

c. E-mail

 

a. Make Cellular

Calls

 

b. Watch Digital

Television

 

 

c. Watch Satellite

[31:11:11]

 

Television

DUDE

 

13131312113

 

 

DBL—.1121

 

[11:11:11]

1:113le113

 

 

 

w Ana-nu: ar—

 

3. For what purpose do you typically use the Technology? (Please check all that

apply)
[:lTo seek housing DTo seek employment
[:]To seek health related information DTO purchase goods or services

EITo keep in touch with friends or relatives EIFor information or education

DTo meet new people DTo seek support or offer support
1:] For entertainment E] For gaming
DOther: "

 

4. How would you rate your level of experience with technology using a scale from

1 pram-nun... r!
3 ’ a

one to ﬁve?

1 2 3 4 5
No Some Signiﬁcant
Experience Experience Experience

11. Staff Perception of Client Technology Use
5. What percentage of your clients own a computer, PDA, or cell phone with

lntemet capability? (Circle one)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

6. What percentage of your clients have access to a computer, PDA, or cell phone
with lntemet capability through ﬁ'iends or family? (Circle one)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7. What percentage of your clients have used the lntemet at a public site such as a
library, community agency or religious organization? (Circle one)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8. What percentage of your clients use the lntemet weekly? (Circle one)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

9. For what purpose do your clients use the lntemet? (Please check all that apply)

 

[:ITo seek housing [ITO seek employment

[:lTo seek health related information I:ITo purchase goods or services

EITo keep in touch with friends or relatives 1:]To seek information or education

 

[:lTo meet new people [:lTo seek support or offer support
[:lFor Entertainment DOther:
9. Have you ever referred a client to a website? [:1 Yes [:1 No

If yes, please describe the nature of this website or list the site’s URL.

 

 

 

10. Using a scale from one to ﬁve how would you rate the impact of technology on E
your clients’ lives? (Please circle one) I

r 2 3 4 5 g
No Some Signiﬁcant
Impact Impact Impact

11. Using a scale from one to ﬁve how important is it for your clients to use

technology?
1 2 3 4 5
Not Somewhat Extremely
Important Important Important

12. Is there anything else you would like to tell. us about clients’ use of technology?

 

 

 

 

205

 

As a follow up to this survey, we will be conducting small focus groups on this topic.
These focus groups will be held at this same location. Would you be interested in
participating in a small group discussion about your clients’ technology habits?

[:1Yes DNo

If yes. please provide us with your contact information. (Please print)

Name: Phone Number:

 

 

Please place the completed survey in the envelope provided and leave it on the table. en.

Thank you for completing this survey!

 

206

 

APPENDIX C
Non-user Focus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to come together for this focus
group discussion about the role technology plays in your life. The discussion will
probably take about 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this focus group is to
understand your use or non-use of technologies such as computers, cell phones that
connect to the lntemet. PDAs, and Text messaging devices. One potential beneﬁts of this
research will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the use of
technology. You will not be identiﬁed by name or recognizable in any way in the report I
prepare. You participation or lack of participation will in no way effect the services you
receive through Living Water, Inc. You may end your participation at any time.

The focus group process will involve me asking you a question about technology, your
use of technology and/or you views about this technology. We will spend enough time on
each question to ensure that everyone has a chance to share their droughts.

Are there any questions before we begin?

1. On your initial survey you indicated that you did not own a computer or other device
with lntemet Access. Are there reasons you do not own one of these devices? If so,
what are those reasons?

Have you ever owned one of these devices?

Would you like to someday own one of these devices?

What steps would you take to obtain one of these devices?

How would owning one of these devices impact your life?

How do you feel about not owning one of these devices?

pp—pp‘p

2. If you wanted to use the lntemet what steps would you take to gain access?
a. What kind of assistance would you need to gain access, if any?

3. If you have not accessed the lntemet what are the primary reasons you have not used
the lntemet?

What role has lack of money played in this decision?

What role has lack of interest played in this decision?

What role have others played in your decision?

What role has lack of time played in your decision?

What role has lack of computer skills played in this decision?

EDP-99"!”

4. Are there activities that you would participate in through the lntemet if you
personally owned a computer or other type of connection device?
a. Social networking
b. Shopping
c. Gaming
(1. Education/training

207

‘ ‘ "WI-t
,.

 

e. Seek employment
f. News information
g. Health/wellness information

5. If you had to rate the impact of technology on your life, using a scale from 0 — 10
with zero representing no impact at all, the number ﬁve representing a moderate
impact, and the number ten representing a signiﬁcant impact; how would you rate the
impact of technology on your life?

6. Are there other things related to technology you would like to discuss?

If you are interested in learning more about technology or the Internet we have provided
you with a contact person at the public library and a list of programs that offer free
assistance with technology. Additionally, if you would like onsite training on computers

and technology, we will provide a free training for you.

Thank you for your participation in this project!

208

 

APPENDIX D
Moderate-user Focus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to come together for this focus
group discussion about the role technology plays in your life. The discussion will
probably take about 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this focus group is to
understand your use or non-use of technologies such as computers, cell phones that
connect to the lntemet. PDAs, and Text messaging devices. One potential beneﬁts of this
research will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the use of
technology. You will not be identiﬁed by name or recognizable in any way in the report I
prepare. You participation or lack of participation will in no way effect the services you
receive through Living Water, Inc. You may end your participation at any time.

The focus group process will involve me asking you a question about technology, your
use of technology and/or you views about this technology. We will spend enough time on
each question to ensure that everyone has a chance to share their thoughts.

Are there any questions before we begin?

1. On your initial survey you indicated that you did not own a computer or other device
with Internet Access, but that you had access from other locations. Are there reasons
you do not own one of these devices? If so, what are those reasons?

a. Have you ever owned one of these devices?

b. Would you like to someday own one of these devices?

c. What steps would you take to obtain one of these devices?
(1. How would owning one of these devices impact your life?
e. How do you feel about not owning one of these devices?

