COMPARING SOCIAL NETWORK SITES USAGE AMONG AFRICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS IN THE U.S. AND TANZANIA By Linlin Liang A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Media and Information—Master of Arts 2017 ABSTRACT COMPARING SOCIAL NETWORK SITES USAGE AMONG AFRICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS IN THE U.S. AND TANZANIA By Linlin Liang Telecommunication infrastructure and Internet connectivity are not the universal answer to the digital divide. Telecommunication infrastructure is being built in the developing world, but most studies have yet to investigate the multiple layers and contextual factors of the digital divide, which influence technology use. This study selected Social Network Sites as an example of Information and Communications Technology due to its vital role in making social, political, and economic changes in the developing world. This study compares the SNS use of college students from Sub-Saharan Africa region in two infrastructure and socio-cultural settings, the U.S. and Tanzania. This study broadly explores the changes in SNS use of developing country users in a less-developed telecommunication infrastructure setting like Tanzania, and those who relocated to an advanced infrastructure setting in America. The study uses interviews and a survey to investigate differences in SNS use between the two student groups, including their general SNS usage, Facebook uses, and motives to use Facebook. African students in Tanzania were more likely to use SNS for utilitarian purposes in schoolwork and professional advancement. African students in the U.S., however, mirrored their peer American students and used SNS as a social communication tool. The findings suggest that, contrary to most existing literature, free Internet accessibility does not necessarily lead to pragmatic uses of SNS. This study acknowledges the concept of usage divide and recommends that future digital divide studies include social-cultural, economic, and technological factors in their analyses. International Development researchers and practitioners should go beyond the providing of providing accessibility. Copyright by LINLIN LIANG 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my family for supporting me in many different ways through my difficult times in graduate school. Although my family is thousands of miles away from the United States, they cannot be more supportive of every decision that I have made in my academic path and professional career. Secondly, a huge thank you goes to my thesis committee, including Professor Charles Steinfield, Dr. Jennifer Olson, Dr. Susan Wyche, and late Professor Mark Levy. To Professor Steinfield, many thanks for encouraging me and checking in on me whenever I was distracted by other interesting projects. Also, thanks for putting so much time and effort in mentoring me in the field of international development. To Dr. Olson, I would like to thank you for being an inspiration, sharing her research experience, and reminding me of the purpose of this project. To Dr. Wyche, many thanks for your pioneering work and valuable feedback on Social Networking Sites research in the developing countries. To the late Professor Levy, I will always remember you for being the very first teacher in my graduate school and always listening to my passion and dreams. I dedicate this thesis to all of you. Furthermore, many thanks to University of Dar es Salaam for hosting and connecting me to the student communities. It was such a pleasure working with Professor Yanda and Mrs. Neema Mshigeni in the Center for Climate Change Studies. Also, I am very grateful to have Mr. Noel Maro, a master’s student in the Department of Agriculture back then, working with me on the survey and interviews. Without their support, I could not have made this thesis happen. iv Finally, I would also like to thank my dear friends for pushing me through the procrastination and low-points. I would not have been completed this thesis without the encouragement, knowledge, and great support from Daniel Ninsiima, Ph.D. Candidate Ruth Shillair, Dr. Lami Fofana, Ph.D. Candidate Yi-ting Chua, Ph. D Candidate Carrie Li, and Qiang Zhang. Thank you all! v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................4 ICT Infrastructure Background .............................................................................................. 4 Digital Divide ........................................................................................................................ 6 Social Network Sites .............................................................................................................. 7 College students and Facebook use pattern ........................................................................... 9 Basic use pattern and the Facebook Intensity Scale ............................................................ 10 Facebook connection strategy and social capital ................................................................. 11 Research gaps in Facebook use studies ............................................................................... 12 College students and motives to use Facebook ................................................................... 13 Motives to use Facebook and Uses and Gratifications (U&G) ........................................... 14 Motives to use Facebook and social learning theory ........................................................... 16 Research gap in motives to use Facebook ........................................................................... 17 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................... 18 Importance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................20 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 20 Research Instruments ........................................................................................................... 22 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................. 24 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................... 25 Population ............................................................................................................................ 27 Sampling .............................................................................................................................. 29 Sample ................................................................................................................................. 30 Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .......................................................................................................34 General SNS Usage ............................................................................................................. 34 Facebook Use Pattern .......................................................................................................... 38 Motives to Use Facebook .................................................................................................... 43 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION...................................................................................................53 Implications ......................................................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................60 vi APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol for University of Dar es Salaam ................................ 64 APPENDIX B: Interveiw Protocol for Michigan State University ..................................... 65 APPENDIX C: Questionnaire for students in University of Dar es Salaam ....................... 66 APPENDIX D: Questionnaire for students in Michigan State Univeristy .......................... 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 74 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample, campus and method.......................................................................... 31 Table 2: General SNS Usage........................................................................................ 36 Table 3: Frequency of Visiting Facebook Pages .......................................................... 39 Table 4: Accesses to Facebook .................................................................................... 40 Table 5: Ratio Level Data in General SNS Usage ....................................................... 41 Table 6: Facebook intensity scale ................................................................................ 42 Table 7: Items of Motives to Use Facebook ................................................................ 45 Table 8: Differences between MSU respondents and UDSM respondents ................. 47 Table 9: Loading results from factor analysis (Rotated Component Matrix) .............. 48 Table 10: Index of motives to use Facebook ............................................................... 49 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Global ICT Developments per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015 .......................... 5 Figure 2: Mobile-cellular Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015 ..................... 5 Figure 3: Individuals Using the Internet per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015 ..................... 5 ix KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ICT Information and Communication Technologies MSU Michigan State University SNS Social Network Sites SSA Sub-Saharan Africa UDSM University of Dar es Salaam U&G Uses and Gratifications x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In recent years, the worldwide development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has received significant attention from organizations and scholars (e.g., Hyde-Clarke & Van Tondxfneer, 2011). In the field of development, the ICT accessibility is usually viewed as the panacea to bridge the digital divide between developing countries and developed countries. However, the digital divide not only includes the gap in the ICT accessibility but also divides in the ways that ICTs are used, that is the usage divide (van Dijk, 2006). While many studies have investigated the barriers in scaling ICT accessibility in developing countries, very few have compared the ways in which ICTs are used between the developing and developed countries users. Norms and patterns of ICT use often emerge from scenarios and communities that are characterized by infrastructure conditions. What will happen if ICT users from a developing region relocate to a developed region with advanced infrastructure but different norms of ICT use? Are their patterns of ICT use more like their new peers or do patterns of use remain similar to users in developing regions? This study aims to shed light on these questions. The presence of SNS has influenced Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries socially, economically, and politically. In this study, Social Network Sites (SNS) are selected as the particular ICT to be explored. The SNS use has been increasingly acknowledged in SSA region. 58% of Internet users in SSA region agree that SNS have been the most significant online activity now (Molenaar, 2012). Part of the reason for this is that SNS provide users with a variety of functionality and information. For example, Facebook allows users to 1 broadcast one single message to a large group of friends by publishing status updates and wall posts. Meanwhile, Facebook also provides functions such as one-to-one direct messaging. These functionalities were unprecedentedly used in civil rights and political movements in SSA region, for instance, the Egyptian revolution in 2010 (Vargas, 2012). SNS has become a crucial form of communication even in the developing world. The users of SNS can easily share and spread information, which may lead to social changes in both negative or positive ways. The SNS use is predicted to continue growing in SSA region in the next five years (Balancing Act, 2014) as one result of the mobile phone and mobile broadband uptakes. Therefore, it is crucial for researchers to examine the SNS use in developing countries. This study is a comparative study that examines the difference in SNS uses between two groups of college students in two different social-cultural and infrastructure settings. University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) in Tanzania and Michigan State University (MSU) in the U.S. were chosen as the two research sites. Tanzania was chosen as the research site in SSA region due to the research connections that the author had and the convenience in sampling. Also, Tanzania has comparatively advanced telecommunication infrastructure in SSA region, which provides readiness for researchers to conduct the SNS studies in Tanzania. In 2014, the penetration rate of mobile broadband had reached 25%, and the SIM card penetration rate was 62% in Tanzania. Moreover, 82% of urban population and 54% of the rural population own a mobile phone in Tanzania. As a fact, 14.9% of Tanzanian Internet users use social media like Facebook as of November 2015 (Internet World Stats, 2016a). Besides the ICT infrastructure facts, the social-cultural conditions in Tanzania also allowed this study to be conducted. The literacy rate of the population in Tanzania was 67.8% in 2010.Since English is one of the three main languages spoken in Tanzania, the author was able to communicate with research subjects and the students was able to read most available 2 content on the Internet. Moreover, 64.1% of the 49.61 million population are less than 25 years old in 2015 (CIA Factbook, 2015), who are more likely to use SNS among all age groups. Young adults (aged 18 to 29) are the majority of SNS early adopters (Pew Research Center, 2015b). As mentioned above, this study compares the ways that SNS such as Facebook are used among students originally from SSA region, but in two different social-cultural and infrastructure settings. This study focuses on whether there are any statistically significant differences between the two groups of students in using Facebook particularly. This study sampled among African students from UDSM and MSU. The group of African students in UDSM simulates the condition before advanced telecommunication infrastructure was introduced into students’ SNS use. The other group of African students in MSU represented the after-condition when they were immersed in advanced telecommunication infrastructure. In addition to the advanced telecommunication infrastructure, MSU African students are exposed to the SNS uses adopted by their peer students, American students. Hence, the study explores whether developing country SNS users change their SNS uses once the barriers in the Internet accessibility are eliminated. 3 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The uptake of ICT transformed the landscape of development. The scholarship presents a significant effort to explore different uses of ICT, like Social Network Sites (SNS), in international development. Before reviewing the scholarly literature on SNS, it is important to acknowledge ICT infrastructure facts in both developing and developed countries. Then, this chapter presents an overview of SNS, including the definitions and histories of mainstream SNS. Last but not least, this study examined relevant prior studies on SNS use patterns and motives to use SNS. ICT Infrastructure Background The global mobile penetration rate has soared to 96.8 per 100 inhabitants in the last decade, while the Internet penetration rate is comparatively growing slowly (see Figure 1). The mobile penetration rate in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has increased rapidly from 1% in 2000 to 54% in 2012. Although the diffusion of mobile subscriptions slightly bridges the gap of Internet accessibility between developing and developed countries, the gap in Internet usage is not closing (see Figure 2 & 3). Additionally, in Africa, 19 out of 100 individuals used the Internet while 69 out of 100 inhabitants subscribed mobile services in 2014 (ITU World Telecommunication, 2014). A digital divide still clearly exists between developed and developing regions today. Zooming into Tanzania specifically, 55.72 per 100 inhabitants, which was 27.4 million individuals, subscribed mobile services in 2010 (ITU ICT-Eye, 2015). 4 Figure 1: Global ICT Developments per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015. Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database. Global ICT Developments per 100 Inhabitants 110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 - 96.8 96.1 93.1 Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions Active mobilebroadband subscriptions Fixed broadband subscriptions 47.2 37.2 9.9 10.3 10.8 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Figure 2: Mobile-cellular Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015. Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database. Mobile-cellular Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants 140.0 118.4 120.0 100.0 93.1 80.0 87.8 60.0 119.9 120.6 96.8 91.8 96.1 91.1 Developed Developing 40.0 World 20.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Figure 3: Individuals Using the Internet per 100 Inhabitants, 2005-2015. Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database. Individuals Using the Internet per 100 Inhabitants 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 76.9 37.8 29.5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5 2012 2013 79.5 82.2 Developed 40.6 32.4 43.4 35.3 2014 2015* Developing World Digital Divide The term of "digital divide" was initially invented to describe the inequalities between people who had access to the Internet and those who did not in the U.S. (Katz & Aspden, 1997). More recently, this concept has been commonly used to refer to the worldwide gap in Internet access and usage (UN ICT Task Force, 2002). In the current scholarship, the boundary of digital divide has been extended to the divide in levels of motivation, access, material, skills, and usage (Van Dijk, 2005). This paradigm is in line with Warschauer’s (2004) argument that the digital divide should not only be a binary division between those who do not have access and those who do. The other underlying factors, such as social factors, could influence different dimensions of the digital divide. Specifically, the different usage of the Internet (e.g., usage divide) is found correlated with differences in users’ social-demographic and social-economic backgrounds (Verdegem & Verhoest, 2009). These discussions on digital divide provide new lenses to tackle the challenges in the digital divide. Usage divide, the difference in technological usage, is one ultimate point to solve digital divide since the knowledge gap from a dispersion of information resources could be widened by usage divide (Wei and Hindman, 2011; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2014). Moreover, the usage divide can be measured in four dimensions: (1) usage time, (2) usage applications and diversity, (3) broadband or narrowband use, and (4) more or less active or creative use (Van Dijk, 2006). Usage divide is the final stage that development practitioners and researchers will face in the digital divide. To bridge the global digital divide eventually, we should ask the question that “how do we encourage local community in developing countries to participate meaningfully using their current connections?” (Ali, 2011). Furthermore, when scholars investigate certain ICT uses in developing countries, the facts on digital divide should be carried away and contextual factors, like regional ICT infrastructure and social 6 factors, should be taken into consideration. Social Network Sites Social media is a term that has been intensely used to describe Web 2.0 technologies that include functionalities of collaboration and community, for example, SNS and blog (Joosten, 2012; Hemmi, Bayne, & Land, 2009). Among numerous examples of social media, SNS (e.g., Facebook) is representative for social media due to the popularity and well recognition). The well-known examples of SNS are Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. To narrow the scope of this study, SNS was chosen to be the context for further investigation. The emerging popularity of SNS comes along with the growing scholarship on SNS in recent years. In the most agreed definition of SNS, Boyd and Ellison (2007) defined SNS as “web-based services that allow individuals (1) to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (p. 211).” The relevant literature mainly reviews the following dimensions of SNS usage: impression management and friendship performance (Donath & Boyd, 2004; Marwick, 2005), networks and network structure (Golder et al., 2007; Lampe et al., 2007; Heer & Boyd, 2005) online and offline connections (Lenhart & Madeen, 2007), as well as privacy issues (George, 2006; Gross and Acquisti, 2005). On the other hand, researchers have explored the role and impact of SNS in politics (e.g., Vitak et al., 2011; Tumasjan et al., 2010), education (e.g., Tess, 2013; Conole & Alevizou, 2010), business (e.g., Qualman, 2010; Trusov et al., 2009), and many other domains (e.g., Chou et al., 2009). For instance, the recent use of SNS in politics has drawn much attention from the research community. Golbeck et al. (2010) distinguish Congress people use Twitter for self-promotion information 7 sharing. Mäkinen and Kuira (2008) inspected the involvement of SNS (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) in citizen communication during Kenyan presidential election crisis in 2007. Implications and applications of SNS in teaching and learning have also been examined with mixed evidence (Bosch, 2009; Cheung et al., 2011; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Hew, 2011). The research on specific functionalities and the use of SNS in different domains contribute to a better understanding of SNS in our lives. In scholarship as mentioned above, Facebook is one of the most often examined SNS due to the massive user population and increased prevalence over the world. Founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, Facebook shares the mission “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.” Facebook provides the functionality for users “to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what is going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them” (Facebook, n.d.). The main features of Facebook include profile, news feed, graph search, Instagram, messengers, photos and videos, pages, groups, as well as events (Facebook Newsroom, n.d.). Facebook was the dominant SNS in 2013 Pew Research survey (Pew Research Internet Project, 2013). Specifically, 71% of Internet users have Facebook accounts (Pew Research Center, 2015a). By December 2014, Facebook had 890 million daily active users. Other widely used SNS are Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Instagram (Pew Research Internet Project, 2013). Twitter has also been often termed as microblogging and frequently referred in the literature (e.g., Kwak et al., 2010). The uniqueness of Twitter, which is different from Facebook, is the 140-character limit (i.e., tweets). Comparatively, Twitter reached more than 288 million monthly active use in 2014, while Facebook had 1.39 billion monthly active users by December 2014 (Statista, n.d.; Facebook, 2014). 8 With such online resources and various functionalities embedded in the platforms, SNS has drawn much attention from academia to investigate its potential for “meaningful use.” The "meaningful use" has been broadly defined as “the capacity and opportunity to successfully integrate Information Communication Technologies (ICT) into the accomplishment of self or collaboratively identified goals” by Gurstein (2003). In other words, academic scholarship has been exploring the role of SNS for economic, political, educational, or healthcare purposes. To narrowing the research scope, this study examines the role of SNS in higher education, the usage of SNS, and underlying motives to use SNS by college students in developing and developed countries in the previous literature. College students and Facebook use pattern A recent SNS report from the Pew Research Center (2015b) examined the uses and user compositions of different SNS among all U.S. online adults in 2014. The report shows Facebook remains to be the dominant SNS that has been used by 71% of U.S. online adults since 2013. In regards to the frequency of SNS use, Facebook users were the most engaged with the platform, and 70% of Facebook users use the site on a daily basis. The percentages of daily active users of other SNS platforms are as follows: Instagram (49%), Twitter (36%), Pinterest (17%), and LinkedIn (13%). The report also revealed the tendency of U.S. online adults using multiple SNS platforms. Above all, Facebook is the “home base” for all SNS users and it is important to examine Facebook in academic scholarship. The young generation or the Millennial generation (e.g., people who are born between 1982-2002; Howe & Strauss, 2009) grew up with SNS, and they play a vital role in SNS user population. Users aged 18-29 make up the largest proportion of users of major SNS (Pew 9 Research Center, 2015b), including Facebook (87%), Twitter (37%), Instagram (53%), and Pinterest (34%). As an essential part of the Millennial generation, existing literature has emphasized the SNS use among college students. Across all SNS, Facebook is prevalent in college student communities (e.g., Hargittai, 2007). A prior study from EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research found that 97% of students in the selected 127 North American universities (e.g., 126 American universities and 1 Canadian university) used Facebook (Junco, 2011). The significance to study the college students’ Facebook usage is attached to the predominant role of Facebook and a large number of college students as Facebook users. Basic use pattern and the Facebook Intensity Scale With the goal to explore Facebook use patterns, this study adopted the following measures: time spent on site, the frequency of visiting the site, accessibility, the intensity of using the site, and the utilized connection strategies in the extant literature. On average, college students spend 6.2 hours per week on Facebook (Martinez Aleman & Wartman, 2009). In 2012, taking all U.S. audience into account, each person aged 18-24 spent the total time of 10.25 hours on their mobile phone and 11 hours on their computers to visit SNS. A significant trend of browsing SNS through their mobiles, either through web or applications, is also revealed (Nielson, 2012). The Facebook Intensity Scale was developed by Ellison et al. (2007) and has been widely used to measure users’ emotional connectedness to Facebook as a daily activity and consequent outcomes from Facebook use (e.g., Smock et al., 2011; Tomai et al., 2010; Valenzuela et al., 2009). This scale includes the time duration of using SNS, the number of Facebook friends, and a series of Likert-scale attitudinal items (e.g., ’I feel out of touch when I have not logged onto Facebook for a while’). In a pioneer study (Ellison et al., 2007), 94% 10 of the surveyed 286 college students, on average, spent 10-30 minutes using Facebook each day with a list of 150-200 friends on Facebook. In the meantime, the intensity of using Facebook was a significant predictor of bonding social capital, which is also often termed as “weak ties” or loose connections between individuals. Although this scale includes these multiple dimensions of Facebook use, this scale cannot present different categories of Facebook usage (e.g., social or pedagogical activities). To present a full picture of college students’ Facebook uses, this scale should incorporate the measurement of different purposes of Facebook use and insights about underlying motives to use Facebook. Facebook connection strategy and social capital Facebook contains multiple features that could be used to maintain existing social connections and create new connections. The action of “friending” was particularly derived from Facebook functionality and the connection strategy of college students’ Facebook practice is one main realm in the relevant literature. The extant research suggests that Facebook is more likely to be used for communicating with acquaintances and actual friends that users know offline. Boyd and Ellison (2007) argue that individuals use SNS to articulate and reflect offline social relationship, as well as not aim to meet strangers on SNS. Other studies concluded similar findings (e.g., Lenhart & Madden, 2007; Lampe et al., 2008; Mayer & Puller, 2007). Moreover, certain connection strategies may result in beneficial outcomes for college students. The formation and maintenance of social capital is an outcome from connecting friends on Facebook (e.g., Ellison et al., 2013; Berthon et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2010). Social capital is “the accumulated resource derived from the relationship among people within a specific social context or network” (Coleman, 1988; Bourdieu, 2001). The two main types of social 11 capital formed during Facebook use are (1) bonding social capital, which represents the social support from strong ties, such as family and close friends, and (2) bridging social capital that comes from social interactions with weak ties, like coworkers, classmates, and acquaintances (Putnam, 2000). A research group conducted research on the production of social capital and predictive factors of social capital on Facebook. The intensity of Facebook use was initially found as a significant predictor of both bridging and bonding social capital (Ellison et al., 2007). In follow-up studies, the one-way causal relationship between SNS use and bridging social capital has been discovered (i.e. SNS uses cause greater bridging social capital; Steinfield et al., 2008). Also, a specific Facebook practice, interacting with people that research participants had an offline connection with, was predictive of both bridging and bonding social capital (Ellison et al., 2009). Furthermore, Steinfield et al. (2009) extended the investigation on the predictive factors of social capital to a different context, where a business company that built its own internal SNS. The association between SNS use and greater social capital, including bridging and bonding social capital, was found. In general, types of connection that college students initiate and maintain on Facebook influence well-being outcomes, like social capital, take place. Research gaps in Facebook use studies The Facebook research mostly selected U.S. college students as samples and the findings present the U.S. college students’ Facebook usage. Few studies have examined the use of Facebook among college students in non-western or developing countries (e.g., Peters et al., 2015; Wyche et al., 2013; Bosch, 2009). The differences between western countries and non-western countries may play a role in college student SNS use. Bolton et al. (2013) argue that environmental factors, such as the settings of culture, technology (i.e., infrastructure), and economy, should be taken into consideration when scholars investigate the uses of SNS, 12 like Facebook, in non-Western countries. This argument is supported by Peter et al. (2015) that explored the cultural influence on Facebook practice among college students in Namibia and the U.S. It is worth mentioning that cultural practices and college students’ Facebook practices influenced one another in the comparative study. Likewise, Bosch (2009) argues that the technological constraints should be considered when the researchers consider the potential of Facebook in the African continent, for example, ICT literacy and uneven access to Facebook. Moreover, Wyche et al. (2013) claim the underdeveloped ICT infrastructure and accessibility have the indirect influence on SNS use and practices due to the high costs that people spent on travel, airtime, and phone charging to use Facebook. It makes Facebook as luxury goods in Kenya, which supports Bolton et al.’s argument from economic perspective. Furthermore, the assumption that Facebook usage reduces the transaction cost to maintain a social relationship in western countries (Lampe et al., 2007) might not be true in developing countries since the cost of accessing SNS in developing countries is not same as the cost in developed countries. Subsequently, the use of SNS, like Facebook, among college students in a non-Western environment with limited economic and technological resources as well as different cultural practices need further investigation. College students and motives to use Facebook Including the formation of social capital, the associations between Facebook use and other beneficial well-being outcomes were discovered in existing scholarship, like life satisfaction and social trust (Ellison et al., 2007; Valenzuela et al., 2009). On the other hand, some studies explain the different motives to use SNS predict the utilization of the site (e.g., Haridakis & Hanson, 2008; Shen & Williams, 2011; Cheung et al., 2011). Therefore it is important to study the driving force for their Facebook uses: why college students use Facebook, in other words, their motives to use Facebook. 13 In current scholarship, extensive studies have collected empirical results on the reasons for college students to use SNS, like Facebook. Palfrey and Gasser (2008) claim that the need to interact with others is a critical reason for the Millennial generation, including college students, to use SNS. For example, keeping in touch with former high school classmates could be a drive for college students to use Facebook (Ellison et al., 2007). Besides that, it is suggested that college students spend a considerable amount of time on browsing online content (Pempek et al., 2009) for information (Raacke & Bonds Raacke, 2008; Bonds-Raacke & Raacke, 2010; Wise et al., 2010), leisure or entertainment (Park et al., 2009; Ezumah, 2014), socializing, and experiencing a sense of community (Valkenburg et al., 2006). In the extant literature, there are several theoretical frameworks applied to understanding the motives for college students to use Facebook. Uses and gratifications theory is one of the mainstream theories that categorize and explain the underlying reasons to use SNS, like Facebook, from the individual aspect. Additionally, network externality and social learning theories are adopted to explain the different motives for college students to use Facebook from the perspective of the macro-level environment. Besides above theories, Flow experience (Chang, 2013; Shin & Shin, 2011), and Technology Acceptance Model (Kwon & Wen, 2010) are also applied to analyze the motives to use SNS. For instance, flow experience was found closely associated with social network games and predicted college student’ intention to play social network games (Chang, 2013). Motives to use Facebook and Uses and Gratifications (U&G) U&G is a theoretical framework that investigates how media, including social media, are used to fulfill the needs of individual users with a goal-oriented approach (Katz et al., 1973; Perse & Courtright, 1993). The U&G paradigm allows researchers to explicate users’ 14 rationales for their different use or non-use of various media. Also, U&G studies examine the interplay between needs and gratifications: how media gratify needs and how gratifications reconstruct needs. Scholars have employed the U&G lens to answer the question about motives for using Facebook (e.g., Cheung et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011; Smock et al., 2011). Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) found “to keep in touch with old friends” (96%) and “to keep in touch with current friends” (91%) were the two most reported motivations of using MySpace and Facebook among college students in a US university in 2008. Comparatively, the motivation “to make new friends” (56%) is less reported. In a more systematic summary of motives to use Facebook, Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) extracted nice scales of the motives: habitual pass time, relaxing entertainment, expressive information sharing, escapism, cool and new trend, companionship, professional advancement, social interaction, and meeting new people. Similarly, Hew (2011) identified motives scales from empirical data, which includes: maintaining existing relationship, meeting new people, using is cool and fun, making oneself more popular, passing time, expressing or presenting oneself, and learning. While above motives are categorized, Xu et al. (2012) looked at the SNS usage from a general perspective and attributed the uses and adoption of Facebook to utilitarian and hedonic motives. The utilitarian and hedonic gratifications are derived from scholarship on consumer behavior (Stoel & Lee, 2004). In detail, utilitarian motives could include convenience, cost saving, customization, and diversified selection; hedonic motives could include the experience of adventure, social interaction, and pleasure. Not only hedonic gratifications (e.g., immediate access and coordination) but also utilitarian gratifications (e.g., affection, leisure, and social presence) were found as predictors of SNS usage (Xu et al., 15 2012). Shared a similar approach, Davis et al. (1992) propose that both extrinsic (usefulness) and intrinsic (enjoyment) factors influence the motives to use information technology system including SNS. Later studies reached similar findings (e.g., Kim et al., 2007; Lin & Bhattacherjee, 2008). These scales and categories are established based on the values embedded in SNS, like Facebook, and provide different perspectives for researchers to better understand the underlying motives of college students’ Facebook uses. Motives to use Facebook and social learning theory Social learning theory highlights the reciprocal learning outcomes as results of influences from social contexts through observations and imitations of others’ cognitive patterns, behaviors, and related consequences (Bandura, 1977). The concept of modeling (i.e., learning by observing) is critical in social learning theory. Three types of modeling stimuli are defined by Bandura (1977): live models (e.g., an actual person), verbal instruction (i.e., a verbal description of desired behavior), and symbolic (i.e., characters in different media). The process of how social learning takes place is also described as attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. Furthermore, the social learning theory interprets motivation as “having a good reason to imitate (certain behavior),” which could be relevant to the motives to use SNS. In some prior studies, social-related factors are found influential to the usage or adoption of SNS, which questions if social context and social learning play a role in the SNS uses. For example, peer pressure was the top-ranked motive for US college students to use Facebook, in a comparative study, while it was the third ranked motive for Namibian college students 16 (Peters et al., 2015). Cheung et al. (2011) argue that social presence has a strong impact on the intention to use Facebook. However, there are very few studies investigated the role of social learning in SNS uses, like motives to use Facebook. Research gap in motives to use Facebook Past research mostly investigated U.S. college students’ uses of SNS, like students’ general uses and motives to use different types of SNS (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Raacke & Bonds Raacke, 2008; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; Xu et al., 2012). However, few studies examined students’ SNS use in developing country settings or reviewed the comparison of SNS use between students in developing countries and developed countries (e.g., Peters et al., 2015; Wyche et al., 2013). The majority of studies investigate the motives to use Facebook in western countries, particularly the U.S., however, there are very few studies are about motives to use Facebook in non-US or non-western countries. UNICEF (2013) captured the Kenyan adolescents’ meeting new people, accessing entertainment-related content, and learning new things as their major motives to use social media in a UNICEF report. Moreover, the cultural differences influence college students’ motives to use SNS. In another comparative study (Kim et al., 2011), Korean college students are found giving more priority to obtaining social support as their motive to use SNS, while U.S. college students are more leaning to seeking entertainment. Similarly, the motive to maintain social relationships was found in a less favored position for Norwegian SNS users, compared to U.S. users (Brandtzæg & Heim, 2009). Studying motives to use Facebook in a more comprehensive way, it is important to include users from countries outside of the U.S., especially non-western countries. The role of the digital divide in the development field has been extensively explored in the 17 recent decades. However, few studies examine the other aspects of the digital divide besides access divide. The digital divide does not only include in accessibility but also the ICT use, which is related to the usage divide (Verdegem & Verhoest, 2009). As more infrastructure are being built in developing regions, the effects of advanced telecommunication infrastructure, especially the ubiquitous Internet access, on developing region users are less known (e.g., Dhaha & Igale, 2013; Pfeiffer et al., 2014). Other factors besides infrastructure, such as aspects of users’ socio-economic context, can be expected to influence how the Internet is used. What happens when ICT users from developing regions relocate to a developed context without infrastructure limitations, and with different usage norms? Are their patterns of use more like their new peers, or do patterns of use remain similar to users in developing regions? SNS are one of the key representatives of ICT. SNS’ presence in civil rights and political revolutions in Egypt and Nigeria has received much attention. Considering the usage divide in digital divide and the potential effects of social and cultural factors (Peters et al., 2015) of a country, the outcomes of SNS use are uncertain in SSA. Bridging the division in SNS usage between developing the region and developed context, it is critical to have more knowledge of SNS usage in SSA region and any changes in SSA region users’ SNS use pattern if the Internet limitations are removed. Research Questions and Hypotheses The role of infrastructure in development has been reinforced. However, to bridge the digital divide, building infrastructure is not the answer infinitely. Nowadays, the use divide is strongly linked to the digital divide. Access to information does not always lead to meaningful uses of technology. As an important ICT, SNS has its unique presence in development in political, educational, and many other domains. However, the use divide has 18 not been well examined in the existing literature. Are there differences in SNS uses between SNS users in the developing country and the developed country? If the barriers to Internet accessibility were removed, will developing country users change their SNS use? It is important to determine the dimensions to measure the use of SNS. In this study, the dimensions of SNS specifically include the general SNS use, the SNS use pattern, and the motives to use SNS. H0: There is no statistically significant difference in the way that the two groups of students use SNS regarding their general SNS use, the SNS use pattern, and the motives to use SNS. Importance of the Study The results of this study are useful for researchers and practitioners in the development field. Firstly, since there is very limited research available regarding SNS use in developing countries, the study provides new insights on developing users’ SNS use to the social media research body. Then, the significant findings on the SNS use differences will guide the development agencies and universities to better prepare their students for the new era of social media. For example, social media literacy can be introduced as guidelines for SNS use in developing countries. To bridge the use divide as one important layer in the digital divide, the government and Internet service providers should include guidelines for using the Internet, like SNS, in the scaling process in developing countries. More importantly, the study shows the role of infrastructure should be reconsidered and reevaluated in the development field. The uptake of the Internet does not always lead to meaningful use or beneficial outcomes. 19 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The goal of this study is to compare African student’s SNS use in two different infrastructural and socio-cultural settings. The study focused on African students in the U.S. and Tanzania in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The two research sites in Tanzania and the U.S. simulated the infrastructure settings of a developing country and a developed country. Since all the African students included in the study all originally came from SSA region, the two research sites simulate the before-and-after conditions with the treatment of advanced telecommunication infrastructure. This study broadly explores whether the infrastructure setting is playing any role in the differences in the SNS uses of the two African student groups. In this section, the research design and instruments showcase the utilized research method of this study. Then, the detailed data collection and analysis procedures provide the practical steps of conducting the study. The target population, sampling, and sample are articulated at the end of this chapter with listed limitations. Research Design Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used to examine SNS use and the motives to use the mainstream SNS among African college students in the U.S. and SSA, in this case, Tanzania. In-depth interviews and questionnaires were utilized to answer the research questions. The interview protocols and the questionnaires were almost same but a few demographic questions. For example, African students who studied in the U.S. were asked how long they had been in the U.S. Overall, results from the interviews served as an exploratory component to refine the design of questionnaires and to support the findings from quantitative data. 20 In this study, SSA was chosen as the geographic region to benchmark the two groups of African college students for several reasons. In the current scholarship, SSA frequently refers to “the African countries south of the Sahara dessert” as an entity (UNDP, 2016). SSA geographically covers all the countries that participants of this study came. Tanzania was specifically chosen as one research site since the author only had research connections in Tanzania in SSA. Also, as one of the five key telecommunication markets in SSA, Tanzania has the telecommunication infrastructure ready for the use of social media among college students (GSMA & Deloitte, 2012). It assures the two student groups of the U.S. and Tanzania are comparable in the readiness to use social media use and in the broad geographic perspective. Two universities, one in the U.S. and one in Tanzania, were chosen as research sites to conduct a comparison of African college students’ SNS use. This study uses convenience sampling and snowball sampling, which required research connections and contacts with the target demographic. Therefore, the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) and Michigan State University (MSU) were chosen to sample and conduct the study. The data sets were collected through interviews and a survey from June 2014 to July 2014 at UDSM in Tanzania and from October 2014 to November 2014 at MSU in the U.S. The UDSM students majored in 4 subjects, including Climate Change, Economics, Natural Resources, and Computer Science. Meanwhile, the MSU students were surveyed in 2014. They were studying over eight different majors, such as Economics, Political Science, and Public Health. A Master’s student at UDSM was hired as a research assistant to assist in recruiting student participants in UDSM. 21 Research Instruments An interview protocol and a questionnaire instrument were designed based on prior relevant research (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Raacke & Bonds-Raccke, 2008). Consent forms for both the interview and questionnaire were used in this study. The details of the interview questions and sections and the questionnaire are as bellows: The interview protocol has three sections: basic demographic information, current ICT uses, and current SNS use (see Appendix A and Appendix B). Interviewees were asked to answer the questions based on their experiences voluntarily. One question regarding the time length that students have been in the U.S. was added only to the MSU interview protocol. The questionnaire included five sections: (1) general SNS usage, (2) Facebook usage intensity, (3) Facebook usage, (4) motives to use Facebook, and (5) demographic information (See Appendix C and Appendix D). The response formats of the questionnaire include open-ended questions and a variety of closed-ended questions, like Likert scales and multiple choices. In the general SNS usage section, respondents need to self-report the SNS(s) that they ever used, they were currently using, and they most frequently used. Options in each relevant survey question were constructed based on interview results with 10 UDSM students before the survey. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Google+, and Whatsapp were the options in these questions. In the section of SNS use pattern, the survey questions include: (1) how often they visited Facebook, (2) how they accessed Facebook, (3) number of Facebook friends, (4) percentage 22 of Facebook friends that respondents actually knew offline, and (5) the average number of hours that respondents spent on Facebook per day. The items of SNS use pattern in the survey were built upon the established research instruments (Ellison et al., 2006) and refined based on relevant interview results from this study. In Facebook usage intensity scale, which measures “emotional connectedness to the site and its integration into individuals’ daily activities,” was incorporated in the questionnaire as the core of the quantitative design in this study (Ellison et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to check the response(s) to which they identified. Items in the index of motives to use Facebook highlighted the specific motives of (1) social communication, (2) schoolwork, and (3) professional advancement to use Facebook. Uses and Gratifications (U&G) theory (Katz et al., 1973; Perse & Courtright, 1993) served as the theoretical framework for the construction of research instruments in this study. The prior relevant research developed the index (e.g., Ellison et al., 2007; Raacke & Bonds-Raccke, 2008; Smock et al.,) and the results from interviews with UDSM students that were conducted before the UDSM questionnaires. Three items related to students’ professional advancement (e.g., networking with professional, useful for a career, and, posting a resume or professional work online) and one item of using Facebook to meet new people that were proposed by Smock et al. (2011) were slightly modified and included in the survey. The interview results from UDSM interviewees were also applied to the construction of the items of motives to use Facebook. To assure the reliability of each scale in the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha was tested in each scale of the index. There are four items under social communication scale (Cronbach's α=. 78), five items under 23 schoolwork scale (Cronbach's α=. 