|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information
Sector Survey 2000
Part one: Chances for the Internet in East-central Europe and Central Asia
Internet use at home
The annual
surveys of the Center for Publishing Development of the Open Society
Institute - Budapest include questions about the Internet for the second
time.
Four of the sixty-nine questions in the Information Sector
Survey 2000 (relating to the state of affairs in 1999) were devoted to
the Internet. Although the sheets were sent to three dozen countries in
East and Central Europe and in Central Asia, by February 2001 data were
processed from the following countries/province: Armenia, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Yugoslavia. (As usual with this kind of
complex questionnaire, a considerable number of items need further clarification
or have simply not arrived back as yet).
This year, variations of the same question were put with
regard to the obstacles or factors hindering wider use of the Internet
in homes, public libraries, secondary schools and universities. The local
respondents were required to select these obstacles from a list and they
were asked to rank them by importance. Calculations were made using the
ranking of the factors (maximum seven). Where, for example, hardware
was ranked first as the most important obstacle against wider use of the
Internet, we gave 7 points; for second place 6 points, etc. Respondents
complicated the matter by offering many ties, in which case we took the
average, e.g. if someone put two reasons as first, both received 6.5 points.
Obviously, this calculation serves as a convenient presentation of the
issue of the advance of the Internet in our part of the world but has
no pretensions to scientific precision. Internet
use at home
The question was as follows:
Obstacles or factors, hindering wider use of the Internet
in homes. Select the most relevant items (at least five) and put them
in order of importance. To answer this question, please use existing research
or ask five experts in the field, such as the director of the Internet
program of the local Soros foundation, experts of organisations such as
UNDP or IREX, etc., for their opinion. If you use expert opinion, please
describe the people you approached. Comment, where necessary.
Eleven items (distracters) were offered (1)
of which only one, legal constraint, was left without any rank
anywhere. The distribution of the votes is seen in the tables.
For homes, line 12—“other, specify” was employed by Georgia
and Slovenia to direct attention to unreliable electricity supply and
to the absence of any government strategy (“no encouragement from the
state”). These will certainly appear in the next survey!
As we see, the price of computers (hardware) is by far
the strongest deterrent against the use of Internet in private homes.
The fee paid to the Internet service provider follows it. These two are
named as the main obstacles in all four relations but nowhere is their
leading position as strong as in case of homes.
The expense of software appears ambiguously all through
the survey. In the countries with the lowest GDP it tends to be disregarded
in all four answers. Various explanations are possible, including that
prices are so far beyond ordinary reach that most users meet donated or
pirated versions only, which is why they are less concerned about software
costs.
On the whole, almost two thirds of the points in the
table were given to the five factors connected to money. As shall be seen,
the case is only different for libraries.
However, after financial obstacles, two subjective barriers
are seriously blamed as standing before wider Internet use in the homes
of these 14 countries: poor command of English and the unsatisfactory
attitude of the population. For the slow spread of the Internet its users
are mentioned much less in libraries and not at all at secondary and higher
level education.
The low appeal of content provided on the Internet is
raised in 6 countries and takes a middle position among the obstacles
listed. However, its weight is higher with regard to homes than the three
types of institutions that follow.
The answers have been grouped by geographical regions
also: Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and East-central
Europe (ECE). However, since most of these consist of 2-3 members, regional
analysis offers a few conclusions only. For example, in the three ECE
countries (Croatia, Latvia and Slovenia, those with the highest GDP),
the telephone bill is reported to be the most powerful deterrent in the
case of home use. Internet
use in public libraries
The question was: obstacles hindering wider use of
the Internet at public libraries; please consult 10 heads of leading libraries.
The following three items were added to the list: lack of training for librarians (in the
table: training)
lack of skills and/or motivation on behalf of
librarians (librarians)
no understanding on behalf of supervising authorities
(authorities)
Again Slovenia produced two additional factors, putting
them on the top of the list of obstacles in the way of the Internet usage,
the lack of space and specialists (“cadre for maintenance of
computers and dealing with users”) in public libraries. Yugoslavia
pointed at the lack of adequate security systems at rural libraries and
the consequent fear of replacing outdated technology with new, expensive
technology.
Even more curious is the regional divide:
The four countries east of the Black Sea (Armenia, Georgia,
Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan) show marked differences from the rest. The western
more countries are again more sensitive to the telephone prices than in
the east. The really astonishing differences are seen within the group
of subjective obstacles. When questioned about the obstacles before the
use of Internet in public libraries, the countries west and north of the
Black Sea are very critical about the really subjective factors, the ones,
which reflect attitudes (of librarians and authorities). These same countries
seem to be less concerned with cultural conditions like the level of English
and of the contents provided. Countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia
seem to attach vital significance to language and they blame the lack
of training of the librarians rather than their motivation. Internet use at secondary schools
Question: obstacles (factors), hindering wider use
of Internet at secondary schools; please consult a school headmasters’
association or 10 headmasters of secondary schools.
The items coincided with those of public libraries, with
teachers instead of librarians. Here the Slovenian addition
for state went as “not enough ambitious strategy of the state”.
Explanations for the less than desirable diffusion of the Internet are rather similar at the second and higher level of education. Therefore remarks will be done together (see next section). Internet use at universities
Question: obstacles (factors), hindering wider use of Internet at universities; please consult 5 rectors of leading universities.(2)
Interestingly, at both educational levels insufficiencies in the training of teachers (lecturers) is given higher weighting than their motivation; with librarians it was the other way round.
With the use of Internet in education the Black Sea does not appear to be such a sharp dividing line as with libraries. The dividing factor of English and contents are both marked lower in secondary and higher education. The attitude or skills of students is not mentioned as a problem. * * *
Understanding the nature of the digital gap inside and between countries and regions requires these kinds of insights of a sociological character. Examining the findings as classified in our tables may lead to further conclusions to complement the hard data collected laboriously by OECD and other organisations. That is why the Center for Publishing Development - Open Society Institute, Budapest intends to include a similar inquiry into its next survey, too, referring to the year 2000.
Peter Inkei
(1) The eleven items (2) We were politely reminded of cases where the country had less than five universities. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
©
Center for Publishing Development, 2001
Oktober 6. Str. 12. 1051, Budapest, Hungary
phone: 36 1 327 3014 fax: 36 1 327 3042
e-mail: cpd@osi.hu