2. What happened the last time you attempted to access the lntemet? Did you ﬁnd what
you were looking for?

a. How has this experience shaped your attitude toward technology?
b. Are there ways this experience could have been better?
c. What type of site did you access?
3. What are the primary reasons you do not use the lntemet more frequently?
a. What role has lack of money played in this decision?
b. What role has lack of interest played in this decision?
c. What role have others played in your decision?
d. What role has lack of time played in your decision?
e. What role has lack of computer skills played in this decision?

4. If you had to rate the impact of technology on your life, using a scale from 0 - 10
with zero representing no impact at all, the number ﬁve representing a moderate
impact, and the number ten representing a signiﬁcant impact; how would you rate the
impact of technology on your life? Why?

5. What type lntemet activities or websites have social workers or other helping
professionals referred you to? Where these sites or activities helpful?

6. Are there other things related to technology you would like to discuss?

209

 

 

If you are interested in learning more about technology or the lntemet we have provided
you with a contact person at the public library and a list of programs that offer free
assistance with technology. Additionally, if you would like onsite training on computers
and technology, we will provide a free training for you.

Thank you for your participation in this project!

210

APPENDIX E
Power-user Focus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to come together for this focus
group discussion about the role technology plays in your life. The discussion will
probably take about 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this focus group is to
understand your use or non-use of technologies such as computers, cell phones that
connect to the lntemet, PDAs, and Text messaging devices. One potential beneﬁts of this
research will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the use of
technology. You will not be identiﬁed by name or recognizable in any way in the report I
prepare. You participation or lack of participation will in no way effect the services you
receive through Living Water, Inc. You may end your participation at any time.

The focus group process will involve me asking you a question about technology, your
use of technology and/or you views about this technology. We will spend enough time on
each question to ensure that everyone has a chance to share their thoughts.

Are there any questions before we begin?

1. What happened the last time you attempted to access the Internet? Did you ﬁnd what
you were looking for?
a. How has this experience shaped your attitude toward technology?
b. Are there ways this experience could have been better?
c. What type of site did you access?
2. What are the primary reasons you do not use the lntemet more frequently?
a. What role has lack of money played in this decision?
b. What role has lack of interest played in this decision?
c. What role have others played in your decision?
(I. What role has lack of time played in your decision?
e. What role has lack of computer skills played in this decision?
3. What types of websites are most useful to you?

Seek employment
News information
g. Health/wellness information

4. If you had to rate the impact of technology on your life, using a scale from O — 10
with zero representing no impact at all, the number ﬁve representing a moderate
impact, and the number ten representing a signiﬁcant impact; how would you rate the
impact of technology on your life? Why?

5. What type lntemet activities or websites have social workers or other helping
professionals referred you to? Where these sites or activities helpful?

a. Social networking
b. Shopping

c. Gaming

d. Education/training
e.

f.

211

It!" 5“]

r “I .
.'

 

 

6. Are there other things related to technology you would like to discuss?

If you are interested in learning more about technology or the lntemet we have provided
you with a contact person at the public library and a list of programs that offer free
assistance with technology. Additionally, if you would like onsite training on computers
and technology, we will provide a free training for you.

Thank you for your participation in this project!

 

212

 

APPENDIX F
Staﬂ Focus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. The
discussion today will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this
focus group is to discuss your perspective of client use or non-use of technologies such as
computers, cell phones that connect to the lntemet, PDAs, and Text messaging devices
and how your client’s perspective of the role of technology in their lives.

Your participation in this project is completely voluntary and you may end your
participation at anytime.

I. Are there ways in which this study has impacted your agency?

a. Have you or other staff discussed the use of technology?

b. Have your clients discussed the use of technology with you?

c. What are the pros or cons related to these kinds of discussions?
2. What is your reaction to the summary of client use of technology?

a. Is what you expected?

b. How accurate do these ﬁnding seem to you?

3. What impact do you think these ﬁndings will have on your agency?
a. Are there things you will do differently based on these ﬁndings?
b. Are there suggestions you will make to the agency Director or Board of
Directors based on these ﬁndings?
4. If Living Water, Inc. decided to offer addiction services or support services through
the lntemet what would be your reaction?
a. In your opinion would there be any beneﬁts to clients from participating in
treatment through the lntemet?

Thank you for your participation in this project!

213

 

APPENDIX G
Research Participation Information and Consent Form — Phase I

Title: A case study of how, why, and for what purpose women in recovery use
technology
Researcher: Paul P. Freddolino, MDiv, Ph.D
Institution: School of Social Work, Michigan State University
Contact Information: 214 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
Telephone: 517/432-3723 or e-mail: freddoli@rnsu.edu

 

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH:

You are being asked to participate in a research study examing the role technology plays
in your life. The purpose of this study is to understand your use or non-use of
technologies such as computers, cell phones that connect to the lntemet, PDAs, and Text
messaging devices. One of the major beneﬁts of this research will be to suggest better
ways for agencies to engage their clients in the use of technology.

You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an active
client of this agency. Your participation in this study will take about ﬁfteen minutes
today. If you choose continue your participation beyond today, you may be invited to
participate in a one hour focus group meeting to discuss your use or non-use of
technology.

You must be 18 years old or older to participate in this study.

WHAT YOU WILL DO:

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a brief survey
about your use or non-use of technology. Completing this survey will take 10 — 15
minutes. If you choose to participate in the focus group portion of this study, you will be
asked to provide your name and a telephone number so that we may contact you. Of the
individuals agreeing to continued participation in this study, we will invite up to 30
people to participate in small group meetings. Each small group meeting will last
approximately 60 minutes.

Findings from this study will be shared with the host agency and all participants. You
will not be identiﬁed by name or recognizable in any way in the report we prepare. Your
participation or lack of participation will in no way effect the services you receive
through this agency.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS:

You will not directly beneﬁt from your participation in this study. However, one of the
potential beneﬁts will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the
use of technology.

214

 

 

 

POTENTIAL RISKS:

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. However, if
participants are interested in learning more about the use of technology, referrals to the
Grand Rapids Public Library will be provided.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY:

The data for this project are being collected anonymously. Neither the researchers nor
anyone else will be able to link data to you. The contact information you provided will
not be linked or coded as a part of the survey information you provide. No other
identifying information will be collected during this study. Your conﬁdentiality will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

All data collected through this study will be stored in a locked ﬁle cabinet only accessible
to the researcher. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional
meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.