83), and three items under professional advancement scale (Cronbach's α=.86). The items of the social communication scale investigated respondents’ general connection strategy on Facebook (e.g., initiate new connection, maintaining strong ties, and weak ties), which were developed based on the Facebook connection strategy scale in the study of Elisson et al. (2006) and interview results from UDSM respondents. The scale of schoolwork was developed and refined according to the repeated themes in UDSM interview. Additionally, the professional advancement scale was adopted and slightly modified from the study of Smock et al. (2011). Before data collection, the interview protocol and the questionnaire were pre-tested to a small group of African students at MSU. A discussion after survey and interviews gave a chance for the pilot-test participants to give feedback and comment for modification. The instruments were modified based on the feedback from the pre-test. Moreover, to refine the questionnaire, the results of interviews in Tanzania provided important facts about Tanzanian students’ SNS general uses that were not initially covered by the questionnaire instrument. Data Collection Procedures The data collection took place in the campuses of UDSM and MSU. After the researcher had obtained approval from Human Research Protection Program at Michigan State University and written research permission from the University of Dar es Salaam and Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology, the target students were recruited to participate in the interview and questionnaire. Interviews were conducted individually both in UDSM and MSU. The questionnaire was administered after certain class sessions in UDSM through contacts of the local research assistant, while the questionnaire was distributed within an African student organization and online (e.g., Survey Monkey) through snowball sampling in 24 MSU. Due to different locations and schedules for each batch of target students, data collection spanned two weeks in UDSM and four weeks in MSU. For both the interview and questionnaire, the research read the consent form and introduced the study to the participants. Then, the consent forms were handed to the participants for review and their oral voluntary agreements were obtained to ensure anonymity. Next, interviews and questionnaires were conducted with the participants who signed the consent forms. The researcher recorded the interviews with a digital recorder and the recordings were kept confidential as well as anonymous in an encrypted folder, which is on a computer that is only accessible by the primary researcher. The completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher and kept confidential with the researcher. Data Analysis Procedures Once all the questionnaire data was collected from each research site, the researcher used a combination of Microsoft Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 program to enter, clean, and analyze all the questionnaire data. Factor analysis was also utilized to explore and create the index of motives to use mainstream SNS. The researcher compared questionnaire data from UDSM and MSU to study the difference between the two African college student groups’ SNS uses and motives to use Facebook. In the data analysis, the comparisons between the two student groups include the SNS that have been used and currently used, the frequency of SNS use, access to Facebook, Facebook intensity scale, and motives of Facebook usage. The study also examined the roles of campus (e.g., UDSM and MSU), gender, age, and ICT ownership (e.g., ownership of mobile phones) in the differences between SNS use and motives to use SNS. 25 Descriptive statistics were used to measure mean, frequency, and percentages of all the questionnaire data to answer the above research questions. Scores in Facebook intensity scale and the index of motives to use Facebook were analyzed using a t-test to explore and assess any difference in terms of Facebook use and motives that would be statistically significant concerning the factors of the location of the campus, gender, age groups, and ICT ownerships. Specifically, the scores of Facebook intensity scale items were analyzed using t-test and chi-square test to examine the relationship between the location of campus (e.g., the U.S. and Tanzania) and respondents’ Facebook use patterns. Likewise, the scores of items in student motives to use Facebook were analyzed using t-test and chi-square test to examine the relationship between the location of campus and respondents’ motives to use Facebook. Differences were considered statistically significant if the p-value was 0.05 or less. In the meantime, all the interview recordings were transcribed through Microsoft Word. Interview transcripts were used to explore repeated themes, whereby these repeated themes regarding general SNS use (e.g., SNS type, reasons to use) were coded into different categories as the coding scheme for qualitative data analysis in Excel. These results were used to elaborate or explain the results from the questionnaire data. In addition, the interview data from UDSM contributed valuable insights to the refinements and modifications of the questionnaire instrument. The results from UDSM interviews suggested social communication was a dominant motive for African college students to use SNS in Tanzania, particularly using Facebook to communicate with overseas friends. Therefore, the scale of motives to use Facebook in the questionnaire was focused on the social communication on Facebook. Additionally, some UDSM students reported their usage of SNS (e.g., Facebook) for class and professional purposes. It is significant to note that the utilitarian usage of SNS was hardly captured in the existing literature. Therefore, the question of motives to use 26 Facebook for schoolwork and professional advancement should be carried on in future research. Population The target populations are undergraduate and graduate African students who studied at UDSM and MSU during the data collection period from June 2014 to October 2014. The two universities were chosen due to the convenience in sampling and the allocation of the researcher’s social connections. This section explores the diversity and representativeness of two sample populations. Then, differences between the two target populations in telecommunication infrastructure and social-cultural settings will be discussed. MSU has a vast and diverse population of African college students that possibly added more representativeness and diversity to the sample. In fall 2014, MSU had 50,085 students enrolled with 294 African students among 7,643 international students (MSU, 2015). The 3.8% composition of African students in MSU’s international student population is slightly less than the 4.6% national-level composition of African students among all the international students in the U.S (Brookings, 2014). Also, 88.4% of MSU African college students (i.e., 260) were from 33 out of 46 total African countries (i.e., 71.7%) in SSA (MSU, 2015; UNDP, 2016). In this case, the MSU African student population captured the main diversity of African students in the U.S. On the other hand, UDSM had 19,650 students enrolled in total with 1,130 non-Tanzanian students (i.e., 5.7%) in 2007-2008 (UDSM, n.d.). In other words, 94.3% of UDSM students were from Tanzania. However, the UDSM sample cannot represent all college students in Tanzania and SSA. UDSM is the top ranked university in Tanzania, and the most difficult to 27 be accepted. UDSM students tend to have a privileged social-economic status compared to other Tanzanian college students and students at African colleges. Comparing the two African student populations in MSU and UDSM, they were conditioned with different infrastructure, social, and cultural settings. In MSU campus, African students can access high-speed Internet seamlessly in their residential buildings and classrooms for free. Free wireless Internet also allowed MSU students to access the Internet freely on their mobile devices, especially mobile phones. Although UDSM students can also access the Internet in several school buildings on campus or some nearby Internet cafes, the Internet access was unstable and slow. Besides, UDSM students need to pay for their Internet access in the Internet cafes or by pre-paid Internet service on their smartphones or laptops. Most UDSM students did have mobile phones, but they hesitated to use the mobile Internet due to the associated high-priced Internet fees and low incomes. In these consequences, MSU students view the Internet as a basic commodity of life; however, most UDSM students value the Internet as a luxury commodity in their college life. Also, studying in MSU requires students to obtain personal laptops as necessaries for study. Subsequently, it is common for MSU students to use their laptops to browse class materials, do online research, complete assignments, and socialize with peers on SNS. Comparatively, UDSM students are not required to use computers or laptops as necessaries in college. Their coursework still heavily involved paper-and-pencil. As a result, some UDSM students did not have laptops and did not frequently use a computer. Also, the two student populations were immersed in different social-cultural settings, for instance, different English language competencies and social norms. Most MSU students 28 spoke English comfortably and fluently on campus, while UDSM students mainly spoke Swahili, the national language in Tanzania. Although English is also the teaching language in UDSM, students were less comfortable in communicating in English. However, the most common language used on the Internet and in Facebook is English (Internet World Stats, 2016b). In Tanzania, Swahili is the national language and the language of instruction until secondary school, and even college students often have weak English language skills. Because of this, they may use the Internet and Facebook less than if their English skills were strong. Moreover, MSU African students are immersed in western values of individualities from peer students in the U.S., which greatly valued privacy and personal space in daily lives. On the other hand, UDSM students grow up in the cultural context that favors collective value over individual value. These differences mentioned above in telecommunication infrastructure and social-cultural settings will be used to explain the different SNS use in two sample populations. Sampling This section will present the sampling method and criteria in this study. In brief, the target samples are African college students who studied at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) and Michigan State University (MSU). As the sampling criteria, the participants had to be undergraduate or graduate students who had used SNS in UDSM or MSU during the data collection period, June 2014 to October 2014. Additionally, the participants are all originally born and grew up in African countries in SSA. For example, students who were not from or not raised in the SSA region (e.g., completed high school in SSA region) were excluded from this study. Since the study focuses on African college students’ SNS usage, especially Facebook, all the questionnaires without responses in Facebook usage section were excluded from the data analysis. Besides these criteria, all students had to be at least 18-year old. 29 The main sampling methods used in this study are snowball sampling and convenient sampling. The sample size was mainly determined by the difficulty of sampling in the two research sites and the minimum sample size to draw statistically significant conclusions. In the sampling process, it was more challenging to recruit students that were originally from SSA region and participated in the study voluntarily at MSU than UDSM. Therefore, the MSU sample size is smaller than the UDSM sample size. Although the sample sizes in the two different campuses are different, both sample sizes are sufficient (e.g., over 30) to conduct quantitative statistics in both samples and lead to statistically significant findings. In MSU, African college students were recruited online and offline by the researcher directly. The distribution of MSU African students' majors scattered in many different groups. Therefore, MSU Students were sampled using the method of snowball sampling. African Student Leadership Association, one student organization at MSU, encouraged their members and friends to participate in the study. It greatly assisted the recruitment on the MSU site. The data collection was accomplished in four weeks from October to November 2014 at MSU. On the other hand, UDSM African students were recruited through the social connections of the hired local research assistant via convenient sampling. UDSM sample was from majors of Climate Change, Economics, Natural Resources, and Computer Science due to students’ schedule availability during the data collection. From June to July 2014, UDSM data collection was completed in two weeks. It includes the research clearance process at the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology, interviews, and survey data collection. Sample This section presents the key demographics of the sample in the survey and interviews. The 30 survey sample consists of 60 UDSM African students and 33 MSU African students. Initially, 64 USDM students and 38 MSU students participated in the survey. In the analysis, nine questionnaire responses of too much non-response or missing data were excluded after the pairwise deletion was applied. Of the 93 valid survey respondents included, male students make up 52% (n=48) of them and 47% (n=44) were female. One MSU respondent did not indicate his or her gender in the questionnaire. There were 47 undergraduate students and 45 graduate students, while one MSU respondent did not fill out his or her school year. Regarding age, 23 respondents did not specify his or her age. The average age of the valid respondents (n=70) is 26. The specific breakdowns of the sample are presented as below. Table 1: Sample, campus and method Survey Interview UDSM Percentage MSU Percentage Sample size 60 100% 33 100% Male Female Missing data 30 30 0 50% 50% 0% 18 14 1 55% 42% 3% Undergraduate student Graduate student Missing data 33 27 0 55% 45% 0% 20 12 1 61% 36% 3% Sample size 10 100% 7 100% Male Female Missing data 5 5 0 50% 50% 0% 5 2 0 71% 29% 0% Undergraduate student Graduate student Missing data 4 6 0 40% 60% 0% 4 3 0 57% 43% 0% Among all the 60 UDSM survey respondents, the numbers of male and female students were even (n=30). The majority of the UDSM sample were graduate students (n=33, 55%) with 27 undergraduate students (45%). The average age of the UDSM respondents was 27, with a non-response rate of 15% in the field of age (n=9). Among the MSU survey respondents 31 (N=33), 14 students were female students and the other four students were male. Meanwhile, 20 out of the 33 MSU respondents were undergraduate students. The rest 12 students were graduate students. One student in the MSU sample did not indicate his or her school year. The average age of the MSU respondents was 24, with a non-response rate of 42% (n=14). Moreover, MSU respondents were asked to indicate how long they have been in the U.S., with a median of “about one year” among the 33 respondents. Meanwhile, the interview sample includes 10 UDSM African students and 7 MSU African students. The interviewees were initially chosen separately from the survey respondents. However, there were not enough students both in UDSM and MSU available for interviews. Therefore, ten survey respondents were included in the interview as well (e.g., five survey respondents from UDSM and five survey respondents from MSU. The UDSM interviewees (N=10) consisted of five males and five females. Also, the majority of the UDSM interviewees were graduate students (n=6, 60%). The MSU interviewees (N=7) included five male and two female students. 57% of the MSU interviewees were undergraduate students (n=4). Unfortunately, age was not included in the interview protocol for both campuses. Among the UDSM interviewees (n=10), nine students came from Tanzania, and only one student was from Ghana. On the other hand, among the MSU interviewees (n=7), students were from countries in SSA region, including Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, Ghana, and Tanzania. Limitations Recruiting African college students from UDSM and MSU determined certain limitations of the sample in this study. The results cannot be generalized to all African college students in SSA and the U.S. UDSM is a leading university in Tanzania with top students and competitive infrastructure in the country. The UDSM students are more likely to live in elite 32 circles of Tanzania due to their advantageous social-economic status. Most of those surveyed had smartphones, laptops, and accesses to the Internet as well as SNS. Future studies are suggested to include social-economic and cultural analyses to test if the findings in this study apply to other regions and countries in SSA region. 33 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This study compared the SNS use among students from University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) and Michigan State University (MSU). Students were specifically interviewed and surveyed about the general SNS usage, the Facebook uses pattern and the motives to use Facebook. This chapter presents findings drawn from comparisons between the MSU and UDSM data sets. Firstly, the general SNS use and Facebook uses pattern in two student groups are compared. Then, the study examines the differences in the motives to use Facebook. General SNS Usage The survey and interview results suggest that Facebook was the predominant SNS for all the participants. In the survey (N=93), Facebook is the predominant SNS in questions regarding the general SNS usage. In UDSM sample (N=60), 57 respondents (95%) have used Facebook, 43 respondents (72%) have used Google+, and 41 respondents (68%) have used Whatsapp. In MSU sample (N=33), all the respondents (n=33) used Facebook, 88% (n=29) used Google+, 64% (n=21) used Twitter, and 64% used Twitter before. Pinterest is the least used SNS across MSU and UDSM respondents (Table 1). In the comparison of the survey results between the two student groups, Facebook and Google+ are the most frequently mentioned SNS in the three questions (e.g., SNS that respondents ever used, SNS that respondents currently used, and SNS that respondents most frequently used). Meanwhile, Whatsapp was reported as one additional commonly used SNS among UDSM students. MSU respondents also reported that they frequently used Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn in the survey question of their general SNS usage. 