To ensure accuracy of the data collected during focus group meetings, these meeting will
be audio taped. All audiotapes will be erased at the conclusion of this project.
Transcriptions from audiotapes will not include any identifying information.
Transcriptions of the audiotape will be stored in a locked ﬁle cabinet only accessible to
the researcher. -

o I agree to allow audio taping of the focus group meeting.
Yes No Initials

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW

Your participation in this research project is completely voluntary. If you agree to
participate, you may change your mind at any time and withdraw from the study without
penalty. You may choose not to answer speciﬁc questions or to stop participating at any
time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not make any
difference in the quality of any services you may receive.

 

COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY:
There is no cost associated with your participation in this study. Focus group participants
will be offered a $10 gift certiﬁcate in appreciation for their participation in this study.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

If you have any questions about this study, such as scientiﬁc issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: Paul P. Freddolino, MDiv, Ph.D;
School of Social Work, Michigan State University; 214 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824

Telephone: 517/432-3723 or e-mail: freddoli@msu.cdu

 

If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would
like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish,
the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at

215

 

517-355-2180, FAX 517-432—4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research
study.

 

Signature Date

11' T51

216

 

APPENDIX H

Sample F lyer

 

For women whose lives have been affected by addiction, trauma, mental issues,
homelessness and involvement with the child welfare system

 

 

Agency Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Phone number
February 2008
6:00-8:00 p.m.
February 12, 2008 Who wrote your book of Love?
Guest Speaker
February 19, 2008 Taking an honest Spiritual Inventory
Guest Speaker
February 26, 2008 ............... *Invitation to participate in technology research project
James Edwards, LMSW
Doctoral Candidate

Michigan State University

You are being asked to participate in a research study examing the role technology plays
in your life. The purpose of this study is to understand your use or non-use of
technologies such as computers, cell phones that connect to the Internet, PDAs, and Text
messaging devices. One of the major beneﬁts of this research will be to suggest better
ways for agencies to engage their clients in the use of technology.

You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an active
client of Living Water, Inc. Your participation in this study will take about ﬁfteen
minutes. If you choose continue your participation beyond the initial meeting, you may
be invited to participate in a one hour focus group meeting to further explore your use or
non-use of technology.

You must be 18 years old or older to participate in this study.

Childcare and a light supper are provided at The Women at the Well group.
Transportation assistance is available for pregnant women and women with children.
See other side of sheet for Soul Cafe’ meeting schedule.

217

 

 

APPENDIX I
Research Participation Information and Consent Form — Phase [I

Title: A case study of how, why, and for what purpose women in recovery use
technology
Researcher: Paul P. F reddolino, MDiv, Ph.D
Institution: School of Social Work, Michigan State University
Contact Information: 214 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824
Telephone: 517/432-3723 or e-mail: freddoli@nrstr.edu

 

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH:

You are being asked to participate in the second part of a research study examing how
you use or do not use technology and the ways your agency may assist your use of
technology. The purpose of this phase of the study is to understand your use of the
agency computers available in the supportive housing facility. One of the major beneﬁts
of this research will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the
use of technology.

You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are an active
client of this agency. Your participation in this study will take about ﬁfteen minutes
today. If you choose continue your participation beyond today, you may be invited to
complete another survey 30 days from now and to participate in a one hour interview to
discuss your use or non-use of technology.

You must be 18 years old or older to participate in this study.

WHAT YOU WILL DO:

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a brief surveys
about your use or non-use of technology. Completing this survey will take 10 - 15
minutes. If you choose to participate in the interview portion of this study, you will be
asked to provide your name and a telephone number so that we may contact you to
schedule an interview time. Of the individuals agreeing to continued participation in this
study, we will invite up to 16 people to participate in an interview. Each interview will
last approximately 60 minutes.

Additionally, to accurately report how you use the computer we will monitor your agency
computer use through the use of the existing use history tracking. Weekly we will
download the computer use history for content analysis. No identifying information about
you will be collected. We will not be able to tie speciﬁc the use of speciﬁc websites to
any participant.

o I agree to allow non-identifying monitoring of my use of the supportive housing
computers.

Yes No Initials

 

218

 

 

Findings from this study will be shared with the host agency and all participants. You
will not be identiﬁed by name or recognizable in any way in the report we prepare. Your
participation or lack of participation will in no way affect the services you receive
through this agency.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS:

You will not directly beneﬁt from your participation in this study. However, one of the
potential beneﬁts will be to suggest better ways for agencies to engage their clients in the
use of technology.

POTENTIAL RISKS:

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. However,
computer use that involves the abuse or neglect of minors must be reported to Children’s
Protective Services. Because of the data collection methods used to examine the content
used by participants, violations of Michigan Child Protection laws cannot be linked to
any individual participant.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY:

The data for this project are being collected anonymously. Neither the researchers nor
anyone else will be able to link data to you. The contact information you provided will
not be linked or coded as a part of the survey information you provide. No other
identifying information will be collected during this study. Your conﬁdentiality will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

All data collected through this study will be stored in a locked ﬁle cabinet only accessible
to the researcher. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional
meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.

To ensure accuracy of the data collected during interviews, these meetings will be audio
taped. All audiotapes will be erased at the conclusion of this project. Transcriptions from
audiotapes will not include any identifying information. Transcriptions of the audiotape
will be stored in a locked ﬁle cabinet only accessible to the researcher.

o I agree to allow audio-taping of my interview.
Yes No Initials

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW

Your participation in this research project is completely voluntary. If you agree to
participate, you may change your mind at any time and withdraw from the study without
penalty. You may choose not to answer speciﬁc questions or to stop participating at any
time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not make any
difference in the quality of any services you may receive.

 

COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY:

219

 

There is no cost associated with your participation in this study. Participants completing
two surveys will receive a $10 gift certiﬁcate in appreciation for participation in this
study.

Participants completing two surveys and an interview will receive a $15 gift card as a
token of appreciation.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

If you have any questions about this study, such as scientiﬁc issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: Paul P. Freddolino, MDiv, Ph.D;
School of Social Work, Michigan State University; 214 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI
48824

Telephone: 517/432-3723 or e-mail: frcddoli@msu.edu

 

If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would
like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish,
the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, at
517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research
study.

 

Signature Date

220

 

 

APPENDIX I
Staff Perception of Client T echnologv Use Survey — Phase II

This survey is an exploration into your perception of client use of technology. Please take
a moment to tell us about your direct and indirect experience with the client designated
computers located in the supportive housing facility. The information you provide will be
conﬁdential. Your responses to this survey will be combined with the information
provided by other participants and reported in aggregate. This survey will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

13. How would you rate your level of experience with technology using a scale from

1-5? (Please circle one)

I 2 3 4 5
No Some Signiﬁcant
Experience Experience Experience

14. How often in the past seven days have you assisted a client with a computer issue
at the supportive housing facility? (Please circle one)

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more

15. Approximately how many of your supportive housing residents use the computer
on a daily basis? (Please circle one)

Number of clients: 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

16. How many times the past seven days have you called someone for assistance with
a computer problem at the supportive housing facility? (Please circle one)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more

17. What impact has the computer room in the supportive housing facility had on

your job? (Please circle one)

1 2 3 4 5
No Some Signiﬁcant
Impact Impact Impact
18. How has your agency supported clients in the use of computers? (Check all that
apply)
[:lComputer Training DPeer Assistance DStaff Assistance
[:lReferral to computer training I:IOther: 1:] No support provided

 

221

19.

20.

21.

Does your agency have a client computer use policy? [:I Yes E] No

Does your agency have a staff computer use policy? I: Yes [:1 No

In the past seven days have you referred a supportive housing resident to a
speciﬁc website? [:1 Yes [:I No

If yes, please describe the nature of this website or list the site’s web address.

 

 

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

How many hours per week are you indirectly involved with supportive housing

residents who are using the computer?

 

How many hours per week are you directly involved with the computer use of

supportive housing residents?

 

Have you received special training that allows you to assist clients with their
technology use? 1:] Yes 1:] No

On a scale from 1-5, how would you rate the importance of having computer
access for residents in the supportive housing facility?
1 2 3 4 5
Not Important Very
Important Important

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about how clients’ use of
technology?

 

 

 

222

As a follow up to this survey, we will be conducting interviews on this topic. These
interviews will be held at your agency during a time that is convenient for you. Would
you be interested in participating in an interview about your clients’ technology habits?

[:lYes BN0

If yes. please provide us with your contact information. (Please print)

Name: Phone Number:

 

Please place the completed survey in the envelope provided and leave it on the table.

tam-mama

Thank you for completing this survey!

223

APPENDIX K

Interview Protocol - Executive Director

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Over the next 60 minutes I
would like to explore your agency’s deployment of the computers available for client use

in the supportive housing facility. I will ask you questions about agency resources,

procedures, process and outcomes, relevant to this project based on the current literature
and the ﬁndings from the ﬁrst phase of this project. There are no correct answers and at

the end you will be given an opportunity to discuss any area we did not cover.

10.

11.

12.

I3.

14.

. How did it come about that you were able to access computers for your clients?

Probe: Costs associated with computers (including software)?

What was the process used for deciding to deploy computers in the recovery
house? Probe: Were client’s involved in the decision?

How is technical support for the hardware provided?

Is this person formally educated in providing this support?
How is this support funded?

Does your agency have an overall technology plan?

What do you anticipate as future technology needs for your agency?
Probe: How will you meet these technology needs?

What is your vision of technology use by the women you serve?
How will you know if you are successful in reaching this goal?

Training was identiﬁed as a need for your consumers, what are your thoughts
about ways to meet this need?

Can you describe the process you used to create acceptable use policies and
security policies for your staff and clients?

In your opinion, what affect has increased access to technology had on your
clients?

Do you have any examples of the beneﬁts of this increased client access?

How have staff been affected by the deployment of computers in the supportive
housing facility? Probe: time, duties, etc.

224

1.3”. u .!

III-a -

Probe: Have staff roles or responsibilities changed as a result of agency sponsored
computer access?

15. How does client access to technology ﬁt with the agency mission/values?
16. What have been the beneﬁts of increased client access to technology?

17. What have been the challenges to increase client access to technology?
18. Looking back at the implementation of this program are there things you would
do differently?

225

APPENDIX L
Participant Computer Use Initial Survey

This survey is an exploration into your use of technology. Please take a moment to tell us
about yourself and the technology you currently use. The information you provide will be
conﬁdential. Your responses to this survey will be combined with the information
provided by other participants and reported in aggregate. This survey will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

1. Do you own or have access to one or more of the following devices?
(Please check all that a ply)

 

Use through
, Use through . ~ No
Technology Devrces I own Frien ds /Fami1y Librasryuqusublrc Access

 

a. Computer: Laptop
or Desktop

b. Computer with
lntemet Access

c. Cell Phone

d. Cell Phone with
Text Messaging

e. Cell Phone with
Internet Access

f. I-Pod or MP3 Player

 

1:1 13 1:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECIDED
DDDDD
DECIDE
DECIDE]

 

2. Please tell us how often you use the following functions? (Please check all that

 

apply)
Technology Weekl Every No
. Daily Other Monthly Yearly
Functions Used y Week Use

 

a. lntemet/Website
s

13

1:1 1:1 1:1

1:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:1
b. Text Messaging D D 1:] D E Cl
0. E-mail D D El D D l:l
d. 12:/123%: Cellular l:l l:l l:l l:l l:l l:l
e. Make In erne
Phone Ctalls t . D D 13 13 1:1 1:1
f. 301122232: Musrc D l:l El 1:] l:l l:l

 

226

3. For what purpose do you typically use technology? (Please check all that apply)

[:lTo seek housing [:1 To seek employment
1:]To seek health information [:1 To purchase goods or services