34 In the interview, when interviewees were asked which types of SNS they have used, MSU interviewees reported many more types of SNS than UDSM interviewees. MSU interviewees did report Pinterest, Snapchat, Skype, Viber (e.g., an instant messenger that allows users to call each other for free) to supplement the listed SNS that they have ever used. While UDSM interviewees mentioned Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, Whatsapp, Youtube, Instagram and some local SNS (e.g., Badoo) in their answers. Additionally, some other Tanzanian and Africa-based social media were mentioned, for example, Badoo (e.g., a dating social networking service founded in 2006). The dominant use of Facebook among survey respondents was consistent with the interview results toward the mainstream SNS at UDSM and MSU. Of the 10 UDSM interviewees, seven students claimed to Facebook as their most frequently used SNS. And some UDSM students attributed their uses of Facebook to the diversity of the user population and their habit of using it: Because it (Facebook) is my first website for social media and I have many friends (on Facebook). Whatsapp, Instagram, and Google+ were the other mentioned SNS as the mainstream SNS in the interview. One UDSM student was a Google student ambassador and claimed Google+ as her mainstream SNS. She explained her preference of Google+ over Facebook: I don’t get a lot of educational stuff or educational communities (on Facebook). But there are so many educational communities on Google+…we have communities for Google student ambassadors in Africa…I love Google+ is just basically because you really get to what you really want to see and don’t see what you really don’t want to see. 35 All MSU interviewees agreed on that Facebook was the mainstream SNS that they used. Furthermore, some MSU interviewees specified the predominant role of Facebook in their SNS use was driven by the popularity and connectivity of Facebook among their overseas friends. One MSU student claimed: There is a reason for me to keep using Facebook for a while. Because I have so many friends back in Kenya. …They can reach me anytime they want…Facebook is so mainstream that you just cannot resist sometimes, like you will (be) left out if you were not participating in… Table 2: General SNS Usage SNS most frequently used by campus UDS MSU UDSM MSU UDSM MSU M 33 57 33 57 16 43 SNS ever used by campus Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Pinterest Google+ Whatsapp Other Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus SNS currently used by campus 100% 21 95% 24 100% 15 95% 16 70% 0 72% 0 64% 14 40% 19 46% 12 27% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 42% 23 32% 24 36% 22 30% 23 0% 1 0% 1 70% 4 40% 0 67% 2 38% 1 4% 0 2% 0 12% 29 0% 43 6% 28 2% 42 0% 6 0% 12 88% 7 72% 41 85% 4 70% 36 26% 0 20% 4 21% 4 68% 0 12% 4 60% 0 0% 0 7% 0 12% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 36 Moreover, students were asked what they used the mainstream SNS (e.g., Facebook, Google+, Whatsapp) for. The answers include they used Facebook for communication with friends (e.g., distant friends, close friends) and family members, checking social updates of friends (e.g., Facebook status), news, pages, groups (e.g., class groups), sharing information (e.g., photos, jokes, scholarship opportunities, and job information), connecting with professional contacts, file transferring, and posting information. Among these different uses, the answers of using Facebook for communications, class groups, and connecting with professional contacts were used to construct the scale of motives to use Facebook in the questionnaire. It is worth mentioning that some interviewees in both groups mentioned their online communication with overseas friends and family members on Facebook. One UDSM student said: Mostly, I use Facebook to communicate with my friends who are not nearby, like I have some friends in the U.S. and I have some friends in China, Malaysia, and Kenya. Moreover, both groups of students mentioned that they had used Facebook for class purposes. The use of Facebook group for class announcements, notes sharing, discussion, and class projects was frequently mentioned, as one MSU student elaborated in the interview: Some classes have Facebook groups, and just this semester, we have a group and we actually were asked to post questions about the paper that you read in the week…I think it should be the professor (maintaining the group) …professors post updates there and everything. It is found that the use of Facebook has been extended to not only connection with professionals but also online self-promotion. Interviewees in both universities had explored the use of Facebook in professional work. One UDSM student used Facebook to build a community of professionals in geology in Tanzania as described: I used Facebook a lot, one of the reason is that we had a very good group which is somehow related to politics and I have been involved with some of the politics issues in this country. 37 Some students claimed they had seen job information posted on Facebook and shared by friends. One in UDSM explained: I have seen quite a number of job information on Facebook shared by friends, and even some scholarship opportunities. I just clicked to find out the information…and I have tried it before (to connect with some professors on Facebook). In addition, one MSU student explained his specific uses of Facebook to promote this own music work. I am a DJ, and I post a lot of my work (on Facebook), and update my people of where I am in if somebody want to come and check me out. In summary, the predominant role of Facebook was reflected in the SNS use in both groups of students. The repeated themes of Facebook usage were revealed in the interview, including social communication (with friends and families), keeping updated with news (by following pages and people), groups for coursework, professional networking, and promotion, as well as, sharing all kinds of information. Facebook Use Pattern In the questionnaire, the basic SNS use pattern measurement include (1) how often they visited Facebook, (2) how they accessed Facebook, (3) number of Facebook friends, (4) percentage of Facebook friends that respondents actually knew offline, and (5) the average number of hours that respondents spent on Facebook per day. Regarding the frequency to visit Facebook, 85% of MSU respondents (n=28) and 60% of UDSM respondents (n=36) visited Facebook at least once a day. Comparatively, MSU respondents visited Facebook more frequently than UDSM respondents (Table 3). Examining if there exist a difference concerning the frequency of visiting Facebook page between two campuses, numeric values were assigned to the scale (1=’Less than once a month’ and 5=’Multiple times a day’), and t-test was applied. The result shows there is a statistically 38 significant difference about the frequency of visiting Facebook between two groups of students (t=2.09, df=75.6, p=0.040). UDSM respondents (M=4.02) are less frequent to visit Facebook page compared to MSU respondents (M=4.45). Table 3: Frequency of Visiting Facebook Pages Frequency of visiting FB pages by campus MSU UDSM 22 29 Frequency Multiple times a day Once a day A few times a week A few times a month Less than once a month Total % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus 67% 6 18% 3 9% 2 6% 0 0% 33 100.0% 48% 7 12% 21 35% 2 3% 1 2% 60 100.0% It is consistent that students prefer to access SNS through their mobile phones. In the interview, when the students were asked what did they use different ICT devices for, SNS use took a significant portion in their ICT uses. As a matter of fact, all interviewees owned smartphones and have been widely used their phones to access SNS in both the U.S. and Tanzania. In the survey, when respondents were asked how did they access Facebook most of the time, the majority of MSU and UDSM respondents were accessing Facebook through their mobile phones. Besides that, 42% of UDSM respondents reported they mostly used laptops or computers to log in their Facebook accounts (Table 4). 39 Table 4: Accesses to Facebook How to access Facebook mostly Campus MSU UDSM 26 33 79% 55% 9 25 27% 42% 1 2 3% 3% Tablet Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus A friend or family's mobile, Tablet, or computer Frequency % within campus 0 0% 0 0% At a computer center or Internet Café Frequency % within campus Frequency % within campus 0 0% 36 100.0% 0 0% 60 100.0% Mobile phones Laptops/Computers Total The following three items: the number of Facebook friends, the percentage of Facebook friends that respondents knew offline, and the average number of hours spent on Facebook per day were presented in Table 5. The mean of the number of Facebook friends among MSU respondents was 708 (n=31, SD=421.5), while the mean was 704 among UDSM respondents (n=52, SD=2276.1). On the other hand, the medians of MSU and UDSM respondent’s total number of Facebook friends were 600 and 285. It suggested there were some outliers, for example, someone reported 16320 Facebook friends. After removing the outliers suggested in Stem-and-Leaf Plot (e.g., capped at 1400), the means of UDSM and MSU respondents are 264 (n=47, SD=190.1) and 649 (n=28, SD=284.9). Also, a t-test was applied and the result suggests there exist a significant difference between two groups of students concerning the total number of Facebook friends (N=75, t=-5.63, df=41.5, p<0.001). MSU respondents had more Facebook friends than UDSM students. 40 Regarding the percentage of Facebook friends those respondents actually knew offline, the mean of MSU respondents was 60% (n=33, SD=27.2) and the average of UDSM respondents was 50% (n=49, SD=27.8) with a non-response rate of 18% among UDSM respondents. The average numbers of hours spent on Facebook per day were reported as 1.7 (hours) among MSU respondents (n=31, SD=1.5) and two (hours) among UDSM respondents (n=54, SD=2.2). Examining if these three items were different between MSU and UDSM respondents, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The results suggested there was not a significant difference between MSU respondents and UDSM respondents in relation to the number of Facebook friends (t=-.009, df=81, p=.993), the percentage of Facebook friends that respondents knew offline (t=-1.555, df=80, p=.124), and the average number of hours on Facebook every day (t=.712, df=83, p=.478). Table 5: Ratio Level Data in General SNS Usage Campus N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Total number of Facebook Friends MSU UDSM Total 28 47 75 70 30 30 1200 800 1200 604.9 263.6 391.0 284.9 190.1 282.3 Percentage of Facebook friends that respondents knew offline MSU UDSM Total 33 49 82 10 0 0 98 95 98 59.8 50.2 54.0 27.2 27.8 27.8 Average number of hours spent on Facebook per day MSU UDSM Total 31 54 85 0 0 0 6 12 12 1.7 2.0 1.89 1.5 2.2 1.9 Adopted from Ellison et al.’s (2007) study, the Facebook intensity scale was utilized in this study to measure the respondents’ emotional connectedness to Facebook as a daily activity. Mean, Standard Deviation and independent sample t-tests were applied to measure if there is 41 a significant difference between two groups of respondents in any item of this scale. The results suggest there is a statistically significant difference between MSU and UDSM respondents in relation to only one item, “Facebook has become part of my daily routine” (t=-2.13, df=63.4, p=0.033). The mean of this item was 3.42 among MSU respondents while UDSM respondents share a mean of 2.80. Differences in the mean scores of other five items in the Facebook intensity scale are not statistically significant for different campus locations (Table 6). Overall, calculating the means of the Facebook intensity scale for both campuses, there is no statistically significant difference (t=-1.00, df=89, p= .317) between UDSM respondents (n=58, M=3.23) and MSU respondents (n=33, M=3.44). Table 6: Facebook intensity scale Items Facebook Intensity Scale (Cronbach's α=.870) Facebook is part of my everyday activity I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook Facebook has become part of my daily routine I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while I feel I am part of the Facebook community I would be sorry if Facebook shut down Campus MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total N 33 58 91 32 58 90 33 55 88 33 57 90 33 58 91 33 58 91 Mean 3.48 3.19 3.30 3.53 3.41 3.46 3.42 2.80 3.03 3.42 2.80 3.11 3.39 2.93 3.47 3.39 3.52 3.46 SD 1.37 1.21 1.27 1.32 1.03 1.13 1.37 1.27 1.33 1.28 1.25 1.28 1.14 .92 1.00 1.27 1.10 1.16 t df p -1.07 89.0 .289 - .44 52.0 .665 -2.13 63.4 .033* -1.79 88.0 .076 .56 89.0 .576 .42 89.0 .677 *p< .05, scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree In summary, MSU respondents visited Facebook more frequently than UDSM respondents. The trend of accessing Facebook through mobile phones is universal across the two groups of 42 students. Moreover, MSU respondents have more Facebook friends than UDSM respondents. Over half of Facebook friend that all the respondents had known them offline in both groups. Two groups of African students spent 1.5-2.0 hours every day on Facebook. There is only one significant difference between the two student groups concerning the Facebook intensity scale. MSU students were more leaning towards the opinion that Facebook has become part of their daily routine, compared to UDSM students. Otherwise, outcomes of the overall Facebook intensity scale were consistent between the two groups. Motives to Use Facebook The items on motives to use Facebook were constructed based on the Facebook motivation scales in prior studies (Smock et al., 2011; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008) and relevant interview results that were presented earlier. Examining the differences in respondents' motives to use Facebook, these 12 items were measured in three five-point Likert scales (scale ranges from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). In all the items related to social communication, students preferred to use Facebook to maintain current connections than initiate new connections. In particular, respondents reported they used Facebook to communicate with distant friends (n=91, M=4.20, SD=1.07), and then close friends (n=88, M=3.94, SD=1.10). Maintaining weak ties was the main focus of the respondents’ Facebook use regarding social communication. Also, differences of means in the use of Facebook to keep in touch with family were statistically significant on two campuses (t=-2.68, df=89, p=0.009). It suggests that MSU respondents were more likely to use Facebook to contact family members compared to UDSM respondents. All the MSU respondents are originally from Sub-Saharan Africa, so they have family members overseas that need to contact. The connectivity and popularity of Facebook made it a powerful 43 communication tool for online communication across continents. Regarding the uses of Facebook in schoolwork, the mean of only one item, “I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about coursework” (M=3.19, n=89, SD=1.18), is above 3. It translated into that the extent to which students use Facebook for schoolwork is neutral. Although the role of Facebook in school uses was not favored among respondents in general, the differences in means of using Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about coursework (t=2.89, df=83.4, p=0.004) or their research projects (t=2.17, df=88, p=0.033) were statistically significant between the two groups. Comparatively, UDSM respondents were more likely to use Facebook to communicate with teachers either about their coursework (n=57, M=2.39) or own research projects (n=57, M=2.18). The scale does not include the perceived usefulness of Facebook in schoolwork, and the mean of 2.5 (n=90) suggests that Facebook was not that useful for the respondents’ study. One student from UDSM explained the role of Facebook in her social life might leave the impression of being less serious for students’ using Facebook for class purposes. It is useful (for a teacher) to use Facebook groups in class but I don’t know. Because students have already taken Facebook for granted. They always think anything on Facebook is not serious. The teacher would write something (in the class group on Facebook), students would take it just as a usual post. But if was sent as an email, student will take it more seriously than post on Facebook. Regarding professional advancement related items, the respondents had a neutral attitude towards the role of Facebook in professional advancement uses (e.g., networking with professional contacts, and showcasing professional work). When both groups of students were asked if they used Facebook for professional networking, a mean of 2.96 suggests respondents’ agreement of the item (n=91, SD=1.19) were leaning to “neutral.” In comparison, UDSM respondents were more likely to use Facebook to network with other professionals. 44 The rating of perceived usefulness of using Facebook for professional purposes was leaning to “somewhat disagree” (n=87, M=2.85) among all students, which suggests that Facebook was perceived as somewhat not useful. The rating of perceived usefulness of using Facebook for professional purposes was leaning to “neutral” (n=87, M=2.85) on the Likert scale. More importantly, there were statistically significant differences of means between MSU and UDSM respondents concerning all the three items related to professional uses (see Table 7). UDSM respondents were more likely to use Facebook for professional advancement purposes. It is not surprising since the usage of professional SNS is not common among UDSM respondents and Facebook provided an alternative for them to present their professional work. Table 7: Items of Motives to Use Facebook Items I use Facebook to meet new people I use Facebook to communicate with distant friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with close friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with family I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about coursework I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about my own project or research I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about course work Campus MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total N 33 58 91 33 58 91 33 55 88 33 58 91 32 57 89 33 56 89 33 57 90 45 Mean SD 2.85 1.03 3.31 1.30 3.14 1.23 4.42 0.87 4.07 1.15 4.20 1.07 4.21 0.93 3.78 1.17 3.94 1.10 3.76 1.12 3.07 1.21 3.32 1.22 3.19 1.20 3.19 1.17 3.19 1.18 2.70 1.19 3.07 1.20 2.93 1.20 1.73 0.88 2.39 1.21 2.14 1.14 t df p 1.75 89.0 .084 -1.54 89.0 .127 -1.80 86.0 .075 -2.68 89.0 .009** .02 87.0 .983 1.43 87.0 .983 2.98 83.4 .004** Table 7 (cont’d) I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about my own project or research I use Facebook because it is helpful for my study I use Facebook to help me network with professional contacts MSU UDSM 33 57 1.73 2.18 0.84 1.00 Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM Total MSU UDSM 90 33 57 90 33 58 91 31 56 87 33 56 2.01 2.03 2.77 2.50 2.52 3.21 2.96 2.45 3.07 2.85 1.70 2.66 0.97 0.95 1.15 1.13 1.06 1.12 1.19 0.89 1.22 1.15 0.88 1.20 I use Facebook because it is helpful for my professional future I use Facebook to post my resume or other professional Table 7 (cont’d) work online Total 89 2.30 1.18 Scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree *p< .05, **p<. 