[ITO keep in touch with friends or relatives [:I For information or education

 

[ITO meet new people [:1 To seek support or offer support

[:1 For entertainment E] For gaming

[:lOther:

4. On scale from 1 to 5, please tell us your interest in accessing the lntemet (Circle F
One) 11
1 2 3 4 5 ,~

No Interest Unsure Some Interest Interested. Very Interested

Computer Skills:

5. On a scale from 1-5, how would you rate your computer knowledge? (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
None Unsure Some Good Very good

6. I could use the Internet if there was no one around to help me. (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

7. I could use the lntemet if I watched someone else use it ﬁrst. (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

8. I could use the lntemet if I had someone to call for help if I got stuck.

(Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

9. I could use the lntemet if I had a lot of time to try out its features. (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

227

10. Learning to use the Internet would be easy for me. (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

11. Have you read the agency’s “acceptable computer use” policy? .

[:I Yes E] No

12. Did staff teach you how to use the supportive housing computers?

[:1 Yes E] No

13. Did another client teach you how to use the supportive housing computers?

[:I Yes E] No

14. Has your agency provided you with computer training?

El Yes El No

15. Has your agency provided you with support for you computer use?

E] Yes [:1 No

16. Do you live in the agency supportive housing facility? I: Yes D No

17. If, yes how long have you lived at this facility?

 

Thank you for completing this survey

228

APPENDIX M
Participant Computer Use 30 day Survey

This survey is an exploration into your use of technology. Please take a moment to tell us
about yourself and the technology you currently use. The information you provide will be
conﬁdential. Your responses to this survey will be combined with the information
provided by other participants and reported in aggregate. This survey will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

1. Do you own or have access to one or more of the following devices?
(Please check all that apply)

 

Use through
, Use through . - N0
Technology Devrces I own Friends/Family leregrguo: :1th Access

 

a. Computer: Laptop
or Desktop

b. Computer with
lntemet Access

c. Cell Phone

d. Cell Phone with
Text Messaging
e. Cell Phone with
lntemet Access
f. I-Pod or MP3

[:1 El

 

 

 

 

DECIDE
DUDE!
DEED
DDDDD

 

Cl

1:1 El E1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Player
2. Please tell us how often you use the following functions? (Please check all that
apply)
Every
Technology . No
Functions Used Daily Weekly agree; Monthly Yearly Use

 

a. Intemet/ Website El D [:l E] Cl C]

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Text Messaging D E El E Cl
0. E-mail El Cl [:1 Cl Cl [:1
(1. £431: Cellular D E] [3 Cl E] D
e. Make lntemet El El l:l Cl E] El
Phone Calls
f. Download
1\hﬁusic or D D |:] E] [:j [:l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____‘I

3. For what purpose do you typically use technology? (Please check all that apply)

DTo seek housing [:I To seek employment
DTo seek health related information [:I To purchase goods or services

DTO keep in touch with friends or relatives [:1 For information or education

EITo meet new people E] To seek support or offer support
I: For entertainment D For gaming
[:IOther:

 

4. On scale from 1 to 5, please tell us your interest in accessing the Internet (Circle

One)
1 2 3 4 5
No Interest Unsure Some Interest Interested Very Interested
Computer Skills:

5. On a scale from 1-5, how would you rate your computer knowledge? (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
None Unsure Some Good Very good

6. I could use the lntemet if there was no one around to help me. (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely
7. I could use the lntemet if I watched someone else use it ﬁrst. (Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

8. I could use the lntemet if I had someone to call for help if I got stuck.

(Circle One)
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

9. I could use the lntemet if I had a lot of time to try out its features. (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5

230

 

Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

10. Learning to use the Internet would be easy for me. (Circle One)

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Unsure Somewhat Probably Deﬁnitely

11. Have you read the agency’s “acceptable computer use” policy?

D Yes E] No

12. Did staff teach you how to use the supportive housing computers?

[:1 Yes [:I No

13. Did another client teach you how to use the supportive housing computers?

D Yes D No

14. Has your agency provided you with computer training?

D Yes [:1 No

15. Has your agency provided you with support for you computer use?

[:I Yes D No

16. How many times in the last 30 days have you wanted to use a computer but were
unable to use one?

 

17. Do you live in the agency supportive housing facility? [I Yes I:] No

18. If, yes how long have you lived at this facility?

 

231

 

 

 

As a follow up to this survey, we will be conducting an interview on this topic.
Participants completing two surveys and an interview will be given a $15 Meijer gift card
as a token of our appreciation. Would you be interested in participating in surveys and an
interview about your technology habits? DYes DNo

If yes, please provide us with your name and contact number. (Please print)

Name: Contact Number:

 

 

Thank you for completing this survey.

 

APPENDIX N
Interview Protocol — Client Participants

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Over the next 40 minutes I
would like to explore your use of the computers made available to agency clients in the
supportive housing facility. I will ask you questions about computer use relevant to this
project based on the current literature and the ﬁndings from the ﬁrst phase of this project.
There are no correct answers and at the end you will be given an opportunity to discuss
any area we did not cover.

1. How would you describe the process for accessing the supportive housing
computers?

2. Can you describe the staff assistance you received while using the supportive
housing computers?

3. Can you describe instances when you received assistance with your computer
use from another client? Probe: How often did this occur?

4. On a scale from 1-5, with 5 being the best, how would you rate your computer
use knowledge? Probe: Is this rating higher or lower than it was two months
ago?

5. Over the past 30 days how often has the supportive housing computers
crashed or been under repair? Probe: How was this problem resolved?

6. How many times in the past 30 days did you wait to access one of the agency
computers? Probe: How long did you wait?

7. Please describe what personal resources you contribute to the use of computer
at the supportive living facility. Probe: Are you required to supply your own
computer software or supplies such as paper, discs, etc.?

8. Are you familiar with the agency's "acceptable computer use" policy?

Probe: How did you become familiar with this policy?

9. Can you describe any computer training you have received in the past 60
days?

10. How often do you currently use a computer to access the intemet?

11. What type of activities do you engage in when you use the agency computer?

233

12. Please describe any other locations from which you have accessed a computer
and the lntemet in the past 60 days?

13. In terms of your computer use, is there anything else you would like to share?

234

j

APPENDIX 0

Interview Protocol - Staff

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project. Over the next 50 minutes I
would like to explore your agency’s deployment of the computers available for client use
in the supportive housing facility. I will ask you questions about agency resources,
procedures, process and outcomes, relevant to this project based on the current literature
and the ﬁndings from the ﬁrst phase of this project. There are no correct answers and at
the end you will be given an opportunity to discuss any area we did not cover.

I.

10.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

How did it come about that you were able to access computers for your clients?
Probe: Costs associated with computers (including software)?

What was the process used for deciding to deploy computers in the recovery house?
Probe: Were client’s involved in the decision?

How is technical support for the hardware provided?

Is this person formally educated in providing this support?

How is this support funded?

Can you describe how the women in your program have used the agency computers?

How have this deployment of computers in the supportive housing facility affected
your job?

Can you describe the type and frequency of your interactions with clients around their
computer use?

Training was identiﬁed as a need for your consumers, what are the methods your
agency has used to address this issue?

Can you describe the process you used to create acceptable use policies and security
policies for your staff and clients?

In your opinion, what affect has increased access to technology had on your clients?
Do you have any examples of the beneﬁts of this increased client access?

How does client access to technology ﬁt with the agency mission/values?

What have been the beneﬁts of increased client access to computers?

What have been the challenges to increase client access to computers?

235

16. Looking back at the implementation of this program are there things you would do

differently?

236

APPENDIX P
Phase II — StaffFocus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. The
discussion today will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this
focus group is to discuss your perspective of client use or non-use of the agency
computers in your supportive housing facility. Additionally, I would like to hear you
thoughts about the preliminary ﬁndings from the second phase of this study.

Your participation in this focus group is completely voluntary and you may end your
participation at anytime.

I. What were your expectations with regard to client use of the computers available in
the supportive housing facility?
0 Probes
a. How did you feel about this plan two months ago?
b. Have you changed your opinion?

2. What is your reaction to the summary of how your client’s used the computers in the
supportive housing facility?
0 Probes
a. Is this what you expected?
b. How accurate do these ﬁnding seem to you?

3. What impact do you think these ﬁndings will have on your agency?
0 Probes
a. Are there things you will do differently based on these ﬁndings?
b. Are there suggestions you will make to the agency Director or Board of
Directors based on these ﬁndings?

4. If this agency decided to expand this service what would be your reaction?

5. What other ways could the agency engage or support clients’ use of technology?

Probes
a. Training
b. Access

6. What other thoughts or suggestion do you have about this study or the use of the
computers in the supportive housing facility?

Thank you for your participation in this project!

237

APPENDIX Q

Phase II — Board of Directors Focus Group Questions

Introductory Remarks: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. The
discussion today will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. The purpose of this
focus group is to discuss your perspective of client use or non-use of the agency
computers in your supportive housing facility. Additionally, I would like to hear you
thoughts about the preliminary ﬁndings from the second phase of this study.

Your participation in this focus group is completely voluntary and you may end your
participation at anytime.

I.

What were your expectations with regard to client use of the computers available in
the supportive housing facility?
Probes

a. How did you feel about this plan two months ago?

b. Have you changed your opinion?

What is your reaction to the summary of how your client’s used the computers in the
supportive housing facility?
Probes

a. Is this what you expected?

b. How accurate do these ﬁnding seem to you?

3. What impact do you think these ﬁndings will have on your agency?

Probes
a. Are there things you will do differently based on these ﬁndings?
b. Are there suggestions you will make to the agency Director based on these
ﬁndings?

What outcomes would you need to see in order to expand this service?

5. What other ways could the agency engage or support clients’ use of technology?

Probes
a. Training
b. Access

What other thoughts or suggestion do you have about this study or the use of the
computers in the supportive housing facility?

Thank you for your participation in this project!

238

REFERENCES

239

REFERENCES

Abell, M. L., & Galinsky, M.J. (2002). Introducing students to computer-based group
work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 39.

Abney, P., & Maddux, CD. (2004). Counseling and technology: Some thoughts about
the controversy. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 22(3), 1-24.

Aj zen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Anderson, J. (2008). Future of the intemet iii: How the experts see it. Retrieved
December 22, 2008, from www.pewintemet.org

Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among intemet attitudes, intemet use, romantic
beliefs, and perceptions of online romantic relationships. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 8(6), 521-531.

Bakardjieva, M. (2003, September). What Knowledge? Whose Fingertips? Negotiating
and Serving Diverse Identities Through Information Technology. Canadian
Ethnic Studies, 35(3), 133-149. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from SocINDEX with
Full Text database.

Banyard, V., & Miller, K. (1998). The powerful potential of qualitative research for

community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4), 485-
505.

Barcy, W., & Barcy, R. T. (2008). The relationship of computer attitudes to reported use
and observed behavioral proﬁciency. Journal of T echnologv in Human Services,
26(1), 19-44.

Beder, J. (2005). Cybersolace: Technology built on emotion. Social Work, 50(4), 355-
358.

Ben Wu, J ., & Marakas, G. (2006). The impact of operational user participation on
perceived system implementation success: An empirical investigation. The
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(5), 127-140.

Berger, C. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future
prospects. Journal of Communication, 415-447.

Blaschke, C. M., Freddolino, P. P., & Mullen, E. E. (2009). Ageing and technology
research: Findings and implications. British Journal of Social Work.

Boehm, A., & Staples, L. H. (2004). Empowerment: the point of view of consumers.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85(2), 270-
280.

240

Brown, S., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., & Burkman, J .R. (2002). Do I really
have to? User acceptance of mandated technology. European Journal of
Information Systems, 1 I, 283-295.

Burbules, N., & Callister, T., Jr. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of information
technologies for education. Boulder, Colorado 80301-2877: Westview Press.

Carrilio, T. E. (2007). Using client information systems in practice settings: Factors
affecting social workers' use of information systems. Journal of Technology in
Human Services, 25(4), 41-62.