01, ***p< .001 2.17 88.0 .033* 3.13 88.0 0.002** 2.76 89.0 0.007** 2.49 85.0 0.015* 4.34 82.5 0.000*** To further explore the relationship between the location of the campus and the types of motives to use Facebook, chi-square tests were applied. Differences between the students in the two sites regarding the motives to use Facebook are presented in Table 8. It is more likely for UDSM respondents to use Facebook to communicate with teachers about their own project or research compared to MSU respondents (X2=11.01, p= .026). Also, it is more likely for UDSM students to use Facebook because they perceive the usefulness of Facebook in their study (X2=9.87, p=. 043) and professional career (X2=9.78, p= .044). UDSM respondents were more likely to use Facebook to post their resume or other professional work online (X2=20.13, p< .01). 46 Table 8: Differences between MSU respondents and UDSM respondents Items I use Facebook to communicate with teachers about my own project or research I use Facebook because it is helpful for my study I use Facebook because it is helpful for my professional career I use Facebook to post my resume or other professional work online I use Facebook to meet new people *p< .05, **p<. 01, ***p< .001 MSU (n=33) UDSM (n=60) Significance of difference 36% 64% X2=11.01, p= .026* 37% 63% X2=9.87, p= .043* 36% 64% X2=9.78, p= .044* 37% 63% X2=20.13, p< .001*** 36% 64% X2=9.13, p= .058 To better understand the underlying factors that influence the variance of motives to use Facebook, an exploratory factor analysis of the 12 motives items was conducted by using principle components analysis with varimax rotation. The initial results yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 with three items exhibiting significant cross-loading (e.g., I use Facebook to meet new people, I use Facebook to keep in touch with family, I use Facebook because it is helpful for my study). After removing cross-loading items, the remaining nine items clearly factored into three dimensions (Table 9). Each of the three dimensions represents a distinct set of motives: (1) Social communication: This dimension represents the motives of using Facebook to keep in touch with friends in students’ social life. (2) Schoolwork: This dimension reflects the motives to use for schoolwork, especially by using the communication functionality of Facebook. 47 (3) Professional advancement: this dimension reflects the motives of using Facebook to promote students’ work or themselves in their professional career. Also, the results suggest the scale of social communication explains 20.5% of the variance, the scale of schoolwork explains 26% of the variance, and the scale of professional advancement explains 30% of the variance. In total, the three scales explain the 77 % of the variance in the factor analysis. Table 9: Loading results from factor analysis (Rotated Component Matrix) 1 I use Facebook to communicate with -.008 distant friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with .095 close friends I use Facebook to discuss with .738 classmates about coursework I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about my own project or .825 research I use Facebook to communicate with .793 teachers about course work I use Facebook to communicate with teachers about my own project or .804 research I use Facebook to help me network .280 with professional contacts I use Facebook because it is helpful for .208 my professional career I use Facebook to post my resume or .221 other professional work online Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations. Component 2 3 .060 .887 .134 .869 .100 .363 .218 .243 .306 -.195 .348 -.165 .846 .123 .883 -.006 .765 .174 Cronbach's alpha was tested among these three scales: social communication scale 48 (Cronbach's α=. 83), schoolwork scale (Cronbach's α=. 84), and professional advancement scale (Cronbach's α=. 86). The mean of each scale was also calculated, and t-tests were applied to examine if there exist a statistically significant difference about each scale of motives to use Facebook between UDSM and MSU respondents (Table 10). The differences of means of the professional advancement scale were statistically significant between two campuses (t=3.69, df=89, p< .001). The difference suggests that UDSM respondents are more likely to use Facebook for professional advancement motives. Applying a less stringent significance criterion of .10 to the t-test results for the motives index, MSU respondents tend to use Facebook more for social communication (t=-1.67, df=89, p= .98) and less for schoolwork (t=1.98, df=89, p= .051). UDSM respondents prefer using Facebook as an instrumental tool for them to complete schoolwork and network in their careers. Table 10: Index of motives to use Facebook Scale/items Social Communication Scale (Cronbach's α=.83) I use Facebook to communicate with distant friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with close friends Schoolwork Scale (Cronbach's α=.84) I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about coursework I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about my own project or research I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about course work I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about my own project or research Campus N Mean SD MSU 33 4.32 0.8 UDSM 58 3.96 1.08 MSU 33 2.33 0.84 UDSM 49 58 2.72 0.93 t df p -1.67 89 0.098 1.98 0.051 89 Table 10 (cont’d) Professional Advancement Scale (Cronbach's α=.86) I use Facebook to help me network with professional contacts I use Facebook because it is helpful for my professional future I use Facebook to post my resume or other professional work online *p< .001 MSU 33 2.21 0.81 3.69 UDSM 50 58 2.99 1.04 89 .000* Summary This chapter presented findings from the survey and in-depth interviews regarding the general uses of SNS, SNS use pattern, and motives to use Facebook among two groups of African students. The study aimed to explore the differences between the two groups of African students in using SNS. Here are some important findings of this study: Similarities between the two student groups: 1) Facebook was the predominant SNS in both student groups; 2) Facebook was used to communicate with friends and family members, check social updates of friends, searching news, and sharing information; 3) The majority of students in this study checked their Facebook everyday; 4) Both groups of students spent 1.5-2.0 hours on average on Facebook everyday; 5) Using mobile phones to access Facebook is a universal trend across the two groups. Differences between the two student groups: 1) MSU students visited Facebook more frequently than UDSM students; 2) MSU students had more Facebook friends than UDSM students. 3) In the Facebook intensity scale, only one item differentiates significantly between two groups. MSU students were more likely to agree that “Facebook has become part of my daily routine”, compared to UDSM students; 4) Comparatively, UDSM respondents were more likely to use Facebook as an instrumental tool in schoolwork and professional advancement, while MSU respondents tended to use Facebook as a social communication tool. Besides that, the findings suggested that the location of the campus is highly correlated to the 51 motive of using Facebook to post a resume and other professional work online. In other words, African students in the less advanced telecommunication infrastructure setting, like Tanzania, actually used Facebook in a more instrumental way. On the contrary, the advanced infrastructure settings of the U.S. did not encourage students to utilize SNS for instrumental purposes. It also translated into the overestimated role of infrastructure settings in SNS uses. 52 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The digital divide is a major challenge to international development. It is well-documented that most efforts to bridge the digital divide have been centered on infrastructure building and accessibility of ICT. Even though infrastructure is necessary for people to access the Internet, accessibility is not sufficient to explain the different patterns of use. To better explain ICT usage differences, it is critical to examine the motives behind using ICT and SNS. This study compares African students’ SNS use in the two infrastructure settings to explore the effects of infrastructure. The two settings simulate before-and-after conditions of having access to advanced telecommunication infrastructure. Studying the difference between SNS use between the two groups of students explores the changes that happened to African students’ SNS uses once the barriers of Internet accessibility were removed. The differences between the two student groups provide valuable insights on the possible effects of seamless Internet accessibility and how social-economic settings may change the uses of ICT in the future. The main dimensions of SNS use compared in this study include: (1) general SNS usage (e.g., types of SNS used), (2) SNS usage patterns, including the frequency and time spent on SNS, and (3) motives to use SNS, particularly Facebook. The outcomes in the general SNS usage and SNS usage pattern were similar between the two groups of students. Facebook was the predominant SNS in both groups. The general SNS usage and SNS use pattern are similar in both infrastructure settings. Both student groups spent an average of 1.5-2.0 hours on Facebook every day. Mobile phones are the most common way for both groups to access Facebook. 53 Regarding SNS usage patterns, one difference between the two groups is that MSU students visited Facebook more frequently. MSU students reported that they would visit Facebook “multiple times a day,” meanwhile UDSM students visited much less frequent as “several times a week.” With the similar average time spent on Facebook every day, MSU students spent a shorter time on Facebook whenever they logged in. Another difference is that MSU students had more Facebook friends. One possible reason is that the MSU campus is equipped with free and seamless Internet and Wi-Fi. It is much easier for them to get online whenever they need it. Whereas UDSM students need to either pay approximately $0.46 for a 24-hour Vodacom Internet bundle with 700Mb data limit (Tanzania Conservation Resource Centre, 2015) or find the perfect Wi-Fi spot in one of the few Wi-Fi equipped campus buildings. Also, for most UDSM students, $0.46 (i.e., 1000 Tanzanian Shilling) equals the average cost of a meal. From the economic perspective, MSU students would browse the Internet and log in their SNS more often than UDSM students. Comparing the results of the Facebook intensity scale, there is another major difference between the groups on the scale. The MSU students showed more emotional connectedness to Facebook. One MSU student did mention that he cannot stop using Facebook because all his classmates use Facebook and he did not want to be left out. The interaction between this student and his classmates may be explained by the social learning theory because the African students at MSU are mimicking other peers’ SNS use. Surrounded by other American students that heavily used SNS in their social life, the MSU African students may have been learning from their peers and trying to be socially included in a U.S. campus. It is likely that the social-cultural settings influence the usage of SNS. The motives to use Facebook significantly differ between MSU students from UDSM 54 students. The UDSM students with a poorer telecommunication infrastructure were using SNS in a more pragmatic way. For example, they used SNS for schoolwork and professional advancement. Meanwhile, African students at MSU were using SNS primarily for social communication. Three explanations for this difference in motives to use Facebook include (1) the availability of alternative websites for utilitarian purposes in the US, (2) the high financial cost of using the Internet in Tanzania, (3) the influence of social-cultural settings, and (4) different perceptions of SNS. First, the availability of alternative tools for professional advancement and school coursework may affect students Facebook uses. African students at MSU do have access to many tools either for coursework or vocational development. They can use MSU online coursework portal D2L to accomplish academic tasks and use other professional SNS or websites, like LinkedIn, to promote themselves professionally. Meanwhile, UDSM students do not have a coursework portal in their university, and they have less knowledge of other available online tools. During the interview, UDSM students reported that they used Facebook to circulate class notes more commonly compared to MSU students, who tend to use a variety of tools like email, Dropbox, and Google Drive to share class notes. Secondly, considering the associated financial cost to use the Internet in Tanzania, it is more cost effective if UDSM students generate more utilitarian outcomes (e.g., scholarship, partnership, job) from their SNS use. It is consistent with the study from Chang et al. (2015) that developing country SNS users are more likely to focus on the utilitarian value of the products while developed country SNS users emphasize hedonic values. When access becomes more economical or even free, it may reduce or remove the urgency of expecting some utilitarian value from their SNS use. Instead, users might turn SNS as a way to socialize 55 and connect with their friends and family. Then, the preference of using SNS socially among MSU students may come from the influence of their American peers. As mentioned before, MSU students were living and studying with other American students, who shared the overarching purpose of socialization in using SNS (Ellison et al., 2007). In this case, MSU students’ using SNS socially may be a modeling outcome in the social learning process (Bandura, 1977). To further explore and identify the relationship between social learning and SNS uses, future research need to include social factors analysis. Lastly, the reason that UDSM students use Facebook for utilitarian outcomes may associate with the perception of SNS in these students’ eyes. UDSM students may view Facebook as more of a utilitarian tool to help them study and build their professional network. However, MSU students are more likely to see Facebook only as a tool for social communication and entertainment. The differences between the two groups in perceiving technologies are part of the cognitive divide in technology uses. The cognitive divide refers to the differences in knowledge of and ability to use technologies. The cognition of SNS in different groups and settings influence the usage of SNS. Today’s digital divide relates strongly to the cognitive divide and the usage divide (Van Dijk, 2005; Van Dijk, 2006). The above-mentioned findings deepen the knowledge of how SNS are used in the developing world. Facebook was initially invented in the U.S. with a focus on social interaction and hedonic value. Meanwhile, UDSM students in Tanzania are more likely to pursue utilitarian value in their Facebook uses. The fact that users, who originally came from places of limited Internet access, use SNS more socially as they acquire better Internet accessibility makes 56 people wonder if universal Internet accessibility would lead to development outcomes that development practitioners and nonprofits assumed. What if UDSM students start using Facebook for only hedonic purposes, like sharing a funny video with friends, when they have free and prevalent Internet access? Are these hedonic uses the impact and outcomes that development agencies or nonprofits pursue in developing countries via providing Internet accessibility? Are these hedonic uses of technologies meeting the needs of communities in developing countries? If development institutions and nonprofits tend to generate more utilitarian outcomes from the uptake of technologies, they go beyond traditional efforts in providing accessibility and connectivity at the infrastructure level. For example, providing education on different ways to use technologies and cultivating a social-cultural context that promotes utilitarian uses of technologies can be essential. Additionally, future research should explore how to translate the affordance of western technologies to meeting the local and regional needs in the developing world. Implications In practice, this study sheds light into the directions for SNS and other technology companies to scale up products and services in developing countries, especially public goods. Utilitarian outcomes are the major impact of ICT innovations tend to create in the developing countries. For example, Internet.org presents the impact of their free internet accessibility service, Free Basics, as a way to help kids do their homework and to enable an entrepreneur to start a business (Internet.org, 2016). However, free Internet access does not always lead to the utilitarian uses of SNS. Like