Castelnuovo, G., Gaggioli, A., Mantovani, F ., & Riva, G. (2003). From psychotherapy to
e-therapy: The integration of traditional techniques and new communication tools
in clinical settings. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(4), 375-3 82.

Chau, P., & Hu, P. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual
professionals: A model comparison approach. Decisions Sciences, 32(4), 699-718.

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Cleary, P., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Understanding
racial, ethnic, social class, gender and geographic disparities in intemet use

among school age children in the united states. Universal Access Information
Society, 4, 354-373.

Clingerrnan, T., & Bernard, J. (2004). An investigation of the use of e-mail as a
supplemental modality for clinical supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 4(2), 82-95.

Corder, K. (2001). Acquiring new technology: Comparing nonproﬁts and public sector
agencies. Administration & Society, 33(2), 194-219.

Cox, L. A. ( 2001). BSW students favor strengths/empowerment-based generalist
practice. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(3), 305-313.

Cuban, L. (2001). Over sold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cwikel, J. G., & Cnaan, RA. (1991). Ethical dilemmas in applying second-wave
information technology to social work practice. Social Work, 36(2), 114-120.

Davies, J. E. (2007). Empowering the next billion. ESR Review, 9(1), 20-25.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

241

Davis, F. D., & Yi, M.Y. (2004). Improving computer skill training: Behavior modeling,
symbolic mental rehearsal, and the role of knowledge structures. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 509-523.

Dudley, J. R. (2005). Research methods for social work: Becoming consumers and
producers of research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Edwards, J. (2007). Assessing technology acceptance in human service organizations.
Unpublished manuscript.

Elleven, R., & Allen, J. (2004). Applying technology to online counseling: Suggestions
for the beginning e-therapist. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 223-
227.

F agan, M. H., Neill, S., & Woolridge, BR. (2004). An empirical investigation into the
relationship between computer self-efﬁcacy, anxiety, experience, support and
usage. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(2).

Finn, J ., Kerman, B., LeComec, J. (2004). Building skills-building futures: Providing
information technology to foster families. Families in Society, 85(2), 165-176.

Finn, J. (2006). An exploratory study of e-mail use by direct service social workers.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(4), 1-20.

Finn, J ., & Krysik, J. (2007). Agency-based social workers' attitudes and behaviors

regarding service-related unsolicited e-mail. Journal of Technology in Human
Services, 25(3), 21-38.

Finn, J ., & Schoech, D. (Ed.). (2008). Journal of technology in human services [Special
issue]. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26(2,4).

Fitzgerald, E., & McNutt, J. (1999). Electronic advocacy in policy practice: A framework
for teaching technologically based practice. Journal of Social Work Education,
35(3), 331-341.

F reddolino, P. (1998). Building on Experience: Lessons from a Distance Education
M.S.W. Program. Computers in Human Services, 15(2/3), 3 9-50.

Freddolino, P. (2002). Thinking "outside the box" in social work distance education: Not
just for distance anymore. Electronic Journal of Social Work, 1(1), 1-14.

Freddolino, P. (2003). Agency utilization of free intemet web sites. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 22(1), 67-73.

F reddolino, P., & Knaggs, D. (2005). Building a predominately web-based course from

face-to face and interactive video pilots: Administrative skills for social work
practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 23(3/4), 201-213.

242

Freddolino, P., & Blaschke, CM. (2008). Therapeutic applications of online gaming.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26(2/4), 423-446.

Freeny, M. (2001). Better the being there: Sometimes, online therapy is the treatment of
choice. Psychotherapy Networker, 25(2), 39-50.

Geoghegan, L., & Lever, J. (2004). [C T for social welfare. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Gere, C. (2002). Digital culture. London, UK: Reaktion Books Ltd.

Germain, C. B. (1981). The ecological approach to people-environment transactions.
Social Case Work: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work,

Giffords, E. D. (1998). Social work on the intemet: An introduction. Social Work, 43(3),
243.

Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by

nonproﬁt organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public
Administration Review, 67(3), 474-487.

Harlow, E., & Webb, SA. (2003). Information and communication technologies in the
welfare services. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.

Harris, J. (2003). The social work business. London: Routledge.

Hasan, B. (2006a). Effectiveness of computer training: The role of multilevel computer
self-efﬁcacy. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(1), 50-68.

Hasan, B., & Ali, J. (2006b). The impact of general and system-speciﬁc self-efﬁcacy on
computer training learning and reactions. Academy of Information and
Management Sciences Journal, 9(1), 17-35.

Hick, S. (2006). Technology, social inclusion and poverty: An exploratory investigation
of a community technology center. Journal of Technology in Human Services,
24(1), 53-67.

Horrigan, J. B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The intemet's growing role in life's major moments.
Retrieved July 11, 2007, from www.pewintemet.org/

Horrigan, J. B. (2007). A typology of information and communication technology users.
Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/

Hughes, R., Joo, E., Zentall, S., & Ulishney, K. (1999). Access and use of information
technology by human service providers. Journal of Technology in Human
Services, 16(1), 1-16.

lntemet World Stats (n.d.)Retrieved November 10, 2007 from
hmpz/Awwv.intemetworldstats.com/america.htm.

 

243

Karger, H. J ., & Levine, J. (1999). The internet and technology for the human services:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Katerattanakul, P. (2002). Framework of effective website design for business-to-
consumer intemet commerce. INF OR, 40(1), 57-70.

Kirk, S.A., & Reid, W. J. (2002). Science and social work: A critical appraisal. New
York: Columbia University.

LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857.

Leibert, T., Archer, J ., Munson, J ., & York, G. (2006). An exploratory study of client
perceptions of intemet counseling and the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 28(1), 69-83.

Madden, M. (2006). Internet penetration and impact, April 2006: Pew lntemet &
American Life Project.

Maney, K. (2004). Next big thing: The web as your servant USA Today.