MSU students with free Internet in this study, they ended up using SNS mostly for hedonic purposes, like socializing with their friends and checking out funny videos. If these SNS service providers and technology companies are still promoting utilitarian value as their major selling point, it is critical to educate users how to navigate the 57 utilitarian outcomes around their free access. Also, knowing users’ needs is essential for SNS service providers to scale their services and products in developing countries. To scale the Internet infrastructure and SNS in developing countries, SNS service providers should consider providing the accessibility along with customized features and content generation that cater to the changing needs of local users. Last but not least, the cultivation of users’ social-cultural context can be important to scaling the utilitarian uses of technologies in communities and regions. It is critical for development practitioners to acknowledge the gap of ICT uses between developing and developed regions. The way that users in developed countries utilize certain technology may not be the same way that developing countries users utilize. The design and scaling of ICT innovations should go beyond the traditional approach of providing the accessibility. Local content generation, online community cultivation, utilitarian uses guidance, and other efforts in adapting the technology to a local community in developing countries are crucial. On the other hand, the use of SNS and technologies may cause some unpredicted problems in the developing countries which have rarely happened to developed country users before. During the interview with UDSM students, they reported they had received a huge amount of Facebook direct messages from strangers, asking students for money. These direct messages turned out to be online scams. Some UDSM student even stopped using Facebook simply because of the overwhelming scam messages from strangers. In theory, this study showcases the use divide as one critical layer of the digital divide in developing countries. The same SNS can end up being used in entirely different ways by developing and developed country users. Initially, SNS, like Facebook, were designed to keep in touch with your friends and family. The UDSM users in this study extended the use 58 of Facebook to other utilitarian uses, like sharing class notes and seeking jobs. One great example is that one UDSM student cultivated an international geography researcher community on Facebook for research collaboration and job postings sharing. The use divide should be studied in a broader context that includes social-cultural, economic, and technological factors. In this study, once MSU students can access the Internet for free, their motives to use Facebook are more involved with social communication, which aligns with most U.S. college students’ SNS use (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). On the other hand, the extended Facebook use in professional advancement among UDSM students may be associated with the way that their peers use Facebook, the economic cost of the Internet, or the absence of professional SNS service (e.g., LinkedIn) in their campus. It is crucial for future research to include all these factors in analyzing the manifestation of the use divide and digital divide in a region. 59 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The Millennial, including college students, use SNS for various reasons. These SNS uses give rise to certain well-being outcomes for college students (e.g., Haridakis & Hanson, 2008), which highlight the importance of understanding the motives to use SNS, like Facebook. There exists a fair amount of empirical studies focusing on college students’ SNS use in western or developed countries. However, very few research has scrutinized the SNS uses in non-western countries or developing countries (e.g., Peters et al., 2015; Wyche et al., 2013). To bridge such research gap, more SNS uses studies in developing countries should be conducted to gain more knowledge on the SNS uses among developing country users. This study sheds light on the college students SNS use and their motives to use Facebook in both developed and developing regions. Concerning two groups of students included in this study, those students who studied in the U.S. started using Facebook earlier in their lifetime compared to when the students that in Tanzania started. Also, the frequency of visiting Facebook is higher in the group of MSU students in the U.S. than the frequency of the other group. Comparatively, the two groups of students can be viewed as pre- and post-test groups with the treatment of advanced telecommunication infrastructure. The differences between the two groups in Facebook use patterns and motives to use Facebook provide insights on the potential influence of social learning on the uses of the two groups. These differences in SNS use between the two groups may be the outcomes of learning from their peers or the influence from their social-cultural, economic, and technological settings. More comparative studies should be done in the future to assess further the social-learning process in SNS uses and the impact of advanced telecommunication infrastructure on SNS use in developing countries, including social-cultural, economic, and technological factor analyses. 60 Limitations of this study include the fact that only Facebook was examined and studied. Prior studies suggest the difference of motives to use SNS vary based on the type of SNS (e.g., Haridakis & Hanson, 2008; Smock et al., 2011). The results related to Facebook cannot be generalized to other SNS, like LinkedIn and Youtube, or other websites commonly used by developing country users for utilitarian purposes such as educational technology or job search sites. Moreover, UDSM in Tanzania was the only chosen region in Sub-Saharan Africa as the developing country research site in this study. The telecommunication infrastructure conditions across all Sub-Saharan African countries can be very different. Therefore, the results cannot be simply generalized to other SSA regions or another developing country. Also, the survey data suffered from the concerns around data integrity in the self-reported survey and the small sample size. The measures of motives to use Facebook are limited to only three major dimensions in this study, which may not cover other significant uses. Meanwhile, the limitation of interview data includes the possible influence of the interviewer’s presence on subjects’ responses, the interviewer’s interviewing skills, and the subjects’ language proficiency. The use of SNS is exponentially increasing in developing countries, such as Sub-Saharan African countries, and the different impacts are coming along with the SNS usage (e.g., Valenzuela et al., 2009). It makes us question the underlying motives and driving forces behind different SNS use. SNS are gaining more attention and power in the developing countries. It is urgent to seek answers to questions like “how do we encourage local community in developing countries to participate meaningfully using their current connections?” (Ali, 2001). Furthermore, the rapid development of telecommunication infrastructure in Sub-Saharan African countries makes people wonder what consequences these infrastructures will bring to the developing countries. These questions should be 61 considered and discussed more in future studies and development projects. 62 APPENDICES 63 APPENDIX A Interview Protocol for University of Dar es Salaam Part 1: Basic information Where did you attend your secondary school? When did you start your study at the University of Dar es Salaam? What do you study at the University of Dar es Salaam? How did you know about your program/degree? [Prompt: newspapers/magazines/broadcast/friends and family/Internet/teachers in your secondary school] • Part 2: Current ICT uses 5. Do you own a mobile phone? How many mobile phones do you have? 6. Do you use a smart phone? [Prompt: If so, is it your own? If yes, how did you obtain it? If not, whose, or where do you go to use a smart phone? What websites do you browse on your smart phone?] 7. What do you use your mobile phone for? [Prompt: texting, games, making phone calls, Internet] 8. Do you use a Tablet, computer or a laptop? [Prompt: If so, are they your own? If yes, how did you obtain it? If not, whose, or where do you go to use a computer?] 9. What websites do you frequently visit when you browse the Internet? What do you use them for? • Part 3: Current SNS uses 10. Do you know what a social network site is? [Give them examples of social network sites] 11. Which social network site do you use mostly? [Pick the site they use the most for the remaining questions] 12. What do you use this site for? [Prompt: do you use it for keeping up with friends, news, information for school/classes, or information about jobs?] 13. What do you like most about this site? 14. What do you dislike most about the site? 15. Have you ever gotten school or class information on the site? [Prompt: If yes, provide some examples.] 16. Have you ever learned about job opportunities on the site? [Prompt: If yes, provide some examples.] 17. Where will you go to learn about job opportunities? [Prompt: either on the Internet or outside of the internet]. 18. Do you have any other comments on how you use the site? • 1. 2. 3. 4. 64 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol for Michigan State University Part 1: Basic information Where are you originally from? How long have you been in the U.S.? How long have you been at MSU? How did you find your program and decided to study in the U.S.? Part 2: Current ICT uses Do you own a mobile phone? How many mobile phones do you have? Do you use a smart phone? [Prompt: If so, is it your own? If yes, how did you obtain it? If not, whose, or where do you go to use a smart phone? What websites do you browse on your smart phone?] 7. What do you use your mobile phone for? [Prompt: texting, games, making phone calls, Internet] 8. Do you use a Tablet, computer or a laptop? [Prompt: If so, are they your own? If yes, how did you obtain it? If not, whose, or where do you go to use a computer?] 9. What websites do you frequently visit when you browse the Internet? What do you use them for? • Part 3: Current SNS uses 10. Do you know what a social network site is? [Give them examples of SNS] 11. Which social network site do you use mostly? [Pick the site they use the most for the remaining questions] 12. What do you use this site for? [Prompt: do you use it for keeping up with friends, news, information for school/classes, or information about jobs?] 13. What do you like most about this site? 14. What do you dislike most about the site? 15. Have you ever gotten school or class information on the site? [Prompt: If yes, provide some examples.] 16. Have you ever learned about job opportunities on the site? [Prompt: If yes, provide some examples.] 17. Where will you go to learn about job opportunities? [Prompt: either on the Internet or outside of the internet]. 18. Do you have any other comments on how you use the site? • Part 4: Usage change 19. Are you aware of any changes in your mobile phone usage after you moved to the U.S.? If so, why do you think it has changed? 20. Are you aware of any changes in your computer usage after you moved to the U.S.? If so, why do you think it has changed? 21. Are you aware of any change in your social network sites usage after you moved to the U.S.? If so, why do you think it has changed? • 1. 2. 3. 4. • 5. 6. 65 APPENDIX C Questionnaire for students in University of Dar es Salaam Name: __________________________ Major:__________________________ Year in college: Undergraduate: I___II___III___V___ Postgraduate: Masters___ Gender: Male Female Age: __________ Date:________________________ 1. What websites have you ever used that allow you to make connections with other people (social network sites)? (Tick all that apply) a) Facebook ☐ e) Pinterest ☐ b) Twitter ☐ f) Whatsapp ☐ g) Other: ____________________ c) Instagram ☐ d) LinkedIn ☐ 2. What social network sites do you use now? (Tick all that apply) a) b) c) d) Facebook ☐ Twitter ☐ Instagram ☐ LinkedIn ☐ e) Pinterest ☐ f) Whatsapp ☐ g) Other: ___________________ 3. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) What social network site do you use the most? (Select one) Facebook ☐ Twitter ☐ Instagram ☐ LinkedIn ☐ Pinterest ☐ Whatsapp ☐ Other: ___________________ 66 4. Do you use Facebook? a) Yes (if yes, please continue to the next question) b) No (if no, please skip to question 16) 5. a) b) c) d) 6. a) b) c) d) e) 7. a) b) c) d) e) 8. a) b) c) d) When did you start your Facebook page? In primary school In secondary school At the university Other (please specify): _________________________________ How often do you look at your Facebook page? Multiple times a day Once a day A few times a week A few times a month Less than once a month How do you access Facebook most of the time? (Select one) My mobile phone My own laptop or computer My Tablet A friend or family’s mobile, Tablet or computer At a computers center or Internet café What do you own by yourself (Tick all that apply): A regular mobile phone ☐ A smart phone that gets Facebook or other Internet websites ☐ A laptop or computer ☐ A Tablet ☐ 9. What are the top three reasons you use Facebook? I use Facebook because…. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 10. Please circle the number that most closely matches your opinion about each statement. (5 represents “Strongly agree”, and 1 represents “Strongly disagree”). Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree Facebook is part of my everyday 5 4 3 2 1 activity I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook Facebook has become part of my daily routine I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while I feel I am part of the Facebook community I would be sorry if Facebook shut down 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 67 11 How many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have? ________________________ friends 12 What percentage of your TOTAL Facebook friends do you know offline? ________________________% 13 On average, how many hours PER DAY do you spend on Facebook? ________________________hours per day 14 Please circle the number that most closely matches your opinion about each statement (5 represents “Strongly disagree”, and 1 represents “Strongly agree”). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree I use Facebook to meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 I use Facebook to communicate with distant friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with close friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with family I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about coursework I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about my own project or research I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about course work I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about my own project or research I use Facebook because it is helpful for my study I use Facebook to help me network with professional contacts I use Facebook because it is helpful for my professional future I use Facebook to post my resume or other professional work online Other motivations (please specify on the right) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I. Have you seen following information on Facebook? (Tick all that apply) Picture Video Nude Injured people in accidents Violent 68 II. What would you do when you see above information on Facebook? a) Block that person b) Unfriend that person c) Advice that person d) No action e) Others (please specify):____________________________ 15 Have you ever used social network sites for dating? a) Yes b) No If yes, which social network site dating?_________________________________ did you use 16 Do you use Whatsapp? a) Yes (if yes, please continue to the next question) b) No (if no, please return the questionnaire) 17. What are the top three reasons you use Whatsapp? I use Whatsapp because…. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 69 for APPENDIX D Questionnaire for students in Michigan State University Name: __________________________ Major:___________________________ Year in college: Undergraduate: I___II___III___V___ Postgraduate: Masters___ Gender: Male Female Age: __________ Date:________________________ Email:___________________(optional) Country of origin:______________________ 1. What websites have you ever used that allow you to make connections with other people (social network sites)? (Tick all that apply) a) Facebook ☐ e) Pinterest ☐ b) Twitter ☐ f) Whatsapp ☐ g) Other: ____________________ c) Instagram ☐ d) LinkedIn ☐ 2. What social network sites do you use now? (Tick all that apply) a) b) c) d) Facebook ☐ Twitter ☐ Instagram ☐ LinkedIn ☐ e) Pinterest ☐ f) Whatsapp ☐ g) Other: ___________________ 3. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) What social network site do you use the most? (Select one) Facebook ☐ Twitter ☐ Instagram ☐ LinkedIn ☐ Pinterest ☐ Whatsapp ☐ Other: ___________________ 70 4. Do you use Facebook? a) Yes (if yes, please continue to the next question) b) No (if no, please skip to question 16) 5. a) b) c) d) 6. a) b) c) d) e) 7. a) b) c) d) e) When did you start your Facebook page? In primary school In secondary school At the university Other (please specify): _________________________________ How often do you look at your Facebook page? Multiple times a day Once a day A few times a week A few times a month Less than once a month How do you access Facebook most of the time? (Select one) My mobile phone My own laptop or computer My Tablet A friend or family’s mobile, Tablet or computer At a computers center or Internet café 8. What do you own by yourself (Tick all that apply): a) A regular mobile phone ☐ b) A smart phone that gets Facebook or other Internet websites ☐ c) A laptop or computer ☐ d) A Tablet ☐ 9. What are the top three reasons you use Facebook? I use Facebook because…. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10. Please circle the number that most closely matches your opinion about each statement. (5 represents “Strongly agree”, and 1 represents “Strongly disagree”). Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree Facebook is part of my everyday 5 4 3 2 1 activity I am proud to tell people I'm on Facebook Facebook has become part of my daily routine I feel out of touch when I haven't logged onto Facebook for a while I feel I am part of the Facebook community I would be sorry if Facebook shut down 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 11. How many TOTAL Facebook friends do you have? 71 ________________________friends 12. What percentage of your TOTAL Facebook friends do you know offline? ________________________% 13. On average, how many hours PER DAY do you spend on Facebook? ________________________hours per day 14. Please circle the number that most closely matches your opinion about each statement (5 represents “Strongly agree”, and 1 represents “Strongly disagree”). Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree I use Facebook to meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 I use Facebook to communicate with distant friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with close friends I use Facebook to keep in touch with family I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about coursework I use Facebook to discuss with classmates about my own project or research I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about course work I use Facebook to communicate with teachers or professors about my own project or research I use Facebook because it is helpful for my study I use Facebook to help me network with professional contacts I use Facebook because it is helpful for my professional future I use Facebook to post my resume or other professional work online Other motivations (please specify on the right) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I. Have you seen following information on Facebook? (Tick all that apply) Picture Video Nude Injured people in accidents Violent II. What would you do when you see above information on Facebook? a) Block that person 72 b) c) d) e) Unfriend that person Advice that person No action Others (please specify):____________________________ 15. Have you ever used social network sites for dating? a) Yes b) No If yes, which social network site dating?_________________________________ did you use 16. Do you use Whatsapp? a) Yes (if yes, please continue to the next question) b) No (if no, please return the questionnaire) 17. What are the top three reasons you use Whatsapp? I use Whatsapp because…. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 18. How long have you been in the United States? a) Less than one year b) About one year c) About two years d) About three years e) More than three years 73 for BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramson, L. (February 9, 2011). Can social networking keep students in school? NPR: Morning Edition, Retrieved March 14, 2015, from http://www.npr.org. Ali, A. H. (2011). Power of Social Media in Developing Nations: New Tools for Closing the Global Digital Divide and Beyond, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, 24, 185. Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Balancing Act. (2014). The Sub-Saharan Africa Media Landscape: Then, Now and in the Future. Retrieved from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/sites/balancingact-africa.com/files/products/1.%2 0SSA%20Media%20Landscape.pdf Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. (2011). The 2011 inc. 500 social media update: Blogging declines as newer tools rule. Center for Marketing Research Charlton College of Business: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Retrieved from http://www.Umassd.edu Berthon, P., Pitt, L. and Desautels, P. (2011), “Unveiling videos: consumer-generated ads as qualitative inquiry”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 1044-1060. Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. In Online communities and social computing, 143-152. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer. Bonds-Raacke, J, & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Difference Research, 8(1), 27- 33. Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning: Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185-200. Bourdieu, P. (2001). The forms of capital. In Granovetter, M. & Swedberg, R. (eds.), The Soci ology of Economic Life, 2nd Edition (pp. 96-111). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011, May). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 571-580). ACM. CIA Factbook. (2014). The World Factbook. Retrived https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html from Chang, Y., Kim, H., Wong, S. F., & Park, M. C. (2015). A Comparison of the Digital Divide Across Three Countries with Different Development Indices. Journal of Global Information Management, 23(4), 55-76. 75 Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. Chicago. Chou, W. Y. S., Hunt, Y. M., Beckjord, E. B., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2009). Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(4). Chu, C., & Meulemans, Y. (2008). The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 77. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, S95-S120. Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. The Open University, UK. Retrieved from http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111– 1132. Dhaha, I. S. Y., & Igale, A. B. (2013). Facebook usage among Somali youth: A test of uses and gratifications approach. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(3), 299-313. Donath, J., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82. Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 1461444810385389. Ellison, N. B., Gray, R., Vitak, J., Lampe, C., & Fiore, A. T. (2013, June). Calling All Facebook Friends: Exploring Requests for Help on Facebook. In ICWSM. Ezumah, B. A. (2014). College students’ use of social media: Site preferences, uses and gratifications theory revisited. Global Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol, 76 1(9). Facebook. (n.d.) Company Informatin. http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ Retrieved Jan 30, 2015 from Facebook Newsroom. (n.d.) Products. http://newsroom.fb.com/products/ Retrieved Jan 30, 2015 from Farkas, M. (2007). Going where patrons are: Outreach in MySpace and Facebook. American Libraries, 38(4), 27. Fonseca, C. (2010). The Digital Divide and the Cognitive Divide: Reflections on the Challenge of Human Development in the Digital Age. Information Technologies & International Development, 25-30. George, A. (2006, September 18). Living online: The end of privacy? New Scientist, 2569. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/ mg19125691.700-living-online-the-end-of-privacy.html UNICEF. (2013). A (private) public space: Examining the use and impact of digital and social media among adolescents in Kenya. Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. A. (2007, June). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. In C. Steinfield, B. Pentland, M. Ackerman, & N. Contractor (Eds.), Proceedings of Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 41–66). London: Springer. Gross, R.,&Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of WPES’05 (pp. 71–80). Alexandria, VA: ACM. GSMA. (2015). GSMA Intelligence: Data dashboard. https://gsmaintelligence.com/markets/3452/dashboard/ Retrieved from GSMA & Deloitte. (2012). Sub-Saharan Africa Mobile Observatory 2012. Retrieved from http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gsma_ssamo_full_w eb_11_12-1.pdf Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital divide. First Monday, 8(12). Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297. Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2008). YouTube users watching and sharing the news: A uses and gratifications approach. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(3). doi:10.3998/3336451.0011.305. Heiberger, G., & Harper, R. (2008). Have you Facebooked Astin lately? Using technology to increase student involvement. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(124), 19–35 77 Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 19– 30. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 662-676. Hoffman, P. R. (2008). “But Are We Really Friends?”: Online Social Networking and Community in Undergraduate Students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Akron). Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage. Hyde-Clarke, N., & Van Tonder, T. (2011). Revisiting the 'Leapfrog' debate in light of current trends of mobile phone Internet usage in the Greater Johannesburg area, South Africa. Journal of African Media Studies, 3(2), 263-276. Internet World Stats. (2012). Africa: Tanzania Facebook subscriber. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/africa.htm#tz Internet World Stats. (2016a). Internet Usage Statistics for Africa. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm Internet World Stats. (2016b). Internet World Users by Language: Top 10 Language. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm Internet.org. (2016). Impact https://info.internet.org/en/impact/ of Internet.org. Retrieved from ITU World Telecommunication. (2014). ICT Statistics: ICT Indicators Database. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx# ITU ICT-Eye. (2015). ICT Eye Key ICT Data and Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int Irwin, C., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1221–1232. Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass. Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace!. Computers & Education, 54(3), 776-782. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in 78 Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. Kamenetz, A. (February 9, 2011). Gates Foundation bets on Facebook app to help kids graduate. Fast Company, Retrieved February 14, 2015, from. http://www.fastcompany.com/1725665/gates-foundation-bets-facebook-app-help-kids -graduate Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 164-181. Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet, 1995-2000 access, civic involvement, and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 405-419. Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43, 111–126. Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365-372. Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2010.03.024 Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as signals in an online social network. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 435–444). New York: ACM Press. Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2008). Changes in use and perception of Faceboo k. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 721-730). New York: ACM. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, April 18). Teens, privacy, & online social networks. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved Jan 30, 2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org Lester, J., & Perini, M. (2010). Potential of social networking sites for distance education student engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 67-77. Lin, C. P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2009). Understanding online social support and its antecedents: A socio-cognitive model. The Social Science Journal, 46 (4), 724–737. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923606 Martínez-Alemán, A. M., & Wartman, K. L. (2008). Online social networking on campus: Understanding what matters in student culture. New York, NY: Routledge. 79 Marwick, A. E. (2005). 'I’m a Lot More Interesting than a Friendster Profile': Identity Presentation, Authenticity and Power in Social Networking Services. Association of Internet Researchers, 6. Matthews, B. (2006). Do you Facebook? Networking with students online. College & Libraries News, 67(5), 306−307. Mayer, A. and Puller, S. L. (2008). The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92 (1-2), 329-347. Mazer, J. P.,Murphy, R. E.,&Simonds, C. S. (2007). I'll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on studentmotivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1−17. McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 729–740. Molennar, M. (2012). Connected World, Social Skills in the Classroom: digital media use in Sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/TNSGlobal/digital-media-use-in-subsaharan-africa Nielson. (2012). State of the Media: The Social Media Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2012/social-media-report-2012-social-m edia-comes-of-age.html Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, New York, NY: Basic Book. Park, N., Kee, K.F. and Valenzuela, S. (2009), “Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes”, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 729-733 Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Facebook and academic performance. Reconciling a media sensation with data. First Monday, 14(5). Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2117–2127. Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A. and Calvert, S.L. (2009), “College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 227-238. Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19, 485–503. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993. tb00310.x. Pew Research Center. (2015a). Social Media Update 2014. Retrieved http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/ 80 from Pew Research Center. (2015b). Demographics of Key Social Networking Platforms. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/demographics-of-key-social-networking-platf orms-2/ Pew Research Internet Project. (2013). Social Media Update 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org Pfeiffer, C., Kleeb, M., Mbelwa, A., & Ahorlu, C. (2014). The use of social media among adolescents in Dar es Salaam and Mtwara, Tanzania. Reproductive Health Matters, 22(43), 178-186. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Qualman, E. (2010). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174. Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68. Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002. Schroeder, J., & Greenbowe, T. (2009). The chemistry of Facebook: Using social networking to create an online community for the organic chemistry laboratory. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(4). Shen, C., & Williams, D. (2011). Unpacking time online: Connecting internet and massively multiplayer online game use with psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 38, 123–149. doi:10.1177/0093650210377196 Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329. Statista. (n.d.) Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 4th Quarter 2014. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-usersworldwide/ Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of onli ne social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Ps ychology, 29 (6), 434-445. 81 Steinfield, C., DiMicco, J. M., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2009). Bowling online: Social ne tworking and social capital within the organization. In Proceedings of the Fourth Inter national Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 245-254). New York, NY: ACM. Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., & Lee, K. H. (2004). Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1067-1073. Tomai M, Rosa V, Mebane ME, D’Acunti A, Benedetti M and Francescato D (2010) Virtual com- munities in schools as tools to promote social capital with high school students. Computers & Education, 54: 265–274. Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment. ICWSM, 10, 178-185. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90-102. UN ICT Task Force. (2002). Bridging the digital divide in the 21st century. New York, NY: United Nations ICT Task Force. UNDP. (2016). About Sub-Saharan Africa. Retrieved http://www.africa.undp.org/content/rba/en/home/regioninfo.html from Valenzuela S, Park N and Kee KF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 14: 875–90 Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J. and Schouten, A.P. (2006), “Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 584 Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507-526. Van Dijk, J. A. (2005). The deepening divide inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4), 221-235. Vargas, J. A. (2012). Spring Awakening: How an Egyptian Revolution Began on Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Verdegem P and Verhoest P (2009) Profiling the non-user: rethinking policy initiatives stimulating ICT acceptance. Telecommunications Policy, 33(10-11): 642–652. 82 Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It's complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 107-114. Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2011). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428–438. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wise, K., Alhabash, S., & Park, H. (2010). Emotional responses during social information seeking on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(5), 555-562. Xu, C., Ryan, S., Prybutok, V., & Wen, C. (2012). It is not for fun: An examination of social network site usage. Information & Management, 49(5), 210-217. Y Yang, C., Hsu, Y. C., & Tan, S. (2010). Predicting the determinants of users' intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2), 141-152. 83