Marakas, G. M., Johnson, RD, & Clay, RF. (2007). The evolving nature of the
computer self-efﬁcacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement
construction, validity, reliability and stability over time. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 8(1), 16-46.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, GB. (2006). Designing qualitative research (Fourth Edition
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martin, S. P., & Robinson, J .P. (2007). The income digital divide: Trends and predictions
for levels of intemet use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1-22.

Matano, R., Koopman, C., Wanat, S., Winzellberg, A., Whitsell, S., Westrup, D., Futa,
K., Clayton, J ., Mussman, L., & Taylor, CB. (2007). A pilot study of an
interactive website in the work place for reducing alcohol consumption. Journal
of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 71-80.

Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance
model: The inﬂuence of perceived user resources. Database for Advances in
Information Systems, 32(3), 86-112.

McF all, J. & Freddolino, P. (2008). Integrating technology into social work clinical
practice and curriculum. In Regan, J. & F reddolino, P. (Eds.), Integrating
Technology into the Social Work Curriculum (pp. 69D89). Alexandria, VA:
CSWE Press

244

Merkle, E.R., & Richardson, RA. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating:
Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations,
49(2), 187-192.

Miller-Cribbs, J. E. (2001). New advances in technology for social work education and
practice. New York: Haworth Press.

Murphy, L., & Mitchell, D. (1998). When writing helps to heal: E-mail as therapy.
British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 26(1), 21-32.

Murphy, L. McFadden, R., & Mitchell, D. (2008). Cybercounseling online: the
development of a university-based training program for e-mail counseling.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26(2/4), 447-469.

NAS W & AS WB standards for technology in social work practice. (2005).): National
Association of Social Workers & Association of Social Work Boards.

Opalinski, L. (2001). Older adults and the digital divide: Assessing results of web-based
survey. New York: Haworth Press.

Oravec, J. (2000). Online counseling and the intemet: Perspectives for mental health care
supervision and education. Journal of Mental Health, 9(2), 121-135.

Parker-Oliver, D., & Demiris, G. (2006). Social work informatics. Social Work, 31(2),
127-134.

Peterson, M., & Beck, R. (2003). E-mail as an adj unctive tool in psychotherapy:
Response and responsibility. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 5 7(2), 167-181.

Pew lntemet & American Life Project (n.d.). Retrieved on December 30 2008 from
wwwpewinternetorg.

Pollard, K., & Blyth, R. (1999). User-centered design of web sites and the redesign of
lineon. BT Technology Journal, 1 7(1), 69-75.

Rank, M. R., & LeCroy, CW. (1983). Toward a multiple perspective in family theory
and practice: The case of social exchange theory, symbolic interactionism, and
conﬂict theory. Family Relations, 32(3), 441-448.

Regan, J. & Freddolino, P. (Eds), (2008). Integrating Technology into the Social Work
Curriculum. Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press

Reinoehl, R., & Mueller, B.J. (Eds.). (1991). Computer literacy in human services
education. Bingharnton, NY.: Hawthorn Press.

Resnick, H., & Anderson, PS. (2002). Introduction to technology for social work
practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20(1/2), 5-10.

245

Richards, L. (2006). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage
Publications.

Riemer-Reiss, M. (2000). Utilizing distance technology for mental health counseling.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22(3), 189-203.

Rochlen, A., Beretvas, S., & Zack, J. (2004). The online and face-to-face counseling
attitudes scales: A validation study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 37(2), 95-111.

Rotondi, A., Sinkule, J ., Hass, G., Spring, M., Litschge, C., Newhill, C., Ganguli, R., &
Anderson, C. (2007). Designing websites for persons with cognitive deﬁcits:
Design and usability of a psychoeducational intervention for persons with severe
mental illness. Psychological Services, 4(3), 202-224.

Sandberg, K. W., Gardelli, A., & Stubbs, J. (2005). The use of information and
communication technology (ICT) in the rehabilitation of individuals with severe
functional impairments in a municipal care service system. Work, 24, 229-238.

Sarnoff, S. (2001). Ensuring that course websites are ADA compliant. New York:
Haworth Press.

Schoech, D. (2002a). Technology challenges facing social work. Electronic Journal of
Social Work, 1(1), 1-10.

Schoech, D., Fitch, D., MacFadden, R., & Schkade, L. (2002b). From data to
intelligence: Introducing the intelligent organization. Administration in Social
Work, 26(1), 1-21.

Schopler, J ., Galinsky, M., & Abell, M. (1997). Creating Community Through Telephone
and Computer Groups: Theoretical and Practice Perspectives. Social Work with

Groups, 20(4), 19—34. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from SocINDEX with Full
Text database.

Singh, S., Dalal, N., & Spears, N. (2005). Understanding web home page perception.
European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 288-3 02.

Slegers, K., van Boxtel, M., & Jolles, J. (2008). Effects of computer training and intemet
usage on the well-being and quality of life of older adults: A randomized
controlled study. 26B(3), 176-184.

Smokowski, P., Galinsky, & M., Harlow. (2001). Using technologies in groupwork part i:
Face to face groups. Groupwork, 13(1), 73-97.

Stanley, L. D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. The
Information Society, 19, 407-416.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.

246

Taylor, S. (2004). Technology acceptance: Increasing new technology use by applying
the right messages. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 21-23.

Thyer, B. A. (2001). The handbook of social work research methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

van Dijk, J ., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic
phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315-326.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use:
Development and test*. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal ﬁeld studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. & Morris, M. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual
decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decisions
Sciences, 33(2), 297-316.

Vernon, R. (2001). Back to the future. Journal of Social Work Education, 3 7(3), 571.

Vernon, R., & Lynch, D. (2003). Consumer access to agency websites: Our best foot
forward. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 21(4), 37-51.

Warschauer, M. (2003a). Social capital and access. Universal Access Information
Society, 2, 315-330.

Warschauer, M. (2003b). Technology and social inclusion. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press.

Warschauer, M. (2003c). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wired, willing and reaay: Nonprofit human services organizations' adoption of
information technology. (2001).): Princeton Survey Research Associates.

Yates, B. T. (1996). Analyzing costs, procedures, processes, and outcomes in human
services (Vol. 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses schools: An